boomer

nature does nothing without a purpose

7-25-2004

Nature never does anything without a purpose according to aristotle

Quote:

"One of the major functions of sexual relations and sexual intercourse is reproduction of the species."

This is a false premise. Sociological evidence indicates that the pleasure of the sex act has the effect of strengthening bonds between two individuals. This is the primary function of the sex act. The production of children is a distant second effect as is evidenced by the number of sex acts that result in offspring compared to the number of sex acts that are related to relationship building and maintenance. With a false premise, any conclusion is invalidated.

...................................

The most debated aspect of homosexuality is it's naturalness. What is it here for, and why is it so prevalent among humans and absent in nature.

The answer is simple. Homosexuality isn't absent in nature, it's present, but only in a certain type of animal: Social animals.

The more social the animal the more prevalent homosexuality takes place. whether it's among dolphins, monkeys, elephants, giraffes, lions gorillas, 150 bird species, penguins, grizzly bears and on and on. etc.

In humans by far the most social animal of them all, it is naturally most prevalent.

Take this rough sketch for example; back in say 50,000 yada yada B.C. when men were running around hunting with billy clubs and stones looking for food and women to drag back to their caves.

Some of these men by natures chance had grown to have an attraction to their same sex in addition to their attraction to women.

These men formed bonds with other men hunted with other men and fought against other cavemen with their fellow man.

These two men together would naturally overcome a single man trying to defend his fresh kill, or trying to threaten the life of one of them, and as a result those men who were attracted to and formed bonds with other men theoretically became stronger than their fellow men who chose to remain alone.

In other words men who were drawn to other men in addition to women would become stronger over time and have a better chance of having their genes passed on. This attraction took the form of a both sensual/social and sexual/erotic bonds. the wanting to be close to other males and to have physical contact with other males. Over time a spectrum of sexual displacement took place. The vast majority of men wanted to be close to other men and women. Over time this need for men to bond with other men in order to survive became so crucial that it became primary to human and male sexuality. All the lone rangers started to die off while the men who kept bonds with other men as well as women became the vast majority. Of course this isn't what happened, I just pointing this out to show you what I'm getting at.

.........................

Nature uses homosexual attraction to initiate males for form bonds and relationships with other males. It's as simple as that. It's society that shapes and molds it into the confusion that you see today.

.............................

This became an engraved aspect of male sexuality. When young boys grown up from an early age they are sexually and emotionally drawn to their same sex. They look at girls with disdain. They form these vital friendships and bonds with other males into puberty. Once they hit the first stages puberty a sexual displacement takes place, and they discover girls as sexually attractive. As their attraction to women takes place their attraction to their same sex doesn't goes away but gets displaced, by this new attraction, to certain degrees. Nature causes men to learn to form those important social bonds first and foremost in life, then as males hits puberty and their sexual organs become truly useful, attraction to the opposite sex begins to occur.

Think of it like height. When you hit puberty and some young men relatively stay the same height or grow a few inches other guys shoot through the roof at early ages. while others hit their growth spurt latter on. This is the situation as when most men grow up. from the very tall to the very short. To the very hetero to the very homosexual. This explains why so many men who grow older and get married to women they truly love and desire, yet never lose their desire to be close to another man.

This also explains why many gay men, in fact the majority are sexually attracted to women to at least some degree, but they find out that women do not "complete" them. The vast majority of gay men would also have no problem performing sexually with a women if the time came when they needed to, as a large number of gay men have married and have fathered children.

Me myself, even though I've always been attracted to guys by a greater degree I do have an attraction to women, and if I was called to duty would have absolutely no problem performing sexually. I have had fantasies involving girls in addition to other guys while growing up. I loved the way girls smelled, their shape and was drawn to their femininity. The only catch is when i was growing up this happened with other boys far more often and with more passion.

I could wrestle with another boy for 30 minutes straight without getting aroused in the least bit, but if it was one I was particularly attracted to I would be aroused before we even locked hands. Something like this would rarely happen with my friends that I already knew and hung out with. But, give me a new hot guy to wrestle and I would get a boner in a instant.

