"cuntboy" describes himself as "masculine."

Can a bottom be masculine?

NO.

A masculine bottom is like safe promiscuity -- it's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

The pictures which accompanied this profile were of an ass -- presumably his ass; and of a woman being penetrated vaginally photographed in such a way her asshole was visible and prominent.

Difficult not to assume that he sexually identifies with women / pseudo-women.

And / or, I guess, their assholes.

Particularly because he refers to his "cunthole" and he says he's eager to take "a dude's DNA deep into my fuck slot."

That's a femmy fantasy -- usually expressed in the phrase "I want to have your baby."

Reality: Guys don't have cuntholes or fuck slots.

They have anuses.

And anuses aren't vaginas.

Nor do men have uteruses -- wombs.

Men cannot conceive, they cannot give birth.

Moreover, by talking about DNA, cuntboy is trying to divert attention from another form of genetic material -- RNA, the RNA of the AIDS virus.

That's what will be deposited, along with DNA which is at best useless and some immune suppressive components of semen, into his anus and rectum, and thence directly into his bloodstream.

So cuntboy is confused and in denial.

He's also racist, though he assures us that that's "just a preference."

Well, you know, a lot of people in the old South *preferred* not to have Black people going to their schools and using their toilets and sitting at their lunchcounters.

It was "just a preference."

A mere bagatelle.

He likes poppers -- they make him a "total willing cuntboy."

Poppers are used to push past the pain of anal, which is why they're popular among bottoms;

and many studies have found, not surprisingly, that poppers are associated with heightened risk of HIV infection.

Though of course he's probably already poz.

But you know, by barebacking -- did I mention that his headline reads "Masculine Bareback Cuntboy For Aggressive Tops"? -- he's sure to pick up just as many mutant and variant strains as he can find.

Now, "cuntboy" lives in SF -- along with many other cuntboys.

And yesterday, as I said, on the very same dating site where his profile appears, another denizen of SF -- this one's "versatile" -- attacked this Alliance website as "fascist propaganda."

So let's see if I can get this right.

Because we advocate a form of MSM sex which is hot, masculine, and safe, we're fascists.

While creatures like "cuntboy" are life-loving free spirits.

I don't think so.

What do you think the real issue here is?

I think it's Masculinity.

We talk about Man Space, Man Sex, Man Fight, Man Love.

They talk about cuntboys and bottombitches and sluts and whores.

That's the issue.

The issue isn't Frot per se because Frot's hot and Frot's safe.

And that's the end of the discussion.

And they know it.

And the issue isn't Fidelity -- because they don't want to bring that up.

It's too embarassing.

So the issue isn't Frot and it's not Fidelity.

It's Masculinity.

We're called fascists because we exalt Masculinity.

We exalt Masculinity in ourselves, and in all Men who Love Men.

We exalt Masculinity as a Divine Principle, and as a Divine Gift.

We exalt Masculinity in our sexuality, and in our sexual act, and we identify Masculinity, properly, with Phallus and with Phallic Bonding.

And in exalting Masculinity we exalt Life.

Cuntboy and his analist friends deny life.

They degrade it.

They seek out a deadly virus, and revel in their infection.

That reveling in death and the acts and agents of death, while seeking to silence the agents of life, is the essence of fascism.

I've said that anal penetration is a social evil.

And that analism is the enemy of humanity.

And it is.

In his post Pride. Not., Eric said:

I really tried to find a flaw in Bill's heroic homosex arguments. At first glance, his agenda appears to be intolerant and discriminatory against men who (seemingly) of their own free will choose anal sex as part of their private sex lives; and men who choose to express themselves in an effeminate manner. Who can rightfully say that they are harming others by these behaviors? How can I as a proponent of individual rights criticize what other people do in privacy?

I've also been reading the criticisms of his arguments.

But I have not myself been able to find any flaws in his logic -- and his critics are, to me, unconvincing. I have become convinced that what these men are doing in private *are* harming others by propagating the tyranny of an anal sex culture. These people are doing more damage to humanity than the fanatical neoconservative nutjobs that wage immoral wars. The death toll is higher. Where is the individual right to choose when one is subjected to intense pressure to conform to the analist's agenda, something I have personally frequently experienced? How can the impressionable youth find alternative role models when the analist's agenda is flaunted in their face by a pervasive culture that portrays itself to represent all men who have sex with men?

Eric asks "Where is the individual right to choose when one is subjected to intense pressure to conform to the analist's agenda..."

To which I would add, and when one is called "fascist" because one won't?

A couple days ago I got an email from a "gay" radio station saying they were interested in interviewing me.

Fat chance, I thought to myself, but I wrote back and said Great, one of the things which concerns me very much at the moment is this "HIV awareness" campaign down in LA which claims that "HIV is a gay disease."

