a sick society that forces men to repress their natural, wholesome feelings of love for each other

Just ran across Luke Shelton's story [Beatific]. Reading it was a very emotional experience for me since I also had that need for male bonding as a teenager. I have, in fact, never lost that need over the years even though I have married and fathered four children. I would not ever trade the joy and happiness my wife and children have given me over the years but I have always felt incomplete somehow. Like something has been denied me. It comes into my consciousness when, on occasion, I notice a particularly handsome man.

What kind of sick society have we established, that forces men to repress their natural, wholesome feelings of love for each other. My fear of intimacy with men is so strong that I am barely able to shake hands with a guy out of fear that he would somehow be able to detect my attraction to him. My greatest hope is that someday young people will reject this perverted repression which I firmly believe is responsible for much of the hatred and bitterness in the world. But my suspicion is that all forms of religious superstition will first have to be rejected.

Bill Weintraub

Re: a sick society that forces men to repress their natural, wholesome feelings of love for each other

7-10-2009

Hey Dan,

Thank you for writing to me and for your kind words about my work and our sites.

I'm glad they've resonated and been meaningful for you.

Let's take a look at what you had to say:

Just ran across Luke Shelton's story [Beatific].

That's a good story.

And a true story.

Not the only story like it on the site either.

For example, there's Warrior Lawrence's in honor of my cousin/lover/frot brother.

Ck it out.

Reading it was a very emotional experience for me since I also had that need for male bonding as a teenager. I have, in fact, never lost that need over the years

Right.

That's because that need is a normal and natural male need.

Common to virtually all Men.

I know, Dan, that that's not what society tells you, but it's true nevertheless.

So the first thing for you to accept is that your need for affection, intimacy, love, and even sex with another Man doesn't make you in any way strange or unusual or odd.

You're just a guy -- like every other guy.

And your same-sex needs and desires -- are normal and natural.

even though I have married and fathered four children. I would not ever trade the joy and happiness my wife and children have given me over the years

I understand.

The good news is that you don't have to trade that joy and happiness.

In other words, it's not an either/or proposition -- wife and kids vs your need for bonding with another Man.

It's not like that.

You can have both.

And Men traditionally have.

but I have always felt incomplete somehow.

Right.

Like something has been denied me.

Right.

That's because something very fundamental to your wholeness as a Man -- to your Masculinity -- *has* been denied you.

Dan -- trust your feelings.

If you feel that something has been denied you -- it's because something has been denied you.

It comes into my consciousness when, on occasion, I notice a particularly handsome man.

Again, that's natural.

You're attracted to "handsomeness" -- masculine beauty.

Like all other guys.

Again, normal and natural.

What kind of sick society have we established, that forces men to repress their natural, wholesome feelings of love for each other.

Good question.

What's important for you to know and understand is that it wasn't always the way it is now.

My fear of intimacy with men is so strong that I am barely able to shake hands with a guy out of fear that he would somehow be able to detect my attraction to him.

Okay.

But how do you know that he doesn't fear the same?

Is that possible?

Is it possible that all these years your fear of intimacy has worked to cover up and conceal other guys' fear of intimacy?

Suppose you overcame that fear.

Suppose you were no longer afraid to show some attraction to another guy.

What might happen?

Is it possible some guy might reciprocate -- and show some attraction to you?

My greatest hope is that someday young people will reject this perverted repression which I firmly believe is responsible for much of the hatred and bitterness in the world.

Yes.

But my suspicion is that all forms of religious superstition will first have to be rejected.

Well, "religious" beliefs certainly play a part.

Dan, in the Alliance, we tend to talk more of historical processes, for example,

heterosexualization;

and its creation of first "homosexuality" and then the categories of sexual orientation.

Probably the core concept Dan, is the difference between affection, intimacy, love, and sex between men as a condition -- "homosexuality" or "being gay" --

and an activity.

Dan, I talk about that most recently on our Personal Stories message board in my reply to Warrior Ryan's post titled A true masculine man.

That reply, once again, explains the core concept of the difference between male-male sex as a condition -- versus an activity.

Because historically and traditionally, sex -- and love and intimacy and affection -- between Men has been an activity -- not a condition.