There were friends I would feel a brotherly bond with and then others I was something stronger, but the lines between the two was sometimes blurred. There were guys I was sexually attracted to but after I got to know them for who they were, they wouldn't even pop up on my radar.

Their friendship meant so much to me that I wouldn't think about them sexually at all it was an emotional attraction. A good example is one friend whom I knew since I was about 7, we "messed around" up until our early teens, we loved wrestling with each other, and even got into all out fist fights, but the next day we would act like nothing happened.

When I see him today there is barely any sexual response, keep in mind this fucker is handsome, with a body like Hell.

I in all honestly think that the same thing that attract so called gay men to other men is elementally the adsact same thing that attracts men to fraternities, to the army and other all male institutions. The sexual and emotional bonding with other men. For some men it's all emotional as all their sexual displacement lies completely in the opposite sex. Yet, for other men it's usually some combination of the two. You look at sports and military and you'd see that men use every excuse they can to get next to each other. You go to other countries in northern africa and the middle east, or even some asian countries, it is seen as appropriate for men to hold hands walking down the street. Men are extremely affectionate in public as hugging and kissing on the street are no big deal. Young men and older men alike sit down holding each others hand, or walk down or across a street hand in hand. Men kiss each other on the cheeks or even the lips without anyone even taking notice.

I thought that in countries like pakistan and Iraq it would be hell to be a homosexual, I though that the culture was homophobic to the degrees of almost insanity. But if you actually take a look at their culture closely you'll notice the emotional bonds between those men are unreal. They cling to each other like bumble bees in a nest. It is customary for two men to walk around holding hands but let a man hold hands with a woman and that's when people will give you dirty looks. You watch documentaries on countries such as pakistan and you'll notice that these countries have a huge homoerotic element to them. The Sexual side is turned way way down but the emotional side is turned up to full blast.

Think Turkish oil wrestling. Two men wrestle each other until both are exuasted and to signal an end to the match one man grabs the other literally by the balls. This then signals his victory.

Although homosexuality in Turkey is frowned upon, It is said to be practiced heavily. As long as it's kept out of the light, no one pays attention to it.

Here is a great article which details what I'm talking about. This article is so good it deserves a post by itself. It's short but poignant.

[article has been taken down]

http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=%22turkey+homosexuality&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&u=www.georgetownvoice.com/news/2001/10/04/Voices/Touching.Turkey-111011.shtml&w=%22turkey+homosexuality%22&d=ACA6FA0DAA&icp=1

People shouldn't seen this as strange pattern of men, but an absolutely crucial one, for society to function properly.

A funny thing is I have two sisters in sororities, one has graduated and one is still in college. I have come to find out that they both may be bisexual. I know the younger petite one for sure is Bi as her and her friends make no point of hiding their activities. They are both very feminine and they love their sisterhood to death. This same element in men may go on in women too.

I'm a HUGE history Geek. History is by far my favorite subject in all academics and has been since I was a kid. I could watch the History channel/Discovery channel for hours on end, which many people think I'm pretty weird for doing. I'm obsessed with any movie that deals with historical events and true life documentaries. Take note I'm no expert on history at all, I just really love the subject.

I loved all my school history classes, even if it was with a teacher I hated. I just loved the subject. But there was one thing that is wrong with the way that they teach history in schools today. They teach you the "WHEN" (dates, times, centuries, era's) the WHO"(French, Lincoln, Russia, Babylon, king dadada) the "WHAT" and "WHERE" it happened (this city that city bla bla bla). The truth is that the most important thing about history isn't the Who, What, Where, and When but the "WHY" and secondly the How.

Why things happen and how they come about. This is the part that interests me so much about history.

