That's predictable.

I could say, and it's true, that you have NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELVES.

Because for three years I've been BEGGING you to donate money so that we could have a public presence, and you haven't done it.

So the public does NOT know that you exist.

Nevertheless, the only possible response now that the movie is here -- is to FIGHT BACK.

That's what you do.

YOU NEVER GIVE IN, AND YOU NEVER SUPPORT AN ANALIST ENTERPRISE.

NEVER.

It's like a Jew donating to the Nazis or an African-American supporting the Klan.

YOU DON'T DO IT.

I can blame Ang Lee.

Just watch:

Anal penetration has killed 500,000 gay and bi men in America alone and infected another 500,000 with HIV.

Ang Lee knows that.

Yet goes ahead and makes a movie glorifying and romanticizing anal.

Because Proulx wrote it that way.

Well, I don't know why Proulx wrote the story as she did.

It's probable that like most people, she was seeing the past through the prism of the present -- the mid 90s.

But it doesn't matter why.

Anal's dangerous and everyone knows it.

In light of soaring HIV infection rates, the sex could have been reworked.

It wasn't.

I blame Ang Lee -- who knows perfectly well that when you put it on the screen you magnify it a million fold.

I predict a spike in infections because of the movie.

That's wrong.

Immoral and hideously wrong.

Mark says, Sigh!

DON'T "SIGH" MARK.

FIGHT BACK!

Most of you are incredibly dense about this.

If someone hands you a shit sandwich, you don't smile (or sigh) and say thank you and eat it.

You throw it back in his face.

Make him eat it.

Preferably by knocking him down and stuffing it in his mouth.

I'm not kidding.

YOU MUST LEARN TO FIGHT BACK AND TO DEFEND YOURSELVES.

OTHERWISE, YOU WILL BE A BUTTBOY DOORMAT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES.

DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE.

TAKE THE MONEY AND DONATE IT TO US.

Or spend it in some other way which furthers the goals of the FROT MOVEMENT.

And if your friends ask you to go see it, REFUSE!

AND TELL THEM WHY!

But whatever else you do, DON'T SIGH.

DON'T WEEP.

FIGHT BACK.

Greg Milliken

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

12-11-2005

I was suspicious of this movie ever since I saw the trailer.

An even better idea for those of you who "have to" see it is donate the ticket money to the frot movement, and wait for it to come out in a rental store. That way the analists don't get any money from it.

Logan McClintock

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

12-13-2005

Bill is quite right. I read the Proux story not long ago, and the real tragedy of this movie, and the story, is that in reality those characters would never to anal. They are masculine, men of the west, who would without doubt be frot warriors. But, since Proux didn't know that, she wrote crap. I remember being very angry when I read the story and got to the anal scene. It was just so wrong for those two characters. Proux even wrote that they didn't need an instruction book, it just came naturally to them. What a fraud! As everyone here knows, it's frot that comes naturally, through instinct. It's anal that involves instructions and countless proceedures. It's a real shame.

It's shame because Brokeback Mountain, (or Bareback Mountain?) could have been a wonderful way for the frot message to have gotten out. It could have been a tool for truth, because the truth is that guys like Ennis and Jack would frot, not shit fuck.

The shame becomes a tragedy because the talent in the film is so huge, that the film will sadly have a major impact. It's likely to win a slew of Oscars, including Best Picture.

So, sure, it'll be great for "anal rights" as opposed to gay/bi/frot rights. And as Bill noted, it will directly spread myths, misinformation, lies, and disease among gay and bi youth who will continue to be victims of the bug chaser crowd and their screwed up thinking.

Among the other things we can do to fight back: Get frot fiction out there. Let's get some frot fiction, a real love story, in the pages of The New Yorker, so that some day a real frot love story will be made into a major film.

Robert Loring

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

12-14-2005

I knew this was coming out because a friend of mine in the production/film industry had told me about it. Frankly, however, I never thought it would hit the big screen as I was sure the Right would make sure that it never seen the light outside the porn industry. But, I was wrong!! There is NO opposition to this film at all. And, further, rumors in the film industry are that this film is going to take "every major film award in the nation"!! Hmmm....wonder how they already know that???

The film promotes the butt fuck lifestyle and the agenda of the BFD. It promotes HIV/AIDS and it promotes DEATH! Instead of "Brokenback Mountain" being the title, it should be BROKEN LIVES!!

This film is only the first in a series of coming films that promote the BFD agenda and that promotes the myth that butt banging is "natural." The tentacles of the BFD have now reached into mainstream Hollywood and there is much more to come on your silver screen. This film along with all others soon to come out are propoganda films designed to indoctrinate young gay/bi men AND designed to desensitize the masses to analism. I see much more HIV/AIDS on the horizon!!

The BFD is trying to convince ALL of us that butt banging is "natural" even though it is NOT natural. FROT is NATURAL between MEN!! The ONLY thing that will stop this film from being highly successful at the box office is if people DON'T go to see it and if they DON'T buy the DVD.

I agree with the above post. Someone needs to write a FROT bestseller that will eventually become a BLOCKBUSTER MOVIE.

I hope all realize just how far the claws of the BFD now extend in our society. Those claws are now going mainstream. So, of course the question is:

WHEN WILL THE FROT WARRIORS STAND UP AND FIGHT BACK AND BE WARRIORS?????????

It's a nice idea to think of yourself as a warrior BUT if you don't LIVE IT then it's only an idea existing out there in never neverland.

Sir Robert

jedi

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

12-18-2005

hello fellow warriors

true...

can be quite depressing to se how the power of the analists is increasing and spreading ....

but as long as true warriors are existing,

they cant never win...

the sacred flame of life/love/truth and heroism

in our hearts

has a eternal status

its always there

even in the darkest night of nights

it gives warmth/life and light...

direction and reality...

we know who we are

where we go

what we want

as long as we EXIST

they BIG LIE simply cant win...

not possible

even if they are billions

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

only thing they can do...

is surrender one day...

and return to true love and life.

AS LONG AS WE EXIST

TRUE LOVE HAS ITS PLACE ON THIS PLANET.

So warriors...

be proud of youreself and

of youre existence.

Because of "YOU" warriors

the BFD cant win

so come on

lets kick their asses

whereever we can

and enjoy it

SALUTE TO YOU!

jedi

Ken

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

12-18-2005

For quite sometime now this movie was hyped up to be the ultimate malebonding movie. When l heard about explicit anal, l immediately decided not to waste my time or money to go see soft porn in a public theater. l have no desire to see buttfcuking on any screen. lf l want to see that, there are plenty of groups on the inet that have free vids and pics of that disgusting act. l never cared for that nasty act between two men, it's sick and it hurts and it can give you an STD, especially AIDS! Why haven't men gotten the full picture? A man's anus will NEVER take the place of a vagina, plain and simple. l was abused like that as a toddler and don't feel that a man should be treated that way, l don't care if he likes it or not! l don't think kids need to be subjected to that at a theater, nor do l think anal sex is healthy. l agree, boycott that movie, it's not what l would want to do to a man. l seen the movie Making Love, and it didn't show any anal in my recollection. There are better ways to stimulate a man sexually and anal is not it!!!!!!!!!!! That is a gross way to see men do that, l won't go see it. Thanks for pointing this out and you have my vote, it's frot and only frot.

Ken

Don F

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

12-20-2005

You are all forgetting that Proulx writes in the Existentialist genre where achieving happiness is never an option.

In this school of thought, even the most modest of dreams are necessarily crushed by a hostile reality and characters are like leaves tossed about by a tide of uncaring circumstance.

Life is a sewer. Analism is symbolic.

So, in Brokeback Mountain, like her other work, everything is bleak and hopelessness reigns supreme.

In an interview, Proulx says, "It couldn't end any other way."

Well, of course it could.

But if you see the film (or read the story) through Existentialist glasses, it becomes obvious the author contrives to set misery as a norm. Indeed, if life in Wyoming is as dismal as Proulx writes, it's no surprise not many people live there.