And I referred them to a recent post I'd written about it.

In that post I reference Dr. Myron Cohen's new HIV efficiency figures.

Which are startling.

In 2005, the CDC was telling us that HIV's efficiency -- aka "per contact risk" -- in anal was 1 in 200.

That meant that if you were a cuntboy -- that is, anally receptive -- on average you'd need 200 "contacts" with a poz top to get infected.

But now Cohen, who in 1997 was responsible for those figures -- here's the citation:

Royce RA, Sena A, Cates W and Cohen MS (1997) Sexual transmission of HIV. N Engl J Med. 336: 1072-78

now Cohen is saying that anal is 20 times more efficient than he once believed:

the efficiency of rectal intercourse changes everything because of the number of dendrite cells, receptors and trauma. So you can never overwhelm, you can't win against anal intercourse. ...

Anal intercourse is a really bad sexual practice for HIV transmission. It changes the equation. The efficiency is probably one in ten or one in eight.

Needless to say, I've never heard back from the radio station.

But: if you were a gay radio station, wouldn't you want your listeners to know about those new figures?

So they could make an informed choice?

It's like Mr Andriote's claim that he was practicing "low-risk sex" but got infected anyway.

When I asked what he meant by "low-risk sex," he became infuriated and threatening.

But if he was doing anal with a condom and got infected anyway -- shouldn't he let his readers know?

And if we're going to use words like "fascist" -- isn't it fascist to conceal that sort of information?

To cover it up?

The whole history of the epidemic has been one of behaviors that are, as Patrick says, good for the virus;

And bad for people.

Eric:

Now don't get me wrong. If the effeminacy and anal sex culture were to be a fringe fetish behavior and kept behind closed doors I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it. It wouldn't harm other people. But to flaunt it like this and present it as a *mainstream* culture that supposedly represents all homosexuals is just wrong. It is putting out the wrong message, a message that kills.

Yes.

Like fascism, analism is a culture of death.

And like fascism, it's aggressive and seeks to silence all opposing views.

Do we seek the power to stop cuntboy from doing what he's doing?

No.

What we seek is a genuine and open marketplace of ideas -- about sex, love, Masculinity, and Faith.

That's what the analists -- and the religious right -- fear.

That's why they call us fascists or sinners or whatever.

But the true error and sin is the denial of Manhood -- which is God's greatest gift to Men.

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Frances

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-15-2006

I say Gay is the Ghetto. That ghetto protects the heterosexualist world from coming to terms with some facts about human sexuality.

It's time to argue that Man by definition has homoerotic feelings, and in acting on those feelings men are expressing their masculinity. That "gay" is a false, and inherently violent construct that is designed to separate man from not only other men, but from himself.

Hopefully, in the near future boys will know a different world in which they will not be required to live the fragmented life of a "Cuntboy" or as a hetersexualist that annhilates that part of himself, and therefore has no pity for the one that didn't deny himself, but nonetheless seeks his own annhilation via his own "Gay disease".

Frances

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-15-2006

Okay, I'm double posting.

BUT, after googling "cuntboy" because happily naive me had never heard the term (though, of course, its implication is all too obvious). I was educated quickly, within a few minutes, about the number of men, apparently countless, out there who want to get infected, or "Poz-ed" (as if they're getting a tatoo or something), and presumably pass it on. I always knew there were careless, stupid, risk-taking guys who were all about the pleasure. I could kind of understand this, not defend it, but understand. I thought "bug chasing" meant that guys were just exhibiting risk-taking behavior, not intentionally trying to get infected.

You want fascist, I'll give you fascist. I'm thinking everybody who contracts HIV in this way should be denied meds, and left to rot. They would have to live in a prison to separate them from those of us who, can you believe it?, don't want to be infected. Once they figure out what it was they really signed up for they could be provided with a gun, or cyanide they can take up the ass.

I always knew there were a few kooks, but this is what you must have been referring to when you were talking about Larry Kramer talking about "murder" or some such language. I didn't read what he had written. I thought he was just being rhetorical.

I know after watching World at War as a little kid, not to be surprised by anything people might do, and I can't think of anything worse than what I saw in those installments. But, these men are the instruments of some kind of EVIL. There's no getting around it.

The fact that there are so many men out there acting like storm troopers for the "Gay Disease" virus is, I think, unknown to the general public. This is incredibly dangerous on the part of "gay" men. They want to bring back bashing in a big way? Well, I think the right number is being dialed. But, from the tone of what was on the web, I'm not sure but these guys wouldn't mind a good concussion and some broken ribs, but nothing much rougher than that. They do have their limits.

I know that the distortion of male sexuality has lead to these miserable circumstances.