Teachers don't teach you why, the internal and external reasons that people did the things they did. One of the things that angered me was when my teachers talk about slavery is that they miss the most important aspect. WHY were blacks marginalized, the economical reasons and cultural reasons for this and how the top 10% of the rich and companies were the ones really benefiting from cultural and historical subjugation of blacks. You cannot properly teach the history of slavery/racism without the economics, the cultural models and the idea of individual self-identity thrown in. When you teach a class full of students the history of slavery including the Why's and How's, they'll notice that both sides where trapped in a social construct of the time which made victims of everyone contained within it.

Learning the "truth" is what excites people about history. That's why novels such as the Davinci code are so popular. We love to uncover the truth. The truth is stranger than fiction, and almost always much more interesting. When you actually teach a society why things happen, that is really when history ceases to repeat itself. That is why I believe History (told accurately) is by Far the most important subject in academics. Without proper History there is a misinformed culture/social structure that develops. That can't be more true of Gay culture, where there exists literally no accurate History or even "positive Myths" for men to identify with. So, they come to identity with whatever comes along, in this case the dominate cultural model.

I occasionally take my obsession with history to the web. In looking up info on the net about african homosexuality, I came upon an interesting quote.

...........................

"The scholar Mark Gevisser's recently published account of mid nineteeth century Zulu culture, for example, suggest that the Zulu king Shaka encouraged his warriors to engage in thigh sex -- in order to create intimacy and loyalty among them (Gevisser 961)"

..................................

This account surprised me in one way and another way didn't. First of all it's on a whole different continent than the greeks and well over 1000 years after the greeks.

A whole different culture and ethnic group yet they instinctively did the adsact same thing.

Both are warrior cultures and both practice a form of Frottage, in order to create intimacy and loyalty among them. That's a pretty big correlation.

I also noticed when anthropologist and historians research information on homosexuality, they almost always "seek out anal sex" as a confirmation of homosexual behavior. They also do the same thing when looking at effeminate behavior. There are I'm sure more instances of frottage, mutual masturbation, and oral sex, than they are of anal penetration.

Yet besides mentioning these other forms of male sex behavior researchers always seem to shoot straight to a description of anal sex practices, as if it is the only authentic way to confirm homosexual behavior. Either that or they seek out gender-bending men as a sign of homosexuality. The vast majority of homosexual behavior occurs obviously outside of these confines. Of course these professionals are only recording things as they "know" of them to be, but this type of research still manages to piss me off.

I see their research being shaped by the ideas that society had about male2male sex at the time they were living. However there are others who manage to do a fantastic job relaying history as it existed in the context of the time it was written.

I am sure that frot (phallus on phallus sex) may have been excused/overlooked by a large number of historical and cultural anthropologist as not worthy of taking note of in accounts of homosexuality. It was probably considered foreplay or lumped under another title of mutual masturbation as there was no name for frottage until recently.

The Azande and their bellyrubbing (traditional frot) and Zulu's and their thigh sex aren't the only accounts of homosexuality in africa. Here are some interesting historical accounts I've found that might interest you guys.

..............................

"Introduction: Edward Carpenter's Ioläus is an attempt to provide a historical context for male friendship. One should not be misled, however.

Carpenter, one of the earliest English homosexual activists, is writing about homosexual relationships and trying to provide a historical grounding for them. As such his work is of interest not only for its references, but also as evidence of the strategies of the early gay movement.]

I: FRIENDSHIP-CUSTOMS IN THE PAGAN AND EARLY WORLD

[4] THE Balonda are an African tribe inhabiting Londa land, among the Southern tributaries of the Congo River. They were visited by Livingstone, and the following account of their customs is derived from him:

"The Balonda have a most remarkable custom of cementing friendship. When two men agree to be special friends they go through a singular ceremony. The men sit opposite each other holding hands, and by the side of each is a vessel of beer. Slight cuts are then made on the clasped hands, on the pit of the stomach, on the right cheek, and on the forehead.