Even the title "Brokeback" is a metaphor to broken spirit and broken lives.

Sarte would've loved this sort of crap.

Don F

Bill Weintraub

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

12-20-2005

Thank you Greg, Logan, Robert, Jedi, Ken, and Don,

Great posts all of them, ALL of them are IMPORTANT, and keep em coming!

For now, I just want to comment on what Don said:

"everything is bleak and hopelessness reigns supreme"

"Even the title "Brokeback" is a metaphor to broken spirit and broken lives."

Don's right.

I read Brokeback not long after my own lover died, and even though the "sex" was nonsensical, the rest of the story resonated.

Because its message is -- if you love, you will lose.

And that's certainly a message the gay male community is *comfortable* with:

If you love, you will lose your lover -- either to promiscuity, or to a disease which is spread through promiscuity.

Or, possibly, as happens in Brokeback, to anti-gay violence.

So to be gay is to be a victim, and a passive victim.

Now, what do we say in the Alliance?

FIGHT BACK!

That promiscuity and disease are not inevitabilities in the lives of men who love men.

And neither, for that matter, is violence.

1. If you don't do anal, it's extremely unlikely that you'll die of a sexually transmitted disease.

2. One man can love another Faithfully: Faithfully and Phallically.

   Promiscuity is not inevitable -- not if you remove yourself from that APE (anal, promiscuity, effeminacy) / RAPE culture.

3. Become a warrior in physical fact by training in martial arts.

   the statistics are clear: Your chance of being a victim of any sort of violence plummets when you learn basic self-defense.

Let's translate those three points:

1. FROT -- not anal.

2. FIDELITY -- not promiscuity.

3. MASCULINITY -- not effeminacy.

That's our program, which the analists reject so that they can go on being victims.

And make movies about it.

They've internalized their oppression --

And they want YOU to do the same.

So: the buttboyz set themselves up to die of anally-vectored diseases, to lose their "lovers" to promiscuity, and to be the effeminate victims of anti-gay violence.

No doubt for saying that I'll be accused of "blaming the victim."

Yet the FACTS are clear:

If you don't do anal, if you require of your husband that he be faithful, and if you learn how to fight -- you will NOT be a victim.

Don:

In an interview, Proulx says, "It couldn't end any other way."

Well, of course it could.

Don's absolutely right.

It could end differently.

Our actions affect the outcome.

You do NOT have to be a victim.

In What Sex Is, I say repeatedly, Choose Frot Choose Life.

Be a Man -- do not passively / anally accept a shitfairy "fate."

Robert:

I hope all realize just how far the claws of the BFD now extend in our society. Those claws are now going mainstream. So, of course the question is:

WHEN WILL THE FROT WARRIORS STAND UP AND FIGHT BACK AND BE WARRIORS?????????

It's a nice idea to think of yourself as a warrior BUT if you don't LIVE IT then it's only an idea existing out there in never neverland.

Robert's right.

You have to fight back.

You have to LIVE IT.

You're not doing that.

And you're so shortsighted.

If each of you reading this would donate -- we could blitz the media.

"Surgeon General Warns Against Anal Sex."

"Gay Group Boycotts Brokeback Mountain."

Those are legitimate stories.

If we could get them out.

SAVE YOUR LIFE

jedi

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

12-20-2005

Hello Warriors

I remember when i was still a teenager...

and i was looking for gay identification figures or stories...

all i found was aids /disease stories

drag queens

promiscuitive/anal/bodybuilder pussies

well in general

broken spirit/life persons or stories

everything black/grey

no heroes...

no happy ends...

as if everything had to be or had to end bad.

well i knew ...it doesnt have to be this way...

well we all here know it i guess.

only good stories i found at that time the greek/roman historian films

------------------------------------------------

still i dont understand

why....

obviously weak analist bitch pussies

can grow so strong

is it really them? that achieve this all by themself????

or are other powers behind

establishing this degenerative anal culture

to weaken human civilisation in spirit and soul

in order to make humans

better dumb and controlable???

JEDI

Greg Milliken

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

12-20-2005

There is another force out there Jedi.

I call it the Grinch force.

In the story The Grinch Who Stole Christmas this terrible man steals all the presents and decorations and holiday foods.

But he fails to steal the spirit of Christmas.

Because that's not a tangible object he could take; rather, it is a concept the villagers carry around inside each of their hearts.

So when Christmas morning comes and the Grinch is waiting for the moans and cries of despair, instead he hears singing and rejoicing.

Because you can't steal Christmas.

Not unless people give it up willingly.

Likewise, there are a number of men out there into frot, yet in the spirit of "egalitarianism" they also give into anal and promiscuity and effeminacy.

And they see that as okay.

They think that they can still reap the benefits of frot--better sex life, higher self-confidence, the almost complete disappearance of disease--without actually rejecting analism.

And they think this because they don't value any of those things.

I read a message thread where one man who "enjoyed" frot also did anal because of erectile problems. He said getting fucked up the ass was relaxing, and that it was even some of the best sex he ever had despite never reaching orgasm.

I don't know about you, but I find that sad. It's sad to me that the best sex this man has ever had never lead to a culminating orgasm, which is literally the best feeling two men can share. I also find it sad that he believes anal is the best sex he's ever had. I've been penetrated anally, and I can be one-hundred percent certain when I tell you frot feels and is incomparably better.

And what about the disease? They don't care that they are literally dying off in droves, because to them it's necessary. It's inescapable. Only it isn't. It would be easy to escape the STI epidemic wrought through analist culture, while simultaneously improving millions of sex lives.

Someone once asked me in a debate to prove qualitatively that frot is safer than anal. At the time I couldn't figure out how to do so.

But it is possible to do so, because of P.

You see, P is the ratio of men who are newly infected with HIV, compared to the number of men who already have it.

If P is greater than 1, that means an epidemic will grow.

Conversely, if P is less than 1, the epidemic will shrink.

And if P is significantly lower than 1, the disease will go extinct.

In Gabrielle Rotello's book, Sexual Ecology, he explains that with anal penetration, P is well above 1. Even if people reduce the number of partners they have to 2 per year, P will still be great enough to expand the epidemic.

Yet with frot, there is virtually no risk of passing on HIV. In fact, the risk is so microscopically insignificant, HIV would die out and become nothing more than a horrible memory in the time it took for HIV to be transmitted via frot.

That is a qualitative difference between frot and anal.

The physical necessities of frot make it impossible for the act to sustain diseases at epidemic levels.

Finally, these Grinch Force Brigadeers have no self-confidence. They care more about an "egalitarian" outlook, which in reality is nothing more than a buy-in to analism, than their own pleasure and health.

Men who have experienced frot know it feels better than anal, so who are these men trying to please with this attitude? Not themselves, obviously. For some reason they require the approval of their friends, some of whom will be analists, in order to hold an opinion.

And that reason is a supreme lack of self-confidence.

But that lack of self-confidence manifests into a willful desire to be penetrated. That's very dangerous. You can't say, on the one hand, that you like frot but anal is fun too, and then on the other not practice anal.

That's called hypocritical.

And holding that attitude doesn't make you egalitarian, it makes you a hypocrite.

And a stooge.

I need to draw an analogy here.

The Grinch Brigade is like pure all-out Capitalism, where everyone takes what they can get and only the strongest survive.

This is very different from our own system of Free-Market Economics, where exchanges are made only if both parties see value in the transaction.

Sometimes people try to break the rules: by stealing, by embezzling, through fraud and false advertising.

In reality true all-out Capitalism wouldn’t work.

And these few occasions in our Free-Market system are hurtful to growth and progress.

Just like the Grinch Brigade hurts the frot movement by capitalizing off of it without contributing.

Of course, if they had their way, Bill, the alliance, and virtually the entire frot movement would soon disappear.

And in its place would be even more anal.

In fact, analists would see the end of the frot movement as a sign that they were right, and demand anal even more.

And frot men would view it as a sign that there isn’t even enough support out there for frot to keep one website open.

