Bill Weintraub

Re: A Man knows what feels good to a Man

5-30-10

Thank you Charles.

Guys, what we can see here is that Charles, a marine, is attracted to the masculine guy in the couple and repulsed by the effeminate guy.

Which is natural and normal.

And he has some very typical male reactions to cock2cock sex with another Man.

He says that

men knew what felt good to a man far more than the females did

And, similarly, that when he was making out with the masculine guy

What I remember most was feeling how familiar another man's cock felt in my hand, and how I knew exactly what to do with it, as opposed to a vagina, which you first have to figure out what to do with it.

Now, guys, that doesn't mean that it's bad to have vaginal sex -- it's not -- and most guys figure out what to do with a vagina pretty quickly.

Which I'm sure Charles knows, since he's married.

But -- it's very common for Men to say to me, A guy knows what turns another guy on -- instinctively.

And that's true.

Cock2Cock doesn't have to be taught or learned -- it's instinctive among Men.

Charles then says he did some oral, and he says, "I'm not sure how the m2m [alliance] feels about that."

The answer is on our FAQS page.

Some of our guys do oral, some don't.

For me, oral is associated with the "gay" subculture into which I was forcibly acculturated after I "came out."

It had nothing to do with my own ideas about man2man sex -- rather it was something which, like anal, was imposed upon me.

I did do oral with my first lover Brett, but as I say in Hyacinthine Love, it was always a decidely secondary pleasure.

Nowadays, I wouldn't care if I never did oral again.

What interests me is PHALLUS Against PHALLUS aka FROT.

Because first off it's directly and mutually genital, the way ALL sex should be.

And secondly because it's pure MAN.

MAN AGAINST MAN.

PHALLUS AGAINST PHALLUS.

MANHOOD AGAINST MANHOOD.

And that's what I want -- Man Against Man, Warrior Against Warrior, Phallus Against Phallus -- Manhood against Manhood.

Manhood -- it's about Manhood.

And, most importantly, Manhood Against Manhood.

To me, and as I also said in Hyacinthine Love, which was my first published article, way back in 1999, Sex between Men should be Combative.

Here's what I actually said:

To me [as a boy and an adolescent,] it seemed inevitable that two men wrestling would end up in a front-to-front, full-body embrace, grappling strenuously while furiously rubbing their hard cocks one against the other, the way I now rubbed mine against an old bathrobe bundled up beneath me to give the illusion of a partner; and, I thought, the force and heat of those two warrior cocks rubbing together would become so great that, in the fierce instant before they both came, they would seem to merge into one. Like every child of that era, I was bombarded by images of combat: of cowboys against Indians, yes, but more important to me of Allies against Wehrmacht, partisans against Germans, Russians against the West. Wouldn't sex and strife combine, I wondered, to produce heroes who were lovers, and lovers who were heroes?...

From these elements, over time, I developed a rich fantasy life, in which wrestling or fighting with another boy would lead to our stripping down and making love, a hard, combative love in which our cocks would strive to prove who was master, a contest both athletic and erotic that would last up until that all-consuming ecstatic moment when our differences were subsumed in an ocean of thick, white cum and we emerged, exalted and transformed, into a magical, mythical, radiant land, where, eternal comrades, we would live and love forever.

That's what I actually said, and I decided to put it directly into this post because -- though this is not directed at Charles -- I sometimes feel, and not without reason, that people don't bother to actually read what I've actually written.

So -- from the git-go, that is from childhood on, my conception of sex between Men has been Combative and Aggressive.

It's affiliative too, I should point out -- heroes become lovers, lovers become heroes -- and eternal comrades who live and LOVE forever.

Nonetheless, the sex is Combative and Aggressive.

Because that's what Men are -- they're Combative, they're Aggressive.

And you're making Love with a Man -- right?

If you're making Love with a Man -- you want the Man to be a Man.

Aggressive and Combative.