The point of a grass-blade is pressed against each of these cuts, so as to take up a little of the blood, and each man washes the grass-blade in his own beer vessel. The vessels are then exchanged and the contents drunk, so that each imbibes the blood of the other. The two are thenceforth considered as blood-relations, and are bound to assist each [5] other in every possible manner. While the beer is being drunk, the friends of each of the men beat on the ground with clubs, and bawl out certain sentences as ratification of the treaty. It is thought correct for all the friends of each party to the contract to drink a little of the beer. The ceremony is called 'Kasendi'. After it has been completed, gifts are exchanged and both parties always give their most precious possessions."

Natural History of Man. Rev. J. G. Food. Vol: Africa , p. 419.

.......................................

One thing I found interesting in history is ingenuity in warfare present in so many men who had preferred sexual interest in other men.

Alexander the Great: I don't have to really say anything about him

Lawrence of Arabia: shrouded himself in so much mystery and half truths that it is impossible to know much about his life. But it seemed obvious that he preferred the company of men

Shaka Zulu: Not a very nice guy, but when it came to military prowess was brilliant, known for his courage and genius outside of military activities. But, boy was this fucker ruthless. It's seems blatant in historical accounts that he preferred having sex with other soldiers in his ranks, more so than women.

Richard the Lionhearted:

A contemporary account of Richard and King Philip of France:

"They ate every day at the same table and from the same dish, and at night their beds did not separate them. And the king of France loved him as his own soul; and they loved each other so much that the king of England [Richard's father] was absolutely astonished at the passionate love between them and marveled at it."

British novelist and journalist Colin Spencer notes:

"There was nothing remotely effeminate about Richard, of course, a crusader and warrior devoted to hand-to-hand combat. Another of his lovers was a young knight, a crusader, one Raife de Clermon, whom he freed from Saracen captivity. Richard was undoubtedly pious and constantly in the company of prelates; there was no shame attached to his predilections and nothing hidden. Though he did repent on several occasions of 'that sin,' public confessions being a tradition of the church, there is no sign that it was regarded as a more serious sin than many others.

Jay Hatheway, Gordon, Kitchener

You can go on and on with a list of military geniuses that preferred the company of other men. It's a repeating pattern that never ceases to amaze me. I don't know why it's there but it seems to me as being no mistake.

Anyway, when I have something to say, I say it. Sometimes it spills out as it does in some of my other post on this site, especially my first post. But, i don't hesitate or hold back. When I start my writing or stories I usually intend to make it short and sweet. But, they almost always end up being long and detailed, as I keep adding and adding more ideas that somersault from the back of my brain and into my conscience. If I don't share these thoughts and ideas they sit there and agitate me until I let it out.

It's important that the men who "visit" this site post and share ideas, as many other men on this site do. It's pretty selfish and cowardly if you believe in these ideas, share these ideas, presented to you, visit the site and check on what other men are writing and sharing, yet you sit on your hands(or use your hands for something else). The heart of a movement is people connecting with other people who share similar ideas, and they in turn spreading these new ideas to others. Thats how they all start and how all movements grow.

This forum is anonymous, your not risking anything when you put out. I don't see why so many men who don't share their own thoughts and ideas and support with men who believe in the same thing, expect people who don't know about frot to validate them.

It seems the easiest part of the expanding these ideas is just that, Men connecting to one another and sharing these experiences and ideas with others. The ideas and truth surrounded by Frot is something that strikes a nerve in so many men, to the point where it's an almost automatic response among those who aren't accultured into "gay life". This is the easier part of popularizing Frot and it's ideas. We must make those connections one man to another, (but thanks to the internet it can be a message from one man to thousands.)

I know many of you who visit have really great ideas and experiences to share as so many other men on this site have, some positive, some negative.So if you believe in what this place is about and have something to share, Don't be selfish let it out.

Bill Weintraub

Re: nature does nothing without a purpose.

8-14-2004

Thnx Boomer

Another terrific post

Boomer is a college student who has often contributed to this board and who has also contributed to the sites his exceptionally smart and well-written HOT FROT fiction aimed at guys his age -- and the young at heart everywhere.