For the frot movement to work, there has to be an even exchange.

You can’t come here and take and take and take, and then expect the alliance to support itself out of thin air.

Because if thin air is all that is given to support this site, that’s what it will become.

Along with the entire frot movement.

I can only laugh at one last comment I read recently.

Someone took offense to Bill's harsh language with those who are well-to-do and yet refuse to donate.

They visit the site.

They take up bandwidth.

They generate the bill.

They take away the good ideas from the website.

And they utilize the resources, including Bill's time.

Yet they don't want to contribute their share when it comes time to pay for it.

That's sad.

Well, to these men I have a message: If it offends you when Bill accurately describes you as weak-willed faggots, go find an analist.

Go find one who will tell you he will love you forever, as long as you let him fuck you.

After all, it's how things are said--not what they mean--that counts, right?

It's the words of the people around you, and not their actions that you should weigh and judge.

That is--if you're an idiot.

The rest of us have brains and refuse to give up using them for the wounded egos of a few rich spoiled brats.

Greg Milliken

Bill Weintraub

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

12-24-2005

Thanks Greg

Our critics never come at us directly because they can't.

• If we say Frot is genital-genital sex, what are they going to say?

  That it isn't?

  It is.

• If we say an anus is not a vagina, what are they going to say?

  That it is?

  It isn't.

• If we say Fidelity works and promiscuity doesn't, what are they going to say?

  Oh no, there are all those studies out there attesting to the benefits of promiscuity?

  There aren't.

• And if we say men who have sex with men are MEN -- what are they going to say?

  That they're women?

  That they have breasts and vaginas and higher body fat and lower muscularity than men?

  They don't.

  We say:

  LOOK AT YOURSELF.

  Are you a man or a woman?

  Look between your legs.

  Are you a man or a woman?

  Answer the question, and then STOP THE BULLSHIT.

So our critics don't have a leg to stand on.

They're intellectually bereft and morally bankrupt.

They're pushing pain sex, shit sex, disease sex, death sex, they're pushing promiscuity to spread it around, and they're pushing effeminacy.

Real winners.

They've morphed into the shitty objects of their own unnatural desires:

ASSHOLES.

And, in true asshole fashion, rather than refuting our critique, which they cannot, they make indirect and ad hom attacks; or they attempt to starve us to death -- which is serious, because it prevents us from doing our literally life-saving work.

Indirect attack number 4,536: Bill has called self-absorbed, self-defeating homosexuals "faggots," and that means he's a bad person.

Really?

Let's talk FAGGOTS for a while.

The problem here is what gay historian Marty Duberman calls "cultural amnesia" -- people who don't know their own history or have willfully forgotten it.

So here's a refresher course.

Who was the first AIDS / Gay activist to refer to gay men with a penchant for self-destruction as "faggots?"

Little Billy Weintraub?

No.

It was LARRY KRAMER.

Mr. AIDS Activism.

Founder of GMHC and ACT/UP.

Cited by Time magazine as one of Gandhi's spiritual heirs.

Mr. Gay America.

When did the saintly Mr. Kramer make that reference?

Last year?

Two years ago?

Five years?

Ten?

Twenty?

NO!

It was TWENTY-SIX YEARS AGO.

Twenty-six years guys.

Twenty-six years ago -- soon to be twenty-seven -- Larry published a book called FAGGOTS.

It came out in 1979 -- pre-AIDS -- and it was about self-absorbed, self-destructive, gay men.

AKA FAGGOTS.

So when I, as a gay activist, call narcissistic, self-defeating gay men, "faggots," I'm NOT breaking any new ground.

Larry got there first.

Do I, as a gay activist, have the right to call certain gay men faggots?

Yes I do -- if in so doing, I am attempting to jar those men out of their complacency and selfishness into doing that which they need to do to survive.

And particularly when my more moderate appeals have fallen on their stonily deaf ears.

That's why Larry was calling his contemporaries "faggots" -- he was trying to wake them up.

It's a pity he didn't succeed.

That's what I'm doing.

And it will be pitiable if I don't succeed as well.

In the opening scene of Larry's book or early on, as I recall, one of the characters is at the baths and is trying to decide whether to felch.

Felch.

The very same behavior which, twenty-six years later, AIDS Committee Toronto is advertising on a playing card.

Has the gay community learned anything from AIDS?

I think it's safe to say -- NO.

FAGGOTS was widely believed to be a "roman a clef."

That means that Larry modeled his characters on real-life people whom one could, if one were in the know, easily identify.

Brett and I knew the man who was rumored to be the model for the book's protagonist.

Allegedly an ex-boyfriend of Larry's.

That man died relatively early in the epidemic.

He was very handsome and I thought he was a nice guy.

He went very fast.

He was healthy, and then he looked run down, and then he said he had a yeast infection, and then we were opening a letter from his lover saying that he'd died and had appeared, in his last moments, to be at peace.

I'll never forget that letter.

I have a very clear memory of Brett and where he was standing as he read aloud the account of that man's last moments.

Just as I have a very clear memory of the man himself.

A big, handsome, nice guy -- who died a miserable, excruciating death.

And who was very young.

People who don't share that history are in no position to criticize me.

Fact is, I've been a gay activist for longer than most of my critics have been sentient.

They don't care.

Where I come from we have a saying about such people:

They should be as wise as they are loud.

They're not.

They're dopes.

Here's how Greg describes the men who don't donate:

They visit the site.

They take up bandwidth.

They generate the bill.

They take away the good ideas from the website.

And they utilize the resources, including Bill's time.

Yet they don't want to contribute their share when it comes time to pay for it.

Greg's description is correct.

That is selfish and self-destructive behavior.

Just like the behavior of the men Larry called Faggots.

Fact: If you're not donating to the Alliance, or supporting the Frot Movement in some other way -- which 99 dot 99% of you are not doing -- you're a FAGGOT.

You're acquiescing in your own oppression.

The word is apt.

It has its roots in the extreme passivity of gay men in the face of oppression.

Oppression which in many cases could be overcome with just a little action.

I repeat: the word is apt.

I have both the intellectual acuity and the moral force to apply that word to you.

And, unless you act, you'll never get rid of it.

It's a stain, and you'll never wash it away.

Now, Greg says:

Someone once asked me in a debate to prove qualitatively that frot is safer than anal.

I'm amazed that someone would do that.

There's a level of depravity -- of evil -- in making such a demand that's almost beyond belief.

There's never been a documented case of HIV transmission through Frot.

And everyone knows it.

Minimally, 94% of MSM HIV infection is due to anal penetration.

Anal penetration.

The rest of MSM HIV transmission -- whether it's 6% or 1% -- is due to oral.

Not Frot.

It's difficult to get HIV.

Much of the HIV transmission in the world today -- in places like Russia -- is occurring among IV drug users.

They're shooting the virus directly into their blood.

Just as, when you cum in someone's butt, you're shooting your jizz directly into his bloodstream.

And if you're uncut, you're bathing your foreskin, which is delicate, in his rectal secretions, his shit, and his blood.

That's how gay men get HIV.

It's efficient.

Because, in essence, it's blood to blood.

The BFD's solution to everything -- HIV, HPV, LGV, hep C -- is the condom.

The ASOs have propped up and supported anal and promiscuity based on the condom.

Because there's no other intervention.

But condoms only work with HIV because HIV's INFECTIVITY IS LOW.

That means your chance of getting HIV in any one encounter is not great.

That HIV prevalence is so high among gay "men into anal" tells you that they're VERY promiscuous.

What about condoms?

Reality: in Africa, despite years of condom campaigns, no country has ever succeeded in getting condom use above 5%.

Why?

There are a number of factors, but the one most mentioned by African men themselves is: CONDOMS DESTROY PLEASURE.

Condom use is probably higher than 5% among American MSM, but there are, not surprisingly, a LOT of "lapses."

As a result, HIV prevalence among MSM is 25%.

That's HUGE.

I repeat: HUGE!

It's a mark of how insane gay male life is that "we" accept that.