I can better understand your sense of urgency and focus on the Gay Vulture, rather than the utopia of the possible I, until just a short while ago, liked to entertain.

They are messing with something dangerous beyond all reckoning. I still think the delineation of "gay" vs. men must be made.

Look at what "Gay" is leading to. Incredible.

I guess I just didn't get it. I promise to support the M2M Alliance for the sake of children who don't deserve this fucked-up world (like any of us did?).

And, I have given.

I can't accept this. I won't.

Bill Weintraub

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-16-2006

Thank you Frances.

I was reminded today of the fragility of life when I learned that the 21-year-old son of my oldest friend had been killed in a fishing accident.

He was a vibrant, handsome, and loving young man.

But he died.

So life is fragile, and our job is to preserve life -- not hasten its ending.

Now, I've been criticized for referring to certain analist elements as "shitfairies."

But as you can see, these men refer to themselves as, among other things, "cuntboys."

What's the difference between cuntboy and shitfairy?

Cuntboy is a term of denial.

It preserves the essential analist illusion that an anus is a vagina.

Which it is not.

And that a male who engages in receptive anal is still a man.

Which he is not.

Men don't have vaginas, and males who allow themselves to be penetrated acquiesce in the destruction of their own masculinity.

That's a self-loathing and death-embracing behavior, and it should never be supported -- including by a term like "cuntboy."

"Shitfairy," by contrast, breaks through the denial.

It puts shit front and center, which is where it is during anal, and effeminacy right behind -- which is proper because effeminacy is both a consequence and a facilitator of anal.

So: these effeminized males are not cuntboys, and they're not bottomdudes -- they're shitfairies.

The term is apt.

Frances:

after googling "cuntboy" because happily naive me had never heard the term (though, of course, its implication is all too obvious), I was educated quickly, within a few minutes, about the number of men, apparently countless, out there who want to get infected, or "Poz-ed" (as if they're getting a tatoo or something), and presumably pass it on.

Right.

Frances says she was naive.

That's because like most nongay people, she hasn't been exposed to the gritty realities of gay male promiscuity;

nor to the extent to which the gay establishment enables that promiscuity.

And that of course is because that establishment, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, keeps both those realities and its enabling of those realities -- hidden.

Let's begin with the issue of bug-chasing.

I've written two articles which are particularly germane.

The first, Biological Imperative or Cultural Dictate? Bug-chasing, Barebacking, and the Safer-Sex Establishment looks at the reaction to a Rolling Stone article on bug-chasing which appeared in February 2003.

The second, a post in Warriors Speak titled Brit buttboy guilty of infecting boyfriend; UK "HIV activists" protest, examines the reaction of "AIDS activists" in the UK to allegations of bug-chasing there.

In both cases, the reactions can be summed up in a word: "denial."

The gay male establishment and AIDS Inc., in their dealings with the wider, nongay public, have consistently sought to deny and cover-up the role of anal penetration, promiscuity, barebacking, and bug-chasing in the ongoing epidemic.

AIDS Inc and ANAL inc justify that denial because of the efforts of the political, cultural and religious right to stigmatize homosexual "people with AIDS," as they were then known, in the early 1980s.

Since those men had become infected without knowing that their behavior could lead to infection, they were clearly victims -- innocent victims if you will -- and didn't deserve to be condemned simply because they were sick.

The problem is that we have known, since 1984, that AIDS is caused by HIV and that HIV is spread through anal penetration.

But the stance of the gay establishment, then and now, has been to deny the responsibility of any man who got infected -- or who INFECTED.

Matters first came to a head about this issue in 1997, when openly gay journalist Gabriel Rotello published Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, in which he pointed out that the epidemic had been caused by the combination of anal and promiscuity which had erupted in the mid 1970s.

Rotello then was the first gay person to point to gay behavior itself as the cause of the AIDS epidemic.

For doing that, he was excoriated.

And condemned.

Stridently and seemingly endlessly.

To such an extent that he ceased being a gay journalist, and sought another line of work.

Even though he was right.

In late 1999 I brought out my first article about the cultural tyranny of anal penetration and its role in the epidemic.

And I was attacked and condemned.

In November of 2000 I brought out my second article about the cultural tyranny of anal and its role in the epidemic.

And I was attacked and condemned.

But I have continued to publish and otherwise put forward my views.

Why?

Because unlike Rotello, I'm not a journalist.

I'm an activist.

And I don't give up.

In 2003, documentary filmmaker Louise Hogarth brought out a film about bug-chasing titled "The Gift."

She was attacked and condemned.

I don't know whether Ms. Hogarth had read my bug-chasing article, but The Gift website has a link up to that article.