Very very important Dan -- for your sake -- that you understand that.

So important, Dan, that I'll repeat what I said to Ryan -- here:

What's very important for you to understand is that "homosexuality" is a very recent concept among human beings.

In the past, sex between men was an activity -- something guys did.

Since 1869 -- that's just 140 years -- and to varying degree -- sex between men -- has been considered a condition -- "homosexuality."

That idea is wrong.

In reality, people in the past had it right: sex between men is an activity -- something guys normally and naturally do.

Ryan, the idea of male-male affection, intimacy, sex, and love as a condition -- first called "homosexuality" and then called "sexual orientation" -- is a function of an historical process we call heterosexualization.

And we need to talk about that a bit more.

So, and like I said, the terms "homosexuality" and "homosexual" were coined 140 years ago in an effort -- a successful effort -- to turn what had been an activity -- sex between men -- into a disease -- "homosexuality."

What that meant was that just as, in the 19th century, there were people who were "tubercular," and who suffered from the disease called "tuberculosis"; so now there were to be males who were said to be "homosexual," and who would be said to suffer from the disease called "homosexuality."

That was a tremendous shift in the way human beings thought about sex.

Again, it turned what had been an activity -- sex between guys -- into a condition, a medical condition, an illness, a disease, for which doctors would then seek a cure.

And this shift, which was a "paradigm shift," a significant change in cultural norms, coincided with the historical process we call heterosexualization:

the destruction of same-gender spaces and relationships, and their conversion to almost exclusively mixed-gender spaces and relationships.

And this too was a tremendous shift in the way people lived.

And the practical effect of the combination of heterosexualization and the development of the concept of "homosexuality" was to isolate and ghettoize Men who engaged in any sort of same-sex affection, intimacy, and love.

Now -- as we've discussed before, including in from "homosexuality" to analism, the American Psychiatric Association removed "homosexuality" from its list of mental disorders in 1973.

Which meant that "homosexuality" was no longer a mental illness.

But the concept -- that there was something fundamentally different about "men who had sex with men" -- persisted.

And the result was the categories of sexual orientation, which I refer to as homosexuality's evil twin.

Because, in their effects, those categories are EVIL, and they're DIRECTLY related to the previous categories of "homosexual" and "homosexuality."

So -- "homosexuality" as a cultural concept was originally a condition -- a sickness -- a diseased way of being;

while "gay" is a sexual orientation and also a condition, the idea of which emerged out of "homosexuality," and, which, like the condition known as "homosexuality," is predicated upon the notion that any affection, intimacy, sex, and/or love between Men is a "deviation" from an alleged "heterosexual" norm.

As I said, the concept of "homosexuality" appears as society is beginning to heterosexualize.

While the concept of "sexual orientation" appears as heterosexualization triumphs -- and forces traditional understandings of Masculinity and Femininity underground.

The two poles of "sexual orientation" -- "gay" and "straight" -- work then to drive the male away from his Natural Masculinity:

to divorce Masculinity not only from same-sex love and affection; but also from Aggression -- Fighting Spirit -- Courage -- Virtue -- which is how Masculinity has traditionally been defined and demarcated.

Under heterosexualization, and the categories of sexual orientation, Masculinity is no longer to be defined by Fighting Spirit -- by Courage and Virtue --

but by a single sexual act:

penile-vaginal penetration.

This radical re-definition of "masculinity" is hideously destructive, and many of our modern ills, both male and female, derive directly from it.

So: historically, Masculinity has not been about "sexual orientation" --

but about Fighting Spirit.

And it needs to be again.

Dan:

But my suspicion is that all forms of religious superstition will first have to be rejected.

That's fine, and I'm all for it.

Fact is, though, that the ancient Greeks were quite religious, and by our standards, very superstitious too.

But three of their principal deities -- Zeus, Poseidon, and Apollo -- had male lovers -- boyfriends.

As did Herakles.

Zeus

Zeus

Zeus and Ganymedes

Zeus and his wife Hera on Olympos
Ganymedes stands between them

So you can have religion -- and Manly Love too.

It's not a question so much of people believing, as it is of what they believe.