I've been in the community since the beginning of the epidemic.

People used to call for the complete annihilation of HIV infection among gay men.

Not any more.

It's now taken as a given that one in four gay men will be infected with this disease.

That's nuts.

Paticularly because THESE INFECTIONS ARE TOTALLY and 100% AVOIDABLE.

And remember, HIV'S INFECTIVITY IS LOW.

Again, that means your chance of getting HIV in any one encounter is not great.

But over time -- with enough encounters -- chances are you'll get it.

What happens with a pathogen which is easily transmitted -- like anal HPV?

HPV prevalence among HIV negative gay guys is 57%.

And among poz guys it's 95%.

A quick calculation tells you that HPV prevalence among ALL GAY MEN is minimally 67%.

It's probably higher.

Again, 67% is HUGE.

AND I GUARANTEE THAT EVERY MAN INTO ANAL HAS ANAL HPV.

I GUARANTEE IT.

HPV is relatively benign.

IF A PATHOGEN APPEARED WITH HPV'S INFECTIVITY WHICH WAS NOT BENIGN -- IT COULD KILL HALF THE GAY MEN IN AMERICA IN A COUPLE MONTHS.

That's reality, and that reality is likely to catch up with the buttboyz.

When?

I dunno.

No one knows.

Next week, next month, next year, next decade.

But people who aren't concerned about that don't remember that big, handsome, nice guy -- who died.

I'm not using his name because, unlike Larry, he wasn't a public figure and he doesn't deserve it.

He was an aspiring writer who for a few months was rumored to be the subject of a novel, and a few years later was dead.

That was his life.

Short and not so merry.

In this country about 500,000 people -- most of them gay and bi men -- died the way he did.

Painfully, miserably, and way too young.

Another one million Americans are infected.

Worldwide more than 40 million people are infected.

And the ASOs are still talking condoms.

What a joke.

But let's pretend for a moment that there is no disease.

Doesn't matter.

Even without a new deadly disease, anal remains dangerous, dirty and degrading.

DIRTY.

Anal penetration is literally SHITTY.

You can't say that about most things in life.

Most people, if they say they had a "shitty" day, don't mean it literally.

But for the buttboyz, every day is a shitty day.

Literally.

What about degrading?

Is it degrading to get a dick up your butt?

Of course it is.

If someone asks you to prove that anal is degrading, tell him to go fuck himself.

Tell him to get fucked.

Listen to the language.

Robert calls it THE ULTIMATE DEFEAT.

Of course it is.

Men use anal penetration to brutalize other men.

To dominate, defeat, and destroy them.

What about for the fucker?

Is it degrading to degrade other men?

Yeah.

Is it degrading to get shit on your dick?

Yeah.

The very last time someone fucked me, my bowels were a little loose.

And when he pulled out -- fortunately he was wearing a condom -- there was a plentiful quantity of shit on his dick.

I apologized to him, and he said, oh, don't worry about it.

And I thought, there's something very wrong here.

Sex is not about shit.

And it shouldn't be okay for my shit to be on his dick or his shit to be on my dick or for shit to be in any way part of the equation.

FACT: Anal penetration is a dark force in the lives of men who have sex with men.

Greg:

I read a message thread where one man who "enjoyed" frot also did anal because of erectile problems.

That's difficult to believe -- there are many drugs available now for guys who have erectile dysfunction, they're aggressively marketed, and they're very well-known among gay men.

Sounds like he's lying.

Moreover, men like him constitute a great danger to true Frot men.

First of all, because he's doing anal, he's a reservoir of STI.

And he will, if he can, pass those on.

He'll get you to do oral, he'll stick a finger up your butt, he'll stick his tongue down your throat.

Do you want that?

And beyond that, he'll try to persuade you to do anal, to be promiscuous, to "get over" your dislike of effeminacy.

He'll serve as analist emissary and buttboy recruiter, working 24/7 to get you back into that culture.

Knowing full well how destructive that culture is.

As I said, anal penetration is a dark force in the lives of men who have sex with men.

Because anal penetration = pyschic castration.

And that's what these guys are after.

They want you to surrender not just your anus, but your manhood.

Jedi:

I remember when i was still a teenager...

and i was looking for gay identification figures or stories...

all i found was aids /disease stories

drag queens

promiscuitive/anal/bodybuilder pussies

well in general

broken spirit/life persons or stories

everything black/grey

no heroes...

no happy ends...

as if everything had to be or had to end bad.

well i knew ...it doesnt have to be this way...

well we all here know it i guess.

only good stories i found at that time the greek/roman historian films

------------------------------------------------

still i dont understand

why....

obviously weak analist bitch pussies

can grow so strong

is it really them? that achieve this all by themself????

or are other powers behind

establishing this degenerative anal culture

to weaken human civilisation in spirit and soul

in order to make humans

better dumb and controlable???

That's a good question.

Jedi says, "i was looking for gay identification figures or stories... all i found was aids /disease stories

drag queens

promiscuitive/anal/bodybuilder pussies"

Right.

Back in 2003, a number of gay celebrities, including Harvey Fierstein, wrote op-eds decrying the lack of "negative role models" -- that is, guys who were HIV negative, who could be role models for young gay men.

In response, I wrote an op-ed for the Washington (DC) Blade, titled Rethinking Gay Sex, in which I said there are plenty of HIV negative role models available -- just look among the community of men who do Frot.

The Blade, because it's read by people in government, is an influential paper; and the article was picked up by papers in Atlanta, SF, and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

What was the response from the AIDS establishment?

NOTHING.

Not a word.

Here's another example: I've written Tom Coates, widely regarded as the principal architect of AIDS prevention programs in the US, who way back in September 2001 similarly called for a new generation of leaders.

He refused to talk to me.

Until I involved Larry Kramer.

Then Coates said, "I agree -- alternatives are another way to go."

I asked him if we could meet to discuss ways of encouraging men to do non-anal alternatives.

SILENCE.

Since then, Dr. Green, who champions our work, has seen Coates.

Coates remains adamant that condoms and condoms alone are the answer -- even though infection rates keep rising.

So: The AIDS establishment knows there are alternatives to anal.

It just won't talk about them.

Why not?

What's the motive?

Here's what one researcher said to me:

This is what happens to every new official put in charge of AIDS money (PEPFAR, Global Fund, the UNAIDS Ambassador, head of WHO...). The formula is simple: take a guy with zero AIDS background, then feed condoms-only and analist propaganda into his tabula rasa mind, and Presto: a new defender of the old paradigm! Keep the industry going.

You can't really blame the indoctrinated officials. Everyone makes a buck and people keep dying. As more die, AIDS Inc. can ask for ever-greater amounts of money and can always say its not enough because ....Look, people are still dying! Isn't that proof that we deserve vastly more money?

Could it be that simple?

Yeah.

The sums of money involved are not small.

You look at the money the bureaucrats and field workers make;

you consider the investment by big pharma -- the big drug companies -- which can only pay off if there are lots of HIV poz people in this world to take their pills;

you add in the people whose academic careers have been built on gender feminism and pansexualism, which is a sort of sexual multiculturalism;

and of course there's the porn industry and the sex tourism industry and the gay glossies;

the condom and lube manufacturers;

and now even Hollywood's involved --

you add that all up, and what you've got is a huge vested interest --

which needs to maintain the anal status quo.

By contrast:

FROT IS FREE.

You don't need devices, you don't need condoms, you don't need lube, you don't need virologists or microbiologists or geneticists or pharmacologists, you don't need academics and their bizarre gender theories.

All you need, as I've said, is two hard dicks and a smile.

And HIV goes away, hep B and C go away, anal HPV, LGV -- all the anally-vectored diseases vanish.

You get rid of the promiscuity and effeminacy, and guess what?

The therapists -- guys like Walter Odets -- lose.

Because the suicide and substance abuse and depression and anxiety -- they go away too.

FROT IS FREE.

FROT IS FREEDOM.

And that's another aspect.