Here's what I said about The Gift at the time:

For years, the AIDS industry, including magazines like POZ, the nation's largest HIV monthly, has tip-toed around this issue, terrified that its complicity in the phenomenon would be exposed.

Now film-maker Louise Hogarth has done just that, and powerfully.

The response of many in AIDS Inc has been to bad-mouth the film as a way of attempting to deflect criticism of the AIDS establishment.

For example, buttfuck boy and POZ editor Walter Armstrong has warned that the film "demonizes" gays.

Give me a break.

First of all, it was POZ's very own Stephen Gendin who promoted barebacking, supported all the way by POZ publisher Sean Strub.

I told Sean upfront that what he was doing was insane -- and you can read what I said here.

Sean wouldn't be moved -- it took Stephen's infecting of his HIV negative lover and Stephen's subsequent and grisly death from AIDS to get Sean to re-think the issue.

But not Walter, Sean's editor.

To this day Walter Armstrong, a committed and dedicated analist, refuses to do an article on non-anal alternatives and insists that all we need is greater adherence to the "condom code."

What a dope, and how many lives have been and will be lost to his politically correct nonsense.

Moreover, and as I pointed out to Walter recently, if he and POZ had been doing their job and fully representing the gay community for the last 15 years -- not just the buttfuck boyz, but men who don't do anal, men who aren't promiscuous, etc -- a film like The Gift wouldn't be a problem.

Because the public would already understand that some gay and bi men do anal, and some don't, that some are promiscuous and some aren't, that some seek death, and some choose life.

Instead, Walter and his budz have allowed a vicious but convenient lie to dominate the media: all gay men do anal, and all are promiscuous.

And be clear dudes: Walter knows it's a lie, and he doesn't care.

He'll do anything to protect his anal sex.

Guys: don't let a fucked-up buttfucker like Walter Armstrong get away with this bullshit.

Fight back.

Donate.

Help us raise the money we need to mount an advertising campaign which will expose analists like Walter for the liars and charlatans they are.

That was three years ago, guys, and we still don't have the money to do what we need to do.

Which is YOUR fault.

Please note also that it's been NINE years since Rotello published.

Seven since I published.

Three since The Gift.

And nothing has changed.

To the contrary, the rate of new MSM HIV infection has been increasing.

Why?

Well, look at Brit buttboy guilty of infecting boyfriend; UK "HIV activists" protest.

In the second part of that post, I examine a BBC show about gift-giving.

In the show,

Will Nutland, head of health promotion at Terrence Higgins Trust [a huge UK AIDS Service Organization (ASO)], said: "The concepts of 'gift giving' and 'bug chasers' are definitely based more in fantasy than reality.

"Most gay men with HIV do not want to pass HIV on, and most gay men who do not have HIV do not want to get infected."

And Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust said: "There is very little evidence of people trying to get infected with HIV.

"The real issue is why risk-taking behaviour continues when HIV positive men have no wish to pass HIV on HIV negative men wish to avoid infection. [sic]"

Bill Weintraub:

Hmmmmm.

Let's try to parse that out.

According to these UK ASO spokespeople,

"There is very little evidence of people trying to get infected with HIV.

"The concepts of 'gift giving' and 'bug chasers' are definitely based more in fantasy than reality.

[Yet] "Risk-taking behaviour continues when HIV positive men have no wish to pass HIV on [and] HIV negative men wish to avoid infection."

They assert that "risk-taking behaviour continues" even though

"HIV positive men have no wish to pass HIV on"

"HIV negative men wish to avoid infection"

Does that make any sense?

NO.

If you don't wish to give or get HIV, you don't do condomless anal.

Indeed, you don't do anal at all.

We've known that since 1984.

If they're "risk-taking" -- that is, engaging in ANAL -- they're knowingly giving and getting HIV.

That's what Larry Kramer was saying in his speech at Cooper Union:

gay men have refused to accept our responsibility for choosing not to listen, and, starting in 1984, when we were told it definitely was a virus, this behavior turned murderous.

What part of that statement is not clear?

"Gay men have refused to accept [their] responsibility

"for choosing not to listen,

[which means, for continuing to do anal]

"and, starting in 1984, when we were told it definitely was a virus, this behavior turned murderous."

"MURDEROUS BEHAVIOR"

That's what this is.

Now, let's talk about gay male promiscuity.

Recently, a friend who's a gay athlete told me about his experience at one of those big all-gay sports competitions like the OUT Games.

He said that while he was there, he shared a room with another gay athlete, who just happened to be HIV poz.

We'll call the poz guy Joe.

Every night, after the sporting events, Joe, who was very good-looking, would go out and pick up a guy -- a trick.

He'd bring him back to the room and they'd bareback.

Because Joe doesn't use condoms.

Joe's poz.