Boomer's most recent truly excellent story is The Princeton Club, and guys who enjoyed this post will enjoy that story too.

Boomer said several things which I want to comment on:

The first is about how most anthropologists writing about homosex in other cultures have been bound and blinded by the prejudices of their own:

I also noticed when anthropologist and historians research information on homosexuality, they almost always "seek out anal sex" as a confirmation of homosexual behavior. They also do the same thing when looking at effeminate behavior. There are I'm sure more instances of frottage, mutual masturbation, and oral sex, than they are of anal penetration. Yet besides mentioning these other forms of male sex behavior researchers always seem to shoot straight to a description of anal sex practices, as if it is the only authentic way to confirm homosexual behavior. Either that or they seek out gender-bending men as a sign of homosexuality. The vast majority of homosexual behavior occurs obviously outside of these confines. Of course these professionals are only recording things as they "know" of them to be, but this type of research still manages to piss me off.

I see their research being shaped by the ideas that society had about male2male sex at the time they were living. However there are others who manage to do a fantastic job relaying history as it existed in the context of the time it was written.

Boomer's right about this, and that means when you look at anthropological reports on homosex, you have to realize that the authors of those reports were as culture-bound as the people they believed they were describing.

Which means that as our ideas about and true accounts of phallus-on-phallus become more diffused through our own culture, you'll begin to see more reports about that behavior in other cultures.

Just the way it works.

Interestingly, when discussing this with Havard medical anthropologist Dr. Edward Green, who did the research on the efficacy of ABC in Uganda and has done field work in other African countries and Asia as well, he told me of a number of instances in which research and field work into HIV prevention was skewed by the cultural biases of anthropologists, including gay/analist anthropologists.

So when you read cross-cultural studies, you have to bear in mind that it's unlikely the author was completely free of cultural bias.

Boomer also talked about the sociobiology of male bonding:

In other words men who were drawn to other men in addition to women would become stronger over time and have a better chance of having their genes passed on. This attraction took the form of a both sensual/social and sexual/erotic bonds. the wanting to be close to other males and to have physical contact with other males. Over time a spectrum of sexual displacement took place. The vast majority of men wanted to be close to other men and women. Over time this need for men to bond with other men in order to survive became so crucial that it became primary to human and male sexuality. All the lone rangers started to die off while the men who kept bonds with other men as well as women became the vast majority. Of course this isn't what happened, I just pointing this out to show you what I'm getting at.

Actually, according to the sociobiologists, something like this did happen.

There are two key concepts in understanding the sociobiology of male bonding:

1. Male Retention

2. Reciprocal Altruism

1. Male Retention:

Most animals evict young males from the family group when they reach puberty.

Adolescent gorillas, for example, are forced to leave their mother and siblings, and go off on their own to seek a mate.

In order to get a mate, they have to fight older male gorillas who usually have harems.

And they have to be willing to fight to the death.

That's why male gorillas are so much larger than females -- size has survival value.

Among chimps and humans, on the other hand, males are *retained* in the family group.

Anthropologists and ethologists call this "male retention."

These retained adolescent males bond with each other and work in concert to preserve territory and chase off any intruding males from other groups.

Chimps routinely kill such intruders.

Humans do the same, and human males bond very tightly.

2. That bond is informed by "reciprocal altruism" at its most extreme.

Reciprocal altruism is basic to our lives as social beings, and we all understand it instinctively:

I'll do something for you if you do something for me.

That's why people like it when you do them a favor, and why you get angry if someone fails to return a favor.

For most of us, altruism must be reciprocal, or our sense of what's right is injured.

Among bonded males serving as soldiers, reciprocal altruism takes an extreme form:

I'll die for you -- if you'll die for me.

That shared norm creates a very powerful bond.

That's why soldiers often speak of having loved their buddies as much as or even more than their families.

And it's coming from the same place:

Just as most men will to die to protect their wives and children, so will they die to protect their fellow warriors.

Evolution or God or both has made this an extremely powerful *emotional* bond.