Jedi:

are other powers behind

establishing this degenerative anal culture

to weaken human civilisation in spirit and soul

in order to make humans

better dumb and controllable???

Yes.

Analism is a system of social control.

It takes homosex, which, because it doesn't result in pregnancy, should be the freest form of sex, and hems it in with a complex of rules and regulations.

It turns something very simple and joyous into something very complicated and dangerous.

Quite an accomplishment.

The Greeks viewed Warrior Homosex as inimical to tyrants.

They were right.

SAVE YOUR LIFE

Greg Milliken

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

1-6-2006

Headlines should read: Brokeback Mountain incites more homophobia among society at large.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brokeback

I was curious about a comment I read the other day, when a friend told me he was talking to some straight friends and mentioned "bareback mountain." The straight friends didn't notice his misnomer, except one girl corrected him, by saying, "They wear saddles."

I thought perhaps Brokeback originally referred to some form of saddle, so I checked it out.

Urban Dictionary is a form of wiki where users submit definitions, which are then voted either up or down by people reading the definitions.

Sometimes the definitions are voted to be deleted.

But the effects of the movie are twofold:

1. Our oppressors now have another term to use on the gay population in a derogative manner.

2. The currently popular and fallacious view that gay=anal has been reinforced.

And this is current societal evidence to support both claims, which were predicted by Bill before the movie was even released.

If you haven't donated already, I urge you to do so. There is no other way to win this battle.

Robert Loring

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

1-11-2006

Perhaps they'll name the sequel (and I'm sure there will be one) "Bareback Mountain" or better yet maybe they'll name it "BrokeDICK Mountain!"

I've been reading the review on this movie. It's already won some Golden Globe Awards and, of course, the reviews are all "warm and fuzzy." (God I HATE that term!!).

If a sequel does come out I suggest that it be 10 years later in which the two cowpokes are suffering from HIV/AIDS. And it can deal with how they deal with AIDS and focus on how it effects their family and friends. And then it can end with them dying of AIDS and show it all in living color with no hold backs.

Do the producers not see that even though people are paying this movie lip service in order to be "psychotically...I mean politically correct" yet behind their backs people are snickering? As the post above says this movie has only given society more ammunition and reinforced the gay stereotype.

Many of the reviews are saying that the majority of viewers are women! Interesting...........

Finally, being a cowboy myself I HIGHLY doubt that two cowpokes in the 60s would be butt banging each other. Cowboys are a breed unto themselves and if anything they are more likely to FROT than to shit fuck with each other. Ass fucking is STILL considered man-killing among today's Cowboys! It's STILL considered to be DISGUSTING and to rob a man of his MANHOOD and MASCULIITY! No honorable REAL cowboy would butt fuck his buddy!

I know and have known many cowboys who have frotted with each other BUT I have yet to meet even one real cowboy who will admit to butt banging with his buddy...on the side of the mountain...as they are suppose to be herding cattle...lol.

Sir Robert

Greg Milliken

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

1-12-2006

I wouldn't worry too much about a sequel.

In order for a sequel to a movie to be made it has to be profitable.

This movie is entirely hype, and it will take more than awards by "Movie industry elites" to make it profitable.

As of today, the gross earnings are $23,799,000

http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/57/2457/boxoffice/

A little-known movie by the name of Pitch Black back in 2000 earned a total of $39,235,088, about or perhaps a little more than what Brokeback will end up with.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2000/PITCH.html

To put this all in perspective, Star Wars Episode III earned $380,262,555. That is an order of magnitude higher sales than Brokeback will ever see.

http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/07/7/boxoffice/

And to boil it down further still, The Chronicles of Narnia, a movie released on the same date as Bigflop Mountain, has earned $249,216,000 to date.

http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/10/2410/boxoffice/

Yet what are we seeing from the media? Are we seeing "Gay movie big flop"? No. Of course not. But that's the reality. If you went to see brokeback, not only did you give your money directly to analists, you also saw a shitty movie that wasn't worth your time or money. A movie that is so all-encompassingly UNINTERESTING that the only reason it will win ANY award is because Hollywood wants to pat itself on the back and tell itself how much it's advancing "gay issues."

In other words, it's a bunch of elites who want to spoon feed America a bunch of crock that no one would ever bother to go see of their own free will.

But that's not what the headlines say. Instead they say how profitable the movie is per theater. Well gee, I could tell you that a movie where you have to TRAVEL OUT OF YOUR WAY TO ANOTHER THEATER TO SEE IT because the one you usually go to doesn't show it will artificially inflate revenues. They call it a limited release recordbreaker, yet the real story is the movie stinks so bad no theaters are going to waste the auditorium space to show it. Because they know they would LOSE MONEY ON IT because NO ONE WANTS TO SEE IT!

In other words, you give this movie a full release in every theater, and suddenly the inflated price that each PARTICULAR theater gains from it drops to an insubstantial share of the lousy 23 million dollars it has managed to scrounge up.

Don't get me wrong, 23 million dollars is a lot of money. If that money had gone to the alliance then we would be able to do so much to change things for the better.

Yet people can throw away 23 million dollars and that's a sign that the movie stinks. When it comes time for someone to ask them to donate money to a cause which will make their lives better, they refuse.

Doesn't make sense to me.

Greg Milliken

Bill Weintraub

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

1-13-2006

Thanks all.

Logan McClintock pointed me toward a buttboy site where the shitfairies admitted that the sex in Brokeback was a fantasy

problem is it's a dangerous fantasy

actually it's one woman's fantasy of sex between men

it's one thing for that fantasy to be in a short story, where, arguably, it functions as metaphor

but on the screen it becomes a hugely inflated gritty pseudo-reality

and in that sense a fraud perpetrated upon the public

Do the producers not see that even though people are paying this movie lip service in order to be "psychotically...I mean politically correct" yet behind their backs people are snickering? As the post above says this movie has only given society more ammunition and reinforced the gay stereotype.

yes it sure does

again, it's up to the men who visit this site to decide whether that stereotype will stand

the stereotype is false

and we all know it

but if you don't donate

no one else will know it

as i said to Greg, i don't know whether the movie will make money or not

but it's done its damage, and it will go on doing damage as successive generations of gay kids see the movie on DVD and make Jack and Ennis their buttfuck role models

as to the money, as Greg said

Don't get me wrong, 23 million dollars is a lot of money. If that money had gone to the Alliance then we would be able to do so much to change things for the better.

Yet people can throw away 23 million dollars and that's a sign that the movie stinks. When it comes time for someone to ask them to donate money to a cause which will make their lives better, they refuse.

Doesn't make sense to me.

that's right -- it makes no sense.

so far just two guys -- Bill S and Neil -- have sent in Boycott money

even so, we're desperately short this month because once again the boards need work and we don't have the money to pay the tech

it's truly insane

anytime the boards are at less than 100% i get email saying "what's the problem?"

the problem is you won't donate

that's the problem

if you would donate, not only would the sites work better, but you'd have a far greater pool of potential partners

it's win-win

what you're doing now is lose-lose

figure it out

Robert Loring

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

1-22-2006

I've been watching the lines at a local theater that has been showing Brokeback Mountain. The lines of people waiting to get in are astounding! They stretch for two city blocks! The shows are all sold out and the theater has had to expand it's hours of operations just to satisfy the people wanting to see this movie. I've never seen the lines at that theater as long as they are now.

I've also noticed that there are actually very few gay men in the lines. Strange since the movie is being passed off as a "gay cowboy" flick. Most of the people going to see this movie are obviously straight male/female couples. There's a good helping of lesbians also seeing the movie BUT very few gay males. It's interesting to also note that in these lines there are many men dressed in cowboy style. Apparently straight "cowboys" with their wives, girlfriends, whatever.

One thought I have about this movie and who is actually going to see it (primarily straight people) is that they are walking out of that theater raving about what a sad story it is. But the movie is also reinforcing their views against gay males. It is reinforcing the assumption that all gay males, cowboy or not, are butt bangers. It's reinforcing a stereotype and excluding those of us who don't fit that stereotype. I also think this movie is highly unrealistic.