Joe buttfucks.

Joe doesn't use condoms.

After the sex was over, the trick would leave, Joe would rest for an hour, and then he'd go back out.

And come back with another guy.

Usually he did three guys per night.

Sometimes, though, and to be fair, it was only two.

Nevertheless, the meet lasted 10 days, which means that in that time he barebacked with at least 25 guys.

That's in 10 days, and that's using a hotel room.

In a bath-house, the number of "sex" acts in one stay can be much higher, because there's no travel time.

Fuck shit shower; fuck shit shower; fuck shit shower; fuck shit shower.

According to Dr. Chin, guys can have as many as 10 to 20 "contacts" per night.

Those contacts are anonymous, and very often non-verbal.

Guys have sex without a single word being spoken.

There are other meeting places, such as backroom bars.

These are bars which have "backrooms" which are totally dark.

The windows have been painted over and there's no artificial illumination.

Guys go into those rooms, drop their drawers, and fuck and get fucked.

In total anonymity.

Then there are outdoor cruising places, such as the one in NYC where a guy was murdered a few nights back.

And sex clubs, dance clubs, raves.

That's gay male promiscuity.

Needless to say, the gay male establishment doesn't want these behaviors publicized.

That's why they get so angry at people like Rotello and Hodges and myself.

But we're not the source of those behaviors.

We're trying to do something about those behaviors so that gay men don't all kill themselves.

The gay establishment is particularly angry at me for being critical of anal penetration.

But anal penetration is not synonymous with same-sex sex.

Indeed, as Rotello documented way back in 97, prior to the 1970s most gay and other MSM didn't do anal.

There is NO REASON then that anal cannot be critiqued.

NONE.

ZERO.

ZIP.

Anal penetration is like anything else in this life and on this planet.

It's open to criticism.

And if anal cannot withstand the critique -- it should be abandoned.

Fortunately, there are other ways for men to have sex with men which are without question hotter, safer, and -- masculine.

That the gay male establishment won't acknowledge that plain fact is looking increasingly suspect.

But then so is the whole "gay" enterprise.

Frances:

I say Gay is the Ghetto. That ghetto protects the heterosexualist world from coming to terms with some facts about human sexuality.

It's time to argue that Man by definition has homoerotic feelings, and in acting on those feelings men are expressing their masculinity. That "gay" is a false, and inherently violent construct that is designed to separate man from not only other men, but from himself.

Thank you Frances.

You're a true Warrior.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Robert Loring

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-16-2006

You'd think that with AIDS/HIV being such a horrible disease that it is, that anyone with a sane mind would do everything possible to protect themselves from getting the disease. But, that appears NOT to be the case with some people. Instead, a DEATH CULT thrives!! A death cult in which some even refer to the disease as "The Gift." The gift? Horrid death is a gift? In what TWISTED mind did that shit come from? It's not a gift; it's a TERROR of slow suffering!

Such attitudes and misperceptions are not limited to the disciples of the BFD, however. As Frances says, "This FUCKED UP world" seems bent on death and ruin. It is a society that no longer HONORS human life but which has DEVALUED human life to the point that any life is apparently MEANINGLESS and WORTHLESS be that life gay, straight, positive, negative, etc. The society we live in today is the product of TWISTED minds born of men and women lost in PSYCHOSIS that should have been put away in asylums decades ago. But, instead these FREAKS were elevated to positions of leadership and power! Is this evil? YOU BET!!

As for cuntboy and his personal ad, obviously this nut-case knows NOTHING about MASCULINITY because he LOST all of his the first time he got his anus stuffed and butt-banged! Further, people with ANY element of SELF PRIDE do not suggest that they be "whored out" as if they are nothing but common, dirty prostitutes! Obviously, cuntboy has NO self pride and NO self love either! Instead, he apparently has a good case of SELF HATRED going on. Getting butt-banged is NOT an act of love but it is an act of SELF DESTRUCTION of one's own innate MASCULINITY and HEALTH. Let us remember that for 7 million years ancient warriors who were VICTORS sometimes sodomized their DEFEATED enemies upon the battlefield as a FINAL ACT of DEFEAT and HUMILIATION. This was NOT an act of love or intimacy. It was an act of FINAL DEFEAT of one's enemy as they lay dying in a pool of their own blood.

This world is now BEYOND being FUCKED UP, Frances. It has gone off into the abyss of the psychotic. I pity the young who will have to grow up over the next 20 years. They have NO chance! They have NO HOPE! They will have NO MASCULINE warriors in their lives after which they can model their own lives and BECOME MASCULINE MEN!

Alas, a world of VICTIMS! And unknown to most of us we are not simply the victims but we are victims because we ourselves on this world are also the PERPRETATORS of our own societal demise. Need we really, then, look any further for demons beyond looking in our own mirrors???