Dan, thank you again for writing.

Bill Weintraub

Guys,

Very often when I post this sort of letter from a married man and a reply in which I say to him that the option does exist for him to have a male lover or buddy -- and remain married to his wife --

I get letters saying, But you're a Fidelity organization. How can you tell guys to cheat?

My response is -- We're not telling guys to cheat.

We're telling them what historically and cross-culturally Men have done.

They've had wives and children -- as well as male lovers.

And they haven't regarded their having male lovers -- as cheating on their wives.

Fact is, that our society's contemporary conception of "heterosexual" marriage is just that -- a contemporary conception.

Across time and cross-culturally, there have been many different ideas about and conceptions of marriage.

Stephanie Coontz, who's an historian of marriage, had an op-ed in the NY Times about that which you can find here, and which I highly recommend.

So: many of the Men who visit this site are married and have a male lover -- or Frot buddy.

And what they report is that having that male companion strengthens their marriage.

Because it makes them happier as Men, and better able therefore to make their wives happy.

However, if you think that's "cheating," my advice to you is simple:

DON'T DO IT.

Because, obviously, you shouldn't do something which violates your sense of what's moral.

Once again, if you don't think it's right to have a male lover in addition to a wife,

DON'T DO IT.

Don't do something which violates your moral code.

So: Some of you will look at this Greek vase painting and say

Zeus and his wife Hera on Olympos
Ganymedes stands between them

"This is bad -- Ganymedes has come between Zeus and his wife."

Others will look at the painting and say,

Zeus and his wife Hera on Olympos
Ganymedes stands between them

"This is good -- Zeus, Hera, and Ganymedes exist together in harmony."

And it's the latter which was certainly the intent of the artist who created the image --

which in turn reflects his cultural norms.

What's depicted is harmony -- not discord.

And harmony is what the painter intended to depict.

You'll notice that Ganymedes stands, nude, directly in front of Hera.

While serving her husband wine -- or, perhaps, ambrosia.

But whatever's being served -- is being served openly.

Ganymedes' existence is not in any way hidden or secret.

And not only is there no suggestion of anything which we would might consider "cheating" -- that is, something done behind a partner's back and to her detriment -- neither is there any sense of "deviance."

To the contrary:

Ganymedes, in all his nude male glory, is plainly visible to Hera -- and the rest of the Gods.

Ganymedes, and Zeus' love for him, exists *within* the society and cultural norms of Olympos.

Neither Ganymedes, nor Eros -- male-male Love -- is deviant, and, therefore, neither have to be hidden.

Both exist openly *within* society, and both serve a MORAL purpose, as I've often explained, within that society.

But, and that said -- what you see in the painting -- is up to you.

Just as how you choose to behave -- is up to you.

Now, though it's tedious, I have to say something else, because I know people love to play "gotcha" with Bill Weintraub:

I noted that Ganymedes stands openly before Hera and the other gods.

Does that mean that if you have a male lover, you have to tell your wife and friends and family about him?

No.

The norms of ancient Greece are different from those of contemporary America.

Greek wives knew that Men had male lovers.

It was part of the landscape.

Not so for American wives.

Though I expect that to change, probably in the next generation.

Because, as Coontz so persuasively points out, our contemporary ideas about the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage are not workable.

But for now, telling the average wife that you have a male lover is likely to accomplish nothing other than cause her a lot of pain --

and very probably earn you a divorce.

If you don't want to hurt your wife and get a divorce -- there's no point to telling your wife.

Once again, cultural norms matter -- and hugely.

A painting like this one isn't just a pretty picture:

It's a reflection and an expression of what was de facto a societal institution -- male Eros --

sanctioned by the King of the Gods himself;

and witnessed by his wife.

And every Greek woman, whether she enjoyed the relative freedom of a Lakonikan or lived in the virtual purdah of an Ionian -- knew that.

Her expectations of her husband were, therefore, very different from those of an American wife.

Also:

Please note that we support a guy having ONE male partner -- not many.

We don't support married guys -- or single guys -- having many contacts with many men.

We don't support that -- and again, historically and cross-culturally, the model for male-male love has been faithful and, yes, "monogamous."