I don't know any cowboys who will admit to butt fucking their buds! I do know some that will admit to having had frot experiences with their buds, however. The cowboy world is a world of masculinity. Fem cowboys just don't fly! They either get the shit beat out of them, are forced to leave town, or are ruthlessly taught how to be masculine. Sometimes they end up like Matthew Shepherd who was beaten and hung on a bob-wire fence and left to die in Wyoming a few years back. Femininity and butt banging are not acceptable in the cowboy world. To be a butt banger around cowboys is often DANGEROUS and even DEADLY!

This movie could have been better done if some reality would have been thrown into it. The reality of frot between the two cowboys would have been much more realistic than the butt banging. In the cowboy world a male who has been butt banged is STILL considered a DISHONORED male just as such a male was considered in historical times. Cowboys don't have much use for a dude that wants it in the ass BUT they might accommodate them by sending a spur up their ass.

Masculinity is still prided and actively encouraged among today's real Cowboys. Boys are taught from an early age that being a masculine cowboy IS what ALL real men are suppose to be. They are taught to be MASCULINE and PROUD. Those who grow up and decide to be something other than masculine cowboys SHAME their fathers, families, and communities! They are shunned to a certain degree and labeled as being "weirdos" or "nutts" or some "freak hippie type." They are not accepted but they are mocked and snickered at not only behind their backs but right to their faces. The cowboy world is a DIFFERENT world in America. It is STILL a world of manhood and MASCULINITY with NO compromises. It's a world in which you have two options. You either grow up and be a masculine man or you get the hell out of town and don't come back unless you know what's fucking good for you! Cowboys hate and do not tolerate "fags" and in cowboy language a "fag" is any butt fucker.

Brokeback Mountain is trying to present the image that butt banging among cowboys is ok and acceptable when, in fact, it is NOT even if you do it and keep it secret. Cowboys have pride and in the mind of the American Cowboy to get it up the butt is to rob you of your pride and manhood, forever! This movie could be so much better if the writers would have based it on reality. That reality is that frot is the norm for cowboys who want other cowboys but butt banging is NOT and NEVER is acceptable. This movie missed a golden opportunity to present the reality of the American cowboy and frot and instead it chose to perpetuate the myth of the American cowboy and analism. It is just one more tentacle of the BFD taking reality and making it into myth that if you like other guys then, of course, you must sodomize each other...on the side of a mountain...wearing your cowboy boots...ahhh....while watching the sheep..........righhhhhhhhhhttttttttttt.

Most cowboys today still practice and believe in their religious faith they were taught since the time they were small children. That faith is overwhelmingly Christian and fundamentalist.

The Baptists, Mormon, and Pentecostal churches are widespread faiths in the cowboy world. These churches teach that sodomy is a sin and that teachings is accepted without question by the American cowboy today. Frot is not considered sodomy nor an act of sodomy. Frot is never really talked about openly among cowboys who like cowboys but it happens and it happens a lot. Frot is ok as long as you and your partner keep it to yourselves and don't go blabbing it all over town. And, of course, don't ever get caught doing it either. But, butt banging will get you ran out of town on a rail real quick....if you're lucky. The unlucky ones get the shit beat out of them and then get ran out on a rail or end up in the local morgue.

My point is this: MASCULINITY is STILL highly PRIDED among the American Cowboys. It is still highly VALUED and TAUGHT. Boys are taught how to become masculine cowboy MEN and butt banging is NOT a part of that teaching. Males can share their feelings but only to a certain point. Spilling your guts out doesn't fly well among cowboys especially if you want to talk about how much you love another guy.

The masculinity in Brokeback Mountain is reportedly apparent but it is overshadowed by the sex, the butt banging, and that destroys the masculinity in the movie altogether. Had the two cowboys simply engaged in frot with each other that then would have been far more consistent with reality. I hear real cowboys walking out of the theater are laughing at and mocking the "fag movie." They consider the movie a slap in the face! I think the cowboys who are seeing this movie are under the impression that the sex in the movie is frot and when it is shown to be sodomy that...well....tends to become a horse of a different color for them. Among cowboys the movie is becoming known by such laughable names as "brokeDICK mountain," "bareback mountain," and even "fag mountain." Heath Ledger and his buddy in the movie are now being called "faggots" in cowboy world and neither actor has a flying snowball chance in hell of ever appealing to cowboys again. Both actors are being branded as "queers" and once cowboys brand you as that you are OUT!

This movie is yet another stab in the back for manhood and masculinity. It is just one more "devil" appearing in sheep's clothing. It is just one more avenue to further the BFD. It is one more attempt to take masculine men and feminize them via sodomy. It promotes HIV/AIDS which is the end result of sodomy BTW. It ignores the FACT that there are men, be they cowboys or not, who REJECT sodomy and who REFUSE to surrender their MALE PRIDE and MASCULINITY for ANY reason! It is, in short, just one more attack against EVERY MALE on this planet!

Sir Robert

Bill Weintraub

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

1-22-2006

Right Robert.

The point we're making here is that Brokeback is a fecalist fantasy.

And actually, since the buttboyz themselves have admitted that the sex in Brokeback is unrealistic, it's not so much a fecalist fantasy as it is Annie Proulx's fantasy.

But the idea that two straight cowboys in the mountains of 1962 Wyoming would have sex the way urban gay men did on the piers of 1992 New York City is beyond laughable.

It's nuts.

As I figure it, Jack and Ennis, the fictional cowboys, would have been my seniors by about four years.

I was born in 48, and they would have been born perhaps in 44.

I grew up in a city, Baltimore, and though my family was middle-class, we had connections to "The Block," which was the red-light district -- strip joints, prostitution, etc, flourished there.

So I didn't lead an entirely sheltered life.

Yet as a boy and teenager I never heard of anal sex.

I knew about vaginal sex of course, and I knew about oral.

I knew for example that the local prostitutes offered men the choice of oral, vaginal, or "around the world" -- oral and vaginal.

And of course I knew that I wanted to rub cocks, though I didn't know there were any other men who wanted to do that.

But I never heard of anal, and it never occurred to me that this was something which anyone might do.

Never entered my mind.

And why would it?

It was not something, as they say in the law, which was within the common knowledge of my community.

Nor is it in any way natural.

Yet in the short story, these two cowboys, who would have been even more naive than I was, and who've never experienced any form of same-sex sex, reject mutual masturbation and buttfuck.

Specifically, the two guys are sharing a sleeping bag.

Without prelude, Jack, whom we later see as the "gayer" of the two characters, directs Ennis' hand to his erect cock.

Ennis rejects the cock, and instead,

hauled Jack onto all fours and with the help of the clear slick and a little spit, entered him, nothing he'd done before but no instruction manual needed.

Earth to Ms. Proulx!

An instruction manual is needed.

And more than a little spit.

The sex is bizarre.

And I'm not alone in that opinion.

Yesterday, Gay Liberationist Arthur Evans, who co-founded Gay Activists' Alliance, the more effective of the two main Gay Lib organizations in NYC, circulated an email titled "Brokeback Mountain: A Dissenting View."

Arthur found the characters to be "cardboard thin" and thought "the sheep are more interesting":

On top of the thinness of character, I found the sex scene between Jack and Ennis to be totally unbelievable and even laughable. For one thing, there's no preparation for it. The two have almost zero verbal communication beforehand. Nor are there any signs of physical eroticism or suggestive eye contact.

Then suddenly, when the two are in the tent, Jack reaches for Ennis's arm and puts it around himself. The action is totally out of place, a deus ex machina.

The sex that followed did not ring true to me. After coming out in my twenties in New York City, and later living in San Francisco, I had plenty of sex with all sorts of men, of every race, background, and condition.

Never have I encountered men who were so mechanical and zombie-like in having sex. Jack and Ennis had sex the way a straight writer with no understanding of the gay experience might imagine two men to have sex. Spare me, please.

Yep.