What sad times the world lives in.

What a sad time for manhood and masculinity!

What a sad era for the BROTHERHOOD OF MAN!

Bill Weintraub

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-18-2006

Thank you Robert.

You're absolutely right about cuntboy and the twisted world people like him and the culture which supports him have created.

I pity the young who will have to grow up over the next 20 years. They have NO chance! They have NO HOPE! They will have NO MASCULINE warriors in their lives after which they can model their own lives and BECOME MASCULINE MEN!

Yes.

But the young and other men want those Warrior models.

Boomer posted a few days ago about, well, the boom in popularity of UFC.

Those UFC fighters are strong, aggressive, masculine role models.

Usually not pretty boys.

But MEN who fight with their shirts off -- hard muscle on hard muscle.

That's a big part of the appeal.

That's one of the reasons UFC is so popular.

I posted about Title IX destruction of men's athletic teams.

And that at one university, women as well as men were upset by what was going on.

So maybe Frances is not the only woman on earth to recognize that men need to be men.

I said in my post in this message thread that my best friend's son had been killed.

They had a very powerful father-son bond.

They went hiking together regularly, they fished together every week -- at least once a week.

My friend was there when his son was killed.

They were out fishing together.

His wife, who's also an old friend, was very supportive of the masculine bonds between father and son.

So not everyone has forgotten about masculinity.

Nevertheless, people like ourselves are, for the moment, certainly, bucking the cultural trend.

Does that mean the situation is hopeless?

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

It does not.

Right now, we're not having the impact we should have because the numbers of you involved in this effort are far too low.

But that doesn't mean that the numbers needed are huge.

They're not.

Certainly, the more the merrier.

But a relatively small group of people can accomplish a lot.

Recently, I read an op-ed about insurgencies.

The writer quoted T. E. Lawrence -- whom we know as Lawrence of Arabia, who led a successful Arab insurgency against Turkish rule, and who was also to some degree "homosexual"; Lawrence was quoted to the effect that an insurgency can be effective with only 2 out of 100 people in the population involved.

Case in point:

The gay rights movement.

Even in 2006, the number of men and women who self-identify as gay or lesbian is very low.

For example, a recent article in the New York Times on marriage rates and people living together without benefit of marriage noted that

The highest share of male couples was in San Francisco, where, according to the census, they accounted for nearly 2 percent of all households. In Manhattan, they made up 1 percent of households.

Think about that.

In San Francisco, the most tolerant and gay-friendly city in America if not the world, gay male couples make up less than 2% of all households.

Of course there are gay men living there who aren't in couples.

But still the number is tiny.

Think how much lower it was in 1970, when the early gay and homophile movements morphed into Gay Liberation.

There were very few Gay Liberationists.

I know because I was among them.

Yet our impact was great.

It's true that legislatively, we didn't realize our goals for a very long time.

But -- we had a huge impact on public consciousness.

And the gay rights movement which grew out of Gay Lib has been fantastically successful.

That's part of the problem we face.

That what started out as an insurgency against the established Heterosexual Order, has now become an establishment of its own.

The same thing happened with the religious right.

The religious right was originally an insurgency of small, poor, usually non-denominational evangelical churches, against the huge, wealthy, and very powerful mainline denominations of the day: the Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc.

Even Jerry Falwell was an Independent Baptist -- as was Patrick.

Not a Southern Baptist.

The Baptists had split over the issue of slavery.

And as late the 1970s, the Independent Baptists were still, compared to the Southern Baptists, weak and insignificant.

So the religious right originally was a very marginal group.

Yet look at them now.

They too have become an establishment.

So: in the beginning, you don't need huge numbers of people.

You need passion.

And you do have to have a certain minimal level of involvement.

Right now I'd say we're about where the movement for "homosexual civil rights" was in the 1960s.

The numbers involved are tiny.

Too tiny.

But -- and this is the good news:

YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR POWER TO CHANGE THAT.

As in the 1960s, there are a lot of YOU who are *thinking* about getting involved, but who are holding back.

NO.

You're being miserly and self-defeating.

The few pennies you save by not donating are just wasted on something else.

Start putting those pennies to good use.

Right now we need money to buy advertising.

Last month we had 12 donors.

That's too few.

If we had 200 donors per month, each donating $5, $10, or $20 -- we'd be readly to rumble.

Two hundred is NOT a lot.

It's far less than 1% of the guys who use the site every month.

What's needed is for all YOU guys who are sitting on YOUR hands to start donating.

For the vast majority of you, $10 is NOTHING.

Yet -- it could win you the WORLD.

That's the irony.

Your lives could be so much better.

If only you'd make the effort.