Male-male monogamous.

As John Boswell, who was chair of the history department at Yale until his death from AIDS in 1995, points out in his very erudite book, Same-Sex Unions in PreModern Europe:

Most ancient writers -- in striking opposition to their modern counterparts -- generally entertained higher expectations of the fidelity and permanence of homosexual passions than of heterosexual feelings.

Plutarch adduces with evident disapproval cases of husbands who allowed their wives to be unfaithful to gain some advantage, and then notes, "By contrast, of all the many [same-sex] lovers there were and have been, do you know of a single one who surrendered his beloved, even to gain favor from Zeus? I do not." (Erotikos 760B).

The proponent of same-sex passion in the Hellenistic Affairs of the Heart says that wisdom and experience teach that love between males is the most stable of loves. This prejudice [sic] was doubtless influenced by the Symposium of Plato, in which heterosexual relationships and feelings are characterized as "vulgar," and their same-sex equivalents as "heavenly."

This contrast exercised wide influence on subsequent discussions of love.

~ Boswell, 74.

So:

Historically, Men have had Male Lovers -- in addition to having wives -- and those male-male Loves have been Faithful.

I'm posting this information in the hopes that it will help Men like Dan.

He's in torment because a significant part of his life -- his life as a Man -- is missing.

And he's fearful -- of even daring to offer so much as a hint -- to another Man -- of his own completely natural and normal same-sex feelings.

I hope that reading this helps Dan gain the strength to search for and reclaim that which he now lacks --

but which is his by right of birth -- as a Man.

Bill Weintraub

July 10, 2009

© All material Copyright 2009 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Redd

Re: a sick society that forces men to repress their natural, wholesome feelings of love for each other

8-2-09

Bill,

I noted that Dan lamented not being free to express his need for male companionship and that he is "barely able to shake hands with a guy out of fear that [the guy] would somehow be able to detect [Dan's] attraction to him."

To me, a concerted effort to avoid contact betrays one's attempt/intent at deflecting suspicion. Attraction to someone often is subtle--in a hand shake, yes, but also in other subtle ways, e.g., in posture, in demeanor, in conversation--what's said, how it's said, its tone and tremble.

Guys generally don't reject another guy's interest in friendship unless they're homophobic, which usually means they've bought the lies of heterosexism.

Humans are attracted to humans, period. Friendships are born from attraction as are romantic relationships. What two people who are friends are not attracted to each other, and because of the attraction, they desire/like each other's company and have feelings for each other?

I think attraction can be platonic as well. Dan's attraction to handsome men is natural. Aren't we all attracted to beauty, to handsomeness? Don't we gaze at beauty, at handsomeness like we would a breathtaking waterfall or a golden full moon canvassed against a navy-purple sky? Don't we find our species interesting to look at, to associate with, to touch, to talk to?

Bill, I know when people are attracted to me or find me appealing. Women flirt. But some things men and women who are attracted to me both do: they comment often on my attire which allows them to look at me longer than they usually would probably.

Frankly, Bill, many men have commented on my attire, and one guy at work does so often, but the comments, the placing a hand on my shoulder, the way they light up when they see me, etc. (and I believe I recipocate) bespeak attraction.

By avoiding shaking hands, Dan is rejecting possible friendship/companionship, what he feels he's been deprived of, all because he fears his attraction may be detected. His lack of confidence no doubt turns away guys who might be his friend. I think I can recognize avoidance, and I assume Dan's avoidance is detectable.

Yesterday as two colleagues, both females, and I were playing a game of minature golf, two guys obviously buddies were having a fun game as well. The guys reminded me of Dan, how he was denying himself the rapport these guys shared. These guys had no worries about people seeing them, and they laughed and chatted, having a good time.

Today I saw two guys, one who looked in his fifties and the other his thirties, sitting near the river chatting and laughing. Often when I catch a matinee, I see guys of all ages attending a movie together. A colleague ask me recently to consider touring the northeast with him next summer, camping as we visit various historical sites.

These friendships I witness and have couldn't evolve without the guys showing interest to be friends, and these guys, given their interaction, liked each other.