If only we'd all been spared.

Listen to Arthur, one of the fathers of the modern gay movement, again: "The sex that followed did not ring true to me."

That's because it isn't.

"Totally unbelievable and even laughable."

Right.

Now, I have been getting email from straight-identified, married guys who say the movie has broken through their long-suppressed same-sex feelings.

All well and good.

But what happens to those guys when they hit the web -- as they inevitably do?

Here's what one married man wrote:

I really have just started this self-exploration and am looking for a place to reach out. I have found bimarried dot com. I agree with their core beliefs, but disheartened/disgusted by the "how to buttfuck" piece, and the poll question "Are you a top or bottom?" later on the page.

That's what I mean when I talk about a dominant culture of anal penetration.

Newcomers to "gay life," even guys visiting a site calling itself "bimarried," are IMMEDIATELY acculturated into the fundamentals of analism.

They don't stand a chance.

They see Brokeback, they hit the web, and they're told to choose: top or bottom.

It's unreal.

Except that it is real.

This man, like so many others, "stumbled" across our site -- GUYS, I AM SICK OF HEARING THAT WORD -- I'VE HEARD IT FOR FIVE MISERABLE YEARS.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DONATE SO THESE GUYS KNOW THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE?

WHEN YOU'RE ALL DEAD?

Sorry.

Sometimes I get a little impatient.

I know -- it's only been five years and a hundred thousand men infected with HIV and HPV.

What's that after all?

Okay -- he *stumbled* on our site, and at least his anti-anal feelings were validated:

I did tell my wife I did not think the sex scene rang true. These guys would have been deepest friends, bared their souls. They ended up in a physical relationship because they were drunk and horny young men who talked about sex and whacked off together and/or got turned on when they wrestled together. I really didn't explain to my wife why am so sure of this.

He was sure of it, of course, because he had an experience like that as a young man.

Which he's hidden for at least thirty long, lonely, wasted, years.

What do you say guys -- does he deserve another thirty years of heartbreak?

Robert:

This movie is yet another stab in the back for manhood and masculinity. It is just one more "devil" appearing in sheep's clothing. It is just one more avenue to further the BFD. It is one more attempt to take masculine men and feminize them via sodomy. It promotes HIV/AIDS which is the end result of sodomy BTW. It ignores the FACT that there are men, be they cowboys or not, who REJECT sodomy and who REFUSE to surrender their MALE PRIDE and MASCULINITY for ANY reason! It is, in short, just one more attack against EVERY MALE on this planet!

That's correct.

The movie furthers the analist agenda, and as such, is an attack on men.

Because that's what analism is.

I heard from our minefields of the mind guy today pissing and moaning about this message thread and my Depraved Bitches post.

But "bitch" is what GAY MEN CALL EACH OTHER.

Don't they?

It's not my word.

It's a buttboy word.

And depraved is what they are when they make a deadly "sex" act more important than human life.

This is a culture which puts SEX ahead of LIFE.

That's depraved.

This is a culture which seeks to teach MARRIED MEN to do anal -- and thus put their wives and unborn babes at risk.

THAT'S DEPRAVED.

So mr minefields can get the fuck over it.

It's his depraved, bitchy, buttfuck friends who are pulling this shit.

Not us.

And not me.

I've never infected anyone with HIV.

I've never killed anyone.

Larry Kramer has.

He's spoken of it.

Anal makes murderers of gay men.

I wonder when mr minefields will face that fact -- and say so to his buttboy budz.

Robert says that Brokeback is "an attack on every male on this planet."

But it's not just the males who suffer.

HIV infection rates -- and you can be sure HPV -- are rising fastest among WOMEN.

Recently I got one of those "your work degrades women" rants.

Our work has nothing to do with women -- except that many of our guys are bi and love women.

And if they stick with Frot and one partner as we tell them to, they run virtually no risk of acquiring a pathogen which they could communicate to the women in their lives.

You know what truly degrades a woman?

Getting HIV from the boyfriend / husband she didn't know was bi.

And of course we don't demean women by encouraging men to don drag and otherwise parody femininity.

But the gay establishment's work DEGRADES and DEMEANS MEN.

Scorecard:

The Alliance's work protects women and exalts men.

The gay establishment's work DEGRADES AND ENDANGERS both women and men.

BOTH WOMEN AND MEN.

It's time to cut the shit.

Brokeback is an agent of analism.

And analism is the enemy of humanity.

Robert Loring

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

1-24-2006

I grew up in the American Southwest in a small town where being a cowboy was the norm. In fact, when I was a kid I thought everyone in the world was a cowboy and was surprised to learn that this was not so as I grew up. I thought everyone wore cowboy boots, levi's, and cowboy shirts. I did not know, as a kid, that people dressed any different! When I saw the first person in my life that did not dress "normal", like a cowboy, I thought the person was weird and strange and, frankly, I didn't like the person.

Growing up in this cowboy environment there were many experiences of frot but not even one experience of anal. Analism was considered unnatural and wrong, even sinful. Us cowboy kids knew at an early age that the butt was for elimination only and not for sex. The idea of butt banging was repulsive to us. There was one kid who said he liked things up his butt and, of course, we mocked and teased him as did all the other kids. Taking things up the butt was considered wrong but frot was considered ok even though we didn't know the word or it's meaning back then. It was ok for guys to rub dicks with each other but it was not ok to butt bang.

Frot was something that came naturally. Analism was not and, in fact, was repulsive and the object of much laughter and jokes. When I grew up and decided to leave the rural Southwest for the big city is when I was first really introduced to analism. I found that in the big city analism was ok, acceptable, and expected. But, this went against everything in me. I didn't want to screw shit! So, when I moved to the big city I quickly discovered that I did NOT fit in with the gay men in the big city. So I stayed by myself and became somewhat a loner mixing with straight people and pretending to be one of them which was much more acceptable than getting butt banged.

I remember being told by several gay men in the city that they did not think I was gay because I refused to butt bang. That was fine with me because I did NOT want to be one of them and I certainly did not want anything going up my ass. I was repulsed by their femininity and wondered why they could not just act like men. Honestly, I was embarrassed to be seen with or around them. So, for me, I was immediately 86'ed out of the big city gay scene. That did not bother me because I knew there were other frot dudes out there and it was just a matter of finding them. But, I also knew I would not find them in gay bars or groups because the whole focus of those people was on butt banging, top and bottom.

It was quite a rude awakening for me, a naive rural cowboy, to discover that to be a part of gay male culture one had to engage in anal sex. I suppose I could have surrendered my values, morals, and masculinity and given into the analists but I didn't. I maintained my belief that frot was ok and analism was wrong. Those many years in the big city were often lonely for me but I had decided no matter how lonely they were I was NOT going to give into the analists.

In the big city I went to college and got all the right credentials that the world demands and tried to fit in with big city society in general. I did not really make an effort to fit in with the gay culture and, frankly, I didn't want anything to do with it. After college I worked in the city for several years and felt like I was wasting my time. I didn't like the "professional life." I felt trapped and enslaved. I felt like I had to surrender myself and everything I believed. I felt as though many people looked as me as just being a "dumb cowboy." But, I wasn't dumb. I had earned two doctorate degrees!

One day I decided enough was enough so I quite my "career." I changed my life into something simpler and got a job instead of a career. I returned to wearing my cowboy garb instead of trying to wear the city slicker garb lol. I became happier and felt free once again. I began to spend more and more time with cowboys outside of the city and found a breath of fresh air. I gave up completely on the gay culture in the city and came to the conclusion that what I was looking for would never be found in city gay culture. So I just began to live my life being me and stopped trying to pretend I was anything but me. If people wanted to think of me as just a "dumb cowboy" then so be it because, honestly, I was proud to be a "dumb cowboy."