Robert:

What sad times the world lives in.

What a sad time for manhood and masculinity!

What a sad era for the BROTHERHOOD OF MAN!

Yes it is.

YOU are denigrated because you're a MASCULINE Man who loves Men.

And because you believe that love-making is about MEN and MANHOOD.

Not cuntboys and shitholes.

That's why you're denigrated.

That's what's going on.

But YOU can change it.

If you stop acting like atoms spinning meaninglessly in space -- and start acting like BROTHERS.

MEN.

MEN UNITED in a common effort for the good of all MEN -- and for the good of the human race.

Again -- YOUR future is in YOUR hands.

NO ONE ELSE'S.

YOU have one sweet precious life.

If you don't want to live in a world of cuntboys and shitfairies forever -- YOU need to act.

NOW.

FIGHT BACK.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Robert Loring

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-18-2006

Here's an ancient piece of Truth:

"Many a SMALL band have defeated mighty armies."

jedi

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-19-2006

whats the difference between analists and warriors?

analists love death

warriors love life

so let them go home and die!!!

Frances

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-19-2006

I can understand lust, and I was a teenager in the late 1970s so behavior meant soley for sexual gratification isn't completely foreign to my brain.

This had more of the shock of learning about snuff porn as I did as a teenage girl. This "cuntboy's" and other "cuntboys' " ads were just so ugly. All of these men based their worthlessness and desire for harm and punishment on their identification with women. Basically, the message was "it's okay if you do this to me because I'm a woman. That's why I want and deserve death. Affirm your manhood and destroy me."

Women, as well as men, have a need for their own noble ideal. We also need to see men as noble creatures, believe it or not. That's why I see the vision shown here as nourishment for my own soul.

redd

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-19-2006

I agree with Frances: this site nourishes the soul.

I give to this cause because it nourishes and promotes life, liberty, and happiness. I'm not gay-identified, yet I see the value of supporting this cause. I can't understand why those gay-identified persons who visit this site and agree with its tenets won't support the cause. COME ON, EVERYBODY GIVE MONEY.

Now, along with agreeing with Frances's sentiments, I also want to say that analists' "cuntboy" terms and the like are misogynistic. Likening the asshole to a vagina is likening the sexual act of genital to genital between man and woman to rape. Rape is an act of violence.

To me, men who try to be women insult women.

Redd

Robert Loring

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-20-2006

Yet they are NOT women, Frances, but I understand the message you point out. Redd is right, it's akin to rape. Men who feel they must destroy women (or cuntboys) are not affirming their masculinity. They are only affirming their psychosis in my opinion. Truly masculine men have NO need to destroy another human being because such men are not destroyers but co-creators with each other and with the Divine. Both women and men are noble creatures and should be seen as being so.

The desire for self harm is a desire for self destruction. I find it sad today that so many people seem to have this desire. People must begin to think better of themselves. Humans can do so much more and we can be so much more but we must first break through those elements which would have us believe otherwise.

Bill Weintraub

Re: cuntboys and fascism

10-20-2006

Wow!!!

Thank you Robert, Frances, and Redd!!!

Great posts all!!!

Now, I want to look at this issue of misogyny.

Because what all of you are picking up on here is the essentially misogynist nature of the cuntboy / bottombitch identification and culture.

What's bizarre is that many gender feminists and pro-feminist media like the NY Times will praise drag and other manifestations of that culture.

But at the heart of that culture is a loathing of women and of femininity.

The burlesques of drag are NOT pro-woman.

Nor are they pro-man of course.

These creatures MOCK both masculinity and femininity.

They are self-loathing males who are also misogynist.

Patrick and I looked at some of these issues in a post titled Patrick and Bill back in 2002, and it's worth revisiting.

In the post, I talked about how many of us get along better with straight guys than with gay males, and how we often find more areas of agreement with them:

If they're into cock2cock, chances are we agree on three key points: anal's bad, masculinity's good, and cock2cock rocks.

Whereas a properly socialized gay man, living as he does in a sea of anal, effeminacy, promiscuity, and sleaze, is going to have major problems with at least the first two of those propositions, and most of the time the third too.

And there's another issue, one which particularly impacts those of us who are into various forms of fighting -- wrestling, boxing, or martial arts -- and frot.

Gay men are taught that fighting and aggression are stereotypically "straight" behaviors, artifacts of patriarchal society, which, in the name of feminism and cultural diversity, are to be derided and eschewed.

But straight men, as Patrick has observed, value aggression. They see aggression as being central to being male, and while of course they believe that aggression must be properly focused and shouldn't be senseless or random, they understand how core aggression and violence are to masculinity.