And it has to be *mutually* Aggressive, and *mutually* Combative, for it to be mutually MAN.

Because when you deprive the Man of his aggression, his Fighting Spirit, as we've much discussed, you deprive him of his Manhood.

And who wants to be with a male -- who's lacking in Manhood?

Oral's a problem because it too often falls into one guy "servicing" another guy, which is just dom-sub, butch-bitch.

Why would I or any other Man do that?

If it's mutually oral, so-called 69, as it was in Charles' case, that's okay to a point, because at least it's mutually genital -- but then and still the combative element is lost.

Which for me -- is not only boring, but completely misses the point about what MAN2MAN is actually about:

It's MAN2MAN, COCK2COCK, BALLS2BALLS.

MAN against MAN, COCK against COCK, BALLS against BALLS.

Indeed, in a forthcoming post Warrior NW says

Fighting IS about balls against balls.

Balls make you Fight. Fight makes the Man.

So, as Warrior NW keeps telling you, your BALLS are the source of both your sexuality AND your AGGRESSION.

And that's what makes you a Man.

And let me talk for a few moments about Balls against Balls in my own life.

As you could see from the excerpt from Hyacinthine Love, and as I've been emphasizing throughout this post, my concept of sex between Men was always Combative and Aggressive.

One of my adolescent fantasies, which began when I was thirteen, was of me Fighting another boy -- a noble and heroic boy -- wearing only jockstraps, jockstraps that had been cut so that our Balls were hanging out of them.

So our cocks were in our jocks, while our Balls were hanging free.

Which meant that our Balls were crashing and smashing together as we Fought.

Then I would hump the other guy, that other warrior, that other hero, our cocks still in our jocks, so that the sex was pure Balls on Balls.

That was a very powerful fantasy for me.

Important question:

Where did this fantasy come from?

The internet? "Gay" porn?

No.

It was that year of grace 1961, and not only was there no internet, but there was no "gay" porn to speak of.

There were a few black-and-white mags with titles like "Physique Pictorial," which featured guys in posing straps and occasionally nude.

But as a thirteen-year-old I had no idea such things existed, let alone have any access to them.

So it wasn't the internet and it wasn't porn.

Now -- NW often mentions that the testicles are the source of testosterone, which is what makes us Men Fight.

Did I know that way back in 1961?

NO WAY!

Because not only was there no internet and no porn, but there was no "sex education."

As I say in Hyacinthine Love, it was like being raised by wolves.

My parents never talked to me about sex.

The guys, literally in the back alley, explained a little bit -- but not much -- and certainly nothing about testosterone and the testicles.

So -- these BALLS against BALLS Fight fantasies were coming from somewhere deep within *me*.

Now -- many years ago, the Swiss psychoanalyst C G Jung posited that human beings possess a "collective unconscious" -- which is not mystical, but biologically based -- we're born with it, in other words --

and that this unconscious is the source of such ideas as the Warrior Archetype.

Nowadays, it's fashionable to pooh-pooh Jung, and say that the similarities between cultures are due to "cultural diffusion" -- that is, the slow spread of ideas via trade and other contact.

Which may be.

But my BALLS against BALLS fantasies had nothing to do with cultural diffusion.

They were arising pure and pristine from within myself.

My Masculine self.

About 40 years later, I started corresponding with NW via this site, and I could see that a lot of his thinking centered on BALLS against BALLS.

Nor can NW's ideas be attributed to cultural diffusion -- again, his ideas are self-generated.

They come from within.

Certainly his training first as a Wrestler and then in Mixed Martial Arts itself has influenced his thinking.

But, if you read posts like Aggression and the beauty of guys, you can see that those ideas were with him, as they were with me, from the beginning:

Aggression and the beauty of guys who asserted that aggression was what first attracted me to wrestling and fighting.

Aggression and the beauty of guys who assert that aggression -- which is a function of their Balls.

And that's important.