To make a long life story short, I found my frot bud in time. I'll spend the rest of my life with him. I didn't find him in the gay culture or gay bars. I didn't find him in the culture of the analist. I found him in mainstream straight society trying to be, just like me, himself and rejecting anal sex. All I can say is that I'm glad I did not surrender my values and morals and give into the dictates of the BFD. I'm glad I resisted the BFD! I'm glad I had sense enough to protect and maintain my own masculinity. I'm glad I continued to be a frot cowboy even in the big city!! And I'm really glad I gave up on a career and just went out and got a JOB. So today instead of being a counselor and theologian with my two doctorate degrees, I simply drive a truck and I LOVE it! Does this sound crazy to you all? Well, now...remember...I'm just a "dumb cowboy" lol.

POWER TO THE FROT BROS!!

And BTW, lol, I've NEVER sat on the side of a mountain watching sheep but I have sat on the side of a mountain watching cattle lol. We weren't sheep herders. We were ranchers raising that beef that you eat off of your plate every night while wondering where the hell it comes from.

Sir Robert

Bill Weintraub

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

1-24-2006

Thank you Robert.

Though the details of course vary, Robert's life history is one which he shares with most Frot men.

Basically, we all grow up with an intense interest in Frot and none in anal.

Then, if we're gay, we come out, and find that we're expected to participate in this utterly alien and very dangerous act -- anal penetration.

What's remarkable about that is that the gay community is supposed to be founded upon the principle of sexual freedom.

That's supposed to be the core belief, the principle of principles: that no one should be forced to participate in a sexual act which is alien to them.

Such as vaginal.

Yet, as early as 1975, just five years after the founding of Gay Lib, a movement stalwart told me, in an intimate moment, that I wasn't really gay if I didn't get fucked.

Fortunately for me, that pissed me off, because I could see it for the betrayal of Gay Liberation which it clearly is.

Gay Lib was not about getting fucked; or being promiscuous; or being effeminate.

It was and is about the freedom to be yourself.

FREEDOM -- that means free of societal constraints.

Including gay male constraints.

But by the mid-1970s, that ideal of freedom was being abandoned for a cultural model which imposed what are essentially hetero norms on homo men.

And those norms killed my lover Brett.

How can I say that?

How can I be so sure?

First of all I lived with him for 13 years, and had sex with him daily.

Aside from a couple instances of experimentation with anal -- which in my view was foreign to us, was culturally mandated, and would not have happened outside that analist culture -- all we did was Frot.

That's all we did.

And we loved it.

We did it constantly, and very passionately.

In addition I have Brett's journals.

I know what his childhood fantasies were.

They were Frot fantasies, and, like mine, Warrior fantasies: living in the woods with his best friend "like Indians," naked except for loincloths and sharing the same tent.

Warrior fantasies.

Frot fantasies.

No anal.

And I know the first person Brett had sex with -- a college buddy named Ray.

After Brett's death, I did a long phone interview with Ray as part of the book I've been writing on Brett and my lives together.

The first time and subsequent times Brett and Ray were together, they rubbed cocks.

So what happened?

After college, Brett moved to Richmond, got a job on a "lifestyle" magazine, and was acculturated into gay male culture.

Unfortunately for Brett, who was nine years my junior, he entered that culture in 1979 -- that is, in the midst of the great anal "sex" frenzy, and while HIV / AIDS was yet undiscovered.

And he became, as was dictated by the culture at that time and still today, somewhat promiscuous and he did anal.

Were promiscuity and anal part of his boyhood fantasies?

NO.

Those behaviors are not there.

This is not complicated.

If certain behaviors are not part of the person before he comes out, and he comes out and starts engaging in those behaviors, then you know that the behaviors are CULTURALLY mandated.

They're LEARNED.

They're not natural.

They're not intrinsic.

They're not inherent.

And that's what this thread is about:

How Brokeback Mountain is serving to acculturate men into analism.

That's wrong.

Why didn't that happen to me?

In part because I came out into a very different culture.

I came out in 72.

No one pressured me to do anal until 75.

By which time I'd had enough experience to say -- NO.

Even so, by the end of the 70s the pressure to do anal was so intense that even I let myself get fucked a couple times.

I was lucky -- I didn't get infected.

Brett was unlucky.

He got infected and died.

Nevertheless, because HIV's infectivity is low, the less anal you did, the better off you were.

So: anything in my history which helped me avoid anal, also helped me survive.

And that's another element I believe in what happened to Brett:

the role of the extreme religious right.

Not too long before Brett came out, his parents, who'd been run-of-the-mill Lutherans, joined a small, cult-like, religous right church in their community.

And when Brett came out to them, they shunned him.

That's very damaging, and in my view, pushed him even farther into the arms of the secularists.

My family, by contrast, was very accepting of me.

So I was less dependent upon gay male culture.

It was often said, in that regard, in the late 70s and early 80s, that a gay man's family were his gay male friends.

You see the problem.

If your family has rejected you, and all you have are your gay male friends -- who in my experience are really fair-weather friends -- the subcultural norms become much more powerful in your life.

Over the last 30 years, the religious right has, in the name of Christ, consistently pushed gay and bi men into the secular pansexualist camp -- analism -- which in theory is amoral but in practice is immoral.

Because it puts SEX ahead of LIFE.

Which is why I've said that analism is the enemy of humanity.

But the religious right is not exactly occupying the moral high ground either.

The religious right has somehow managed, despite Christ's very clear stricture, to confuse the Faith with the platform of the Republican party.

I say "somehow," but the reasons they've done so are plain: to gain money and power in this life.

When what they're supposed to be concerned with is the next life.

Which does, after all, in the scheme of things, occupy a great deal more time.

Robert, in any case, has found happiness in the here and now in being true to himself:

One day I decided enough was enough so I quite my "career." I changed my life into something simpler and got a job instead of a career. I returned to wearing my cowboy garb instead of trying to wear the city slicker garb lol. I became happier and felt free once again. I began to spend more and more time with cowboys outside of the city and found a breath of fresh air. I gave up completely on the gay culture in the city and came to the conclusion that what I was looking for would never be found in city gay culture. So I just began to live my life being me and stopped trying to pretend I was anything but me. If people wanted to think of me as just a "dumb cowboy" then so be it because, honestly, I was proud to be a "dumb cowboy."

To make a long life story short, I found my frot bud in time. I'll spend the rest of my life with him. I didn't find him in the gay culture or gay bars. I didn't find him in the culture of the analist. I found him in mainstream straight society trying to be, just like me, himself and rejecting anal sex. All I can say is that I'm glad I did not surrender my values and morals and give into the dictates of the BFD. I'm glad I resisted the BFD! I'm glad I had sense enough to protect and maintain my own masculinity. I'm glad I continued to be a frot cowboy even in the big city!! And I'm really glad I gave up on a career and just went out and got a JOB. So today instead of being a counselor and theologian with my two doctorate degrees, I simply drive a truck and I LOVE it! Does this sound crazy to you all? Well, now...remember...I'm just a "dumb cowboy" lol.

POWER TO THE FROT BROS!!

Power indeed.

Thanks Robert.

Stay true to yourselves guys.

Stay true to yourselves.

Robert Loring

Re: BOYCOTT Brokeback Mountain

1-25-2006

You're right about the religious right not exactly occupying the moral high ground Bill. It is in bed with the Republican Party. It has become worldly just as most Churches and groups today have. They seem to have totally forgotten Christ's teaching that we are IN the world but not OF the world. Money and power have infected Christianity. Very few religious leaders today focus on the life hereafter and instead focus on the worldly life, riches, and possessions. This is because they have lost The Way.

The religious right's ongoing assault against gay and bi men has been unrelenting and even cruel. I'm sure it is NOT what Christ would do! A little study of the original Hebrew and Greek would reveal to them that words used in the Bible regarding homosexuality do NOT mean what they have been told they mean. Further, they need to look closely at the story of Jesus healing the "friend" of the Roman Centurion. The Greek word used for "friend" actually means "male lover"! Jesus healed the MALE LOVER of the Roman Centurion! Now this presented the perfect opportunity for Jesus to go on a rant against gay and bi men BUT he didn't. Instead he simply healed the male lover.

Sir Robert