So while a disciplined straight guy does not practice violence for violence's sake, neither does he see masculinity in men and femininity in women to be adversarial -- rather he understands them to be complementary, and acknowledges both as essential to the human condition and indeed civilization.

For that reason, he values and feels protective towards his woman's biological femininity, while respecting the masculinity and aggression of his fellow men.

We need to be clear that most of mainstream gay male culture, and most gay men, are not remotely in the same place as straight men on these issues.

Gay male culture mocks femininity and uses the bawdy burlesques of drag to deride women.

And, as Patrick has said, gay male butt-fuckers steal the very masculinity from their lover they say they want him to have -- turning him into a pseudo-woman.

Yet a man is not fit or equipped to mimic a woman.

And to men who love women, seeing gay men try to do so is an insult at a very visceral level.

For women are not less than men, they are our counterparts intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.

That's why a man can be a warrior; and a woman can be a warrior; but a man who's been made into a pseudo-woman through being penetrated cannot be a warrior.

And that is the crux of the problem between us and the gay male establishment.

We respect masculinity, and femininity, and aggression. The gay establishment respects none of these, rathers it mocks them all, and in so doing turns life in the gay male subculture into a hell of anal promiscuity, STDs, drag, attitude, and bitchiness.

That bitchiness, says Patrick, is a seque to an excuse for being weaker than a man should be.

And that's exactly right. Gay men, deprived of their masculinity by their own subculture, never learn how to channel their aggression, and so it emerges as bitchiness and meanness instead.

And the irony is that this has little to do with sexual orientation, and a lot to do with cultural expectations.

For straight men, as Patrick points out, are capable of bitchiness too.

But it's far less common among them, since they're taught how to fight, and most learn how to progress from being a boy to being a man.

That's why we have such a strong emphasis on martial arts on this site.

Because men and women into martial arts understand aggression, understand the warrior mentality, and understand the value of *not* fighting.

While of course gay male culture has no respect for aggression. Sports like boxing and wrestling are tolerated only for their erotic frisson, while team sports are of interest basically for locker room gossip and speculation about which player may be gay.

Indeed, gay men in my experience have zero regard for what Dave Sprowls has correctly and on this board termed the sacred bonds between men.

So: the gulf between us and mainstream gay male culture is very large.

I didn't realize that when I started the site 2 years ago. I thought all we needed to do was explain that frot was at our erotic center and we didn't like to be pressured to have anal -- and the discussion would be over.

It didn't work that way -- not remotely. Instead, not only were we censored and accused of treason for simply saying how we felt, but it became apparent that the gap between guys into frot and the gay male mainstream was far greater than most of us had suspected.

That this wasn't just a rift -- that it's a chasm.

The fact of the matter is that in many key areas our attitudes are far closer to those of straight men than of most gays.

And that last idea is something we've looked at further recently in the post titled Creating a Masculine, socially dignified space: Loving a Man as a Man.

But this is the key point:

Women are not less than men, they are our counterparts intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.

That's why a man can be a warrior; and a woman can be a warrior; but a man who's been made into a pseudo-woman through being penetrated cannot be a warrior.

And that is the crux of the problem between us and the gay male establishment.

We respect masculinity, and femininity, and aggression. The gay establishment respects none of these, rathers it mocks them all, and in so doing turns life in the gay male subculture into a hell of anal promiscuity, STDs, drag, attitude, and bitchiness.

That's the heart of the issue:

Both femininity and masculinity must be respected.

And honored.

Not mocked and derided.

Frances:

Women, as well as men, have a need for their own noble ideal. We also need to see men as noble creatures, believe it or not. That's why I see the vision shown here as nourishment for my own soul.

Right.

Women need a noble ideal.

Men need a noble ideal.

And those ideals are not at odds.

They complement each other.

Patrick:

So while a disciplined straight guy does not practice violence for violence's sake, neither does he see masculinity in men and femininity in women to be adversarial -- rather he understands them to be complementary, and acknowledges both as essential to the human condition and indeed civilization.

Robert:

Truly masculine men have NO need to destroy another human being because such men are not destroyers but co-creators with each other and with the Divine. Both women and men are noble creatures and should be seen as being so.

And that's really beautifully said!

Thank you all.

Great posts!

Guys -- figure it out.

Frances is not the only "straight-identified" woman like Frances and Redd is not the only "straight-identified" man like Redd.

If you will give me the tools I need to reach out, we'll find many other people -- men and women -- like Frances and Redd, who are supportive and want to help us.

Because we help them.

So help YOURSELF.

FIGHT BACK.

DONATE.

Remember what Robert said:

Many a SMALL band have defeated mighty armies.

And something else he said:

People must begin to think better of themselves. Humans can do so much more and we can be so much more but we must first break through those elements which would have us believe otherwise.

FIGHT BACK.

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.