Because if these ideas and archetypes about Balls and Fighting and Sex come from deep within MEN -- they're neither ideas nor archetypes which Men can simply abandon -- without suffering deep and lasting damage.

As NW says:

Fighting IS about balls against balls.

Balls make you Fight. Fight makes the Man.

So, as NW keeps telling you, your BALLS are the source of both your sexuality AND your AGGRESSION.

And that's what makes you a Man:

A Victorious Boxer stands next to a Herm, a symbol of Male Sexuality

For those who are new to the site, Herms were frankly phallic statues -- this is a Herm --

which were found in every Palaistra / Fight School in the ancient world.

Manly Aggression, Manly Sexuality.

The ancients understood the relationship between the two.

And that relationship is profound.

Now, getting back to the question, which Charles raised, of oral sex and its relationship to Man2Man, that is, sex between Men --

What that all means -- and I don't think there's any way around this -- is that the lack of an aggressive and combative element in oral -- is a big problem.

In addition, there are significant health risks with oral which people tend to forget about because oral isn't usually mentioned as a significant vector for HIV.

Nevertheless, somewhere between one and ten percent of HIV infections among men who have sex with men are attributed to oral, and virtually every other STD which can be passed anally is also transmitted orally.

To understand more about that, guys should look at Oral Sex, HPV, and Oral Cancer on this Man2Man Alliance site.

Let's get back to Charles and his encounter:

Latter on I came to think that the whole thing had been set up by the bottom to fulfill his fantasy of seeing his normally "top" boyfriend become a bottom for once.

Yeah, and to try to inject a little life into a typical buttboy relationship which had -- surprise surprise -- grown stale and dull and sexually unfulfilling.

Charles continues:

I never saw them again, mostly because I didn't want to be around the bottom,

And that of course speaks well of Charles -- who wants to be around a bottom?

Men seek and need the Masculinity of other Men.

I'll be putting up a post soon from Warrior NW, where he says just that.

And he and others have said that in many posts on the site.

Men seek the company of other Masculine Men because it reinforces and heightens their own Masculinity.

For Men, to be around other Men -- is a high.

Charles also says,

and partly because I felt scared that I would be found out and beat to death by fellow Marines.

And of course Charles is writing of the 1990s, when such a fear was, unfortunately, realistic.

Now, WHY was it realistic?

Because of heterosexualization.

And anyone, any newcomers to the Alliance, who don't understand that word, need to stop reading this post, and to read, right away, Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not A Condition.

Again, stop reading this, and read Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not A Condition -- if you haven't read it already.

So: what we can see is that as society heterosexualizes, groups like the Marines become "homophobic" -- which they had emphatically NOT been prior to heterosexualization.

As Prof John Ibson, chair of American Studies at Cal State Fullerton, points out in his book Picturing Men: A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography.

This is what I said regarding that in Escaping the trap of heterosexualization:

[I]n the 19th century, it was common for Men to form passionate relationships, usually starting early in life, with other Men.

For example, in his book, Picturing Men: A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography, which we discussed in Warriorhood and Male Intimacy, John Ibson talks about Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahon, well-known as the "father of the modern American navy" and as the author of a tremendously important book, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, which in turn had a huge influence on President Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy.

Think Panama Canal guys.

What is less well known, says Ibson, is

the extensive and highly romantic correspondence that Admiral Mahon carried on with a fellow officer, Samuel Ashe, letters documenting a relationship of forty years that had begun when both were Annapolis midshipmen before the Civil War.

In one letter, Mahon provocatively wrote: "I lay in bed last night, dear Sam, thinking of the gradual rise and growth of our friendship. My first visit ever to your room is vividly before me, and how as I went up there night after night I could feel my attachment to you growing and see your own love for me showing itself more and more every night."

"When you come to a question of sex," wrote the father of the navy on another occasion, "on the whole commend me to men."

No kidding.