And if you think about it, you see that in evolutionary terms, it's an inevitability.

The human group which develops retention of males and male bonding and so is able to form bands of tightly bonded warriors -- will always be able to defeat and kill the men, and impregnate the women, of a group which does not.

So male bonding has survival value, and as such underpins much of human endeavor.

Moreover, clearly eroticism, whether beneath the surface or openly expressed, works to strengthen those male bonds, particularly if it's institutionalized.

That's what the various Greek city states did.

Though each did it a bit differently.

Sparta had it's agoge -- "herds" of boys taken at age seven from their mothers and raised communally -- with lots of homosex to strengthen bonds.

Crete had a similar though less radical version, including mock kidnappings and honeymoons for male-male lovers.

Thebes had the Sacred Band -- 150 same-sex couples -- at the core of its military machine.

Athens had compulsory "ephebic" -- that is young athlete -- training from ages 18 to 20; and symposia -- all male dinner parties -- with lots of courtship there and at the palestra, where boys and men wrestled nude.

In point of fact, nude wrestling and male nudity during athletics and military training, and all-male eating clubs or messes, along with overt homosexuality, were found universally in ancient Greece.

Furthermore, the Greeks themselves saw male-male eroticism as serving a military end.

Which mattered because war was an overwhelming reality in their lives.

But they also valued same-sex love as the ultimate expression of a free and, to them, truly civilized society.

Christianity, over the last millienium at least, has tended to use sublimated male erotic energy and to distrust openly erotic male behavior.

But it's important to understand that the degree of mistrust has varied widely over the past thousand years.

Boomer gives this example:

Richard the lionhearted:

A contemporary account of Richard and King Philip of France:

"They ate every day at the same table and from the same dish, and at night their beds did not separate them. And the king of France loved him as his own soul; and they loved each other so much that the king of England [Richard's father] was absolutely astonished at the passionate love between them and marveled at it."

British novelist and journalist Colin Spencer notes:

"There was nothing remotely effeminate about Richard, of course, a crusader and warrior devoted to hand-to-hand combat. Another of his lovers was a young knight, a crusader, one Raife de Clermon, whom he freed from Saracen captivity. Richard was undoubtedly pious and constantly in the company of prelates; there was no shame attached to his predilections and nothing hidden. Though he did repent on several occasions of 'that sin,' public confessions being a tradition of the church, there is no sign that it was regarded as a more serious sin than many others.

Again this is correct.

In one of the amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs filed in "Texas v Lawrence," last year's Supreme Court case which de-criminalized same-sex sex, historians pointed out that whereas we once believed that persecution of homosexuals had been a constant in post-classical Europe, we now know that it's been relatively rare and sporadic.

But during the 20th century, and in particular in the years following WW II and coinciding with the "Red" scare, that persecution became exceptionally severe.

The last 100 years, then, have been unusually difficult for the expression of same sex affections, and in such an atmosphere, while same-sex behavior continues, it's forced underground and becomes distorted.

So part of what we're trying to do on our sites is bring it back into the clear light of day, and:

1. Explain to ordinary guys that their same-sex feelings are natural and normal.

2. Explain to gay men that their subculture, with its emphasis on anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy, is the product not of liberation, but oppression.

And that they need to free themselves from that subculture.

Thnx again Boomer -- you're a great guy!

---

Tomas

Re: nature does nothing without a purpose.

8-17-2004

Boomer and Bill wrote about the work of historians and anthropologists on the subject of relationships between men in various places at different times in history. One of the best sources that historians and others use are the writings and images that were created by men and boys to express and record their feelings towards one another. Unfortunately, there are places and periods for which scholars have little or no sources because those writings and images do not express actual feelings, but only what men thought their feelings should have been. It took me 55 years to discover the truth about my own feelings, and to begin to express them openly. Bill is a courageous educator. In what we do, say, write and draw here and now, let us not leave a legacy of solitary silence and fear to the historians and anthroplogists who will write about our own place and time.

---

Add a reply to this discussion

---