And Ibson says

Before homosexuality was culturally conceived as a condition rather than simply an activity, there was perhaps less anxiety in the military, as in society at large, about the precise line between acceptable and forbidden degrees of closeness between men. Photographs of American military men from the Civil War through World War I document, as they must also have nurtured, an environment of even more intimacy than one sees in civilian photos of the same era.

So, guys, and Charles, you owe it to yourselves to look at both Escaping the trap of heterosexualization and Warriorhood and Male Intimacy -- and most especially, Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not A Condition.

Finally, Charles says,

Hopefully though I can find another like minded male to have a long term frot relationship with through this site.

And to that end, Charles is posted in Frot Club, and I certainly hope he'll meet a great guy.

Charles lives in Virginia, and here's part of what he says in his post:

I am looking for a discrete, long term frot relationship. NOT into anal. I am 27, happily married. 5'8, 145lbs, athletic, brown skin (puerto rico) and uncut. I am attracted to very muscular men, but not limited in that way.

So Charles is a young, married, athletic guy.

Is he 27?

No, he couldn't be.

If he were 27 now, and the incident with the buttboys took place in the mid-1990s, he would have been 12 when he was in the Marines.

And the Marines don't accept 12 year olds.

I queried Charles about this, and he replied that he was born in '76, but that

basically, I look 25 and feel like I am 27, so I always go with how I feel as opposed to biological age.

And, Charles added

sorry for the confusion. No harm intended.

And I'm sure that's the case.

However, while I sincerely appreciate Charles telling me that, and while I'm sure he's not the only person in Frot Club to shave a few years from his age, nevertheless and clearly:

1. Honesty is always the best policy, and the better way to go is to say I'm in my early 30s but look 25 and feel like I'm 27;

Because:

2. Guys think with their dicks but they also will, on occasion, think with their brains.

So -- They'll see that 27 and say, "Twenty-seven! That's hot!"

And then they'll do the same math I did.

Now, I do have to say, in defense of Charles, that when I met my late lover Brett, he was 25 and I was 34, and Brett later told me, after our relationship was established, that my age had given him doubts.

So certainly age can be a problem.

Nevertheless, if you begin the relationship with a falsehood -- it can poison everything that follows.

Better just to say, I'm 34 but look and feel a lot younger.

And I know, guys, that Charles may be angry at me for commenting on the question of his age.

And I like Charles, and have no desire to offend him.

But Charles,-- by saying one thing in Frot Club and another in Personal Stories, you put me between a rock and a hard place.

Leaving me no choice but to say what I did -- which I hope I did gently.

The question of age aside, Charles says he's "attracted to very muscular men" -- and that's what interests me, because what that means is that like all Men, Charles is attracted to Masculinity.

In our culture, a certain sort of gym-developed muscularity has become a marker for "masculinity," but anyone who's spent time in analist culture knows that a muscular body very often simply conceals a screaming queen lurking beneath the skin.

So Charles really needs to look outside of that culture, which in part he's done by saying "NOT into anal" -- but Charles will need to be certain, in vetting the guys who answer his ad, that they're NOT into anal -- either.

So -- the plain and unhappy fact is that this is not a good time to be a MAN who's into other MEN.

It might be a fine time, from a certain perverse and perverted point of view, to be a femmy with a rectal fetish -- but not to be a Man.

If Charles, and Men like him, will support The Man2Man Alliance, their lives will become easier.

If they won't and they don't, the dominant cultures of analism and heterosexism will prevail, and guys like Charles -- and you -- will lose.

I titled this post "A Man knows what feels good to a Man."

Which Men do.

If Men would hold on and stay true to that simple Truth, and shout down the bald-faced lies of those who are opposed to any and all expression of Natural Masculinity, MEN would win.

Which means -- assuming you're a Man -- that your fate lies, as it always has, in your own hands.

I thank Charles for his letter.

I thank him too for his service with the USMC, which is a great thing to have done.

And, again, I hope he meets a great guy, regardless of age.

Bill Weintraub

May 30, 2010

© All material Copyright 2010 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.