Also by Warrior Dave:

• The Last of the Free

• The Jacobite Soldier to his Comrade

Bill Weintraub

Re: ...amazing what happens when you "come out"

8-15-08

Thank you Dave.

Another excellent post.

Let's take a look:

Today I have been reflecting on the day I "came out" to my mother, at the age of fifteen. Given my naivete at the time I didn't appreciate her horror, but I see today what she thought I was dedicating myself to: a life of drugs, sodomy and an early grave. Given the pernicious images of "gay life" in the media, how could she have thought otherwise?

Right.

When reporting on "gay life," the "mainstream media" tend to emphasize anal penetration -- which the media increasingly refer to as "gay sex"; promiscuity; effeminacy and "gender issues"; and of course HIV/AIDS.

It's understandable that parents would be concerned.

That a boy should have to "come out" at all is a reflection of the nature of "gay life",

Right.

And what I would say is that from our point of view, "That a boy should have to 'come out' at all is a reflection of" -- not merely "the nature of 'gay life' " per se --

but of heterosexualization.

Because prior to heterosexualization, there were no cultural constructs such as "homosexuality" or "gay life"; and in cultures which lacked a divine prohibition against same-sex affection, intimacy, love, and sex --

same-sex affection, intimacy, love, and sex were expressed openly and virtually universally among Men.

We can see that clearly with the ancient Greeks, and the Celts, and with people like the Lakota, such as Warrior John has described.

But, remarkably, we can also see it in 19th-century America, as revealed by Professor John Ibson's Picturing Men: A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography, which I highly recommend -- it's on the Reading List; and which we discuss in Warriorhood and Male Intimacy.

Which I also recommend.

So -- Warrior Dave is correct when he says

That a boy should have to "come out" at all is a reflection of the nature of "gay life",

But "gay life" itself is a reflection and indeed an artifact of the historical process we refer to as heterosexualization.

Heterosexualization, as we've discussed many times in recent posts, including Warrior John's straight, but... --

heterosexualization leads to the creation and then medicalization of "homosexuality," which leads in turn to "sexual orientation" and "gay life."

So: prior to heterosexualization, sex between males is an *activity* -- something Men do;

post heterosexualization, sex between males becomes a condition:

first a medical condition, a disease, known as "homosexuality":

and then a "sexual orientation -- being gay" -- also a condition.

To understand the implications of that shift, we have to understand fully the difference between sex between men as an activity -- and as a condition.

So we're going to discuss this for a bit.

Regular site visitors, I know, will have seen some of this discussion before.

But I'm repeating it here because every day new guys come to the Alliance, they may not necessarily click on each and every link, and it's important they hear this.

So:

What's very important to understand is that "homosexuality" -- and with it "heterosexuality" -- are very recent concepts 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.

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 -- 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.

Let's get back to Dave's letter:

which indeed is too often a misguided quest to procure some ghastly infection.

That's correct.

And that's because of the identification of "gay" with "anal," and of anal with HIV and other STI infection.

Which leads to such gruesome practices as barebacking and bug-chasing.

I imagine that in a noble society the boy who "came out" would say, "Father, I have no interest in other boys". A rare boy indeed!

That's correct.

And you see it in the Greeks -- as Warrior Ted most recently mentioned -- and even in the Romans, where Suetonius remarks that of the first twelve Roman emperors, only Claudius showed no interest in youths or other men.

He was considered odd in that respect, as in many others.

Nevertheless, I want to make clear that the Greek system was set up so that youths -- and Men -- were NEVER forced to take an interest in someone of their own gender.

Doing so was a normal part of life for them.

But they weren't forced to do it.

By contrast, Men were encouraged -- and arguably, to some degree forced -- to marry heterosexually.

Usually by laws which penalized them financially for remaining bachelors.

That's because the Greek city-states in particular both wanted to perpetuate themselves, and, had a very narrow view of what constituted a citizen.

What's interesting about the existence of those Greek laws, as well as what Ibson tell us, is that apparently, and left to their own devices, many Men -- perhaps the majority -- would NEVER marry heterosexually.

Ibson produces the startling statistic that in late 19th-century America, a full 40% of Men NEVER married:

A bachelor subculture, with enclaves of singleness flourishing in street-corner gangs, boardingschools, the YMCA, rooming houses, colleges, the workplace, lodges, saloons, pool halls, and sporting events, was another manifestation of gender segregation, of particular importance in the late nineteenth century when bachelors were so numerous -- more than 40 percent of all men over the age of fifteen in the United States. Recent research has shown that the large number of single men was not linked to a shortage of marriageable women or to economic uncertainties as much as to the fact that many men simply preferred bachelorhood.

[emphasis mine]

40 percent -- what a statistic!

And in a footnote, Professor Ibson tells us how the figures shifted as what we call heterosexualization proceeded apace:

Of American men fifteen and older, 42 percent were bachelors in 1890, 33 percent in 1940, and only 25 percent in 1950.

That's heterosexualization, and it's not a figment of anyone's imagination -- it's right there in the stats.

Let's get back to Warrior Dave's letter:

Anyway, I did a "coming out" recently of a more noble sort. I told my pals, Peter and Hannah, that I have no interest in anal. The effect was amazing. During a previous drinking game Hannah had admitted that her ex-boyfriend had done anal on her, and she had said it with a certain amount of pride. But, after I told her I had no interest in anal, she came to me and admitted she was in counselling, and on anti-depressants, because this ex-boyfriend of hers had been sexually abusive to her.

Yes.

That's unfortunate, but it's not surprising.

Anal penetration is a sexually abusive act.

There's always some pain, and there's always damage to the delicate mucosal lining of the anus and rectum, resulting in exposure of the vascular tissue -- blood -- to whatever's in or on the insertive partner's penis.

And there are a lot of other potential complications, which we discuss in an anus is not a vagina, as well.

Which is why we sometimes refer to analism as a rape culture.

Of course we know, and as was discussed by Wm Saletan in Slate in 2005, the number of male-female couples who admit to having "experimented" with anal is rising.

What we don't know is to what extent anal has replaced vaginal as a primary practice among "straight" couples -- very little I would think;

and how much of the impetus for experimentation is coming from the male partner.

Most, I would think.

I'm pleased to report that this ex-boyfriend is no longer in our circle of friends.

Good!

As for Peter, he has been looking at me with new, curious eyes, and I think he no longer needs to look at me sheepishly when phrases such as "arse-bandit" and "knob-jockey" fall out of his mouth, because he realises now that these terms are pejorative for a reason.

That's correct.

There is a reason, and it's not necessarily "homophobia."

As a matter of fact, I recently received an email from a straight-identified guy who said that our websites "led me to realise that I wasn't really homophobic - I just disliked anal, exaggerated effeminacy, and unhealthy promiscuity that I thought represented all 'gay' men."

To which he added, "And I certainly do regret the death of all-male spaces in society that 'straight' men, regardless of whether they ever have sex with another man, would benefit from."

David:

And I remember when two other friends broke up - a closer couple you couldn't imagine - and it was just after she told me he'd done anal on her. A coincidence? Perhaps. But I know for a fact that, four years on, they still miss each other.

So, it seems to me that anal sex, the bread and butter of gay relationships, and "innocent exploration" for straight couples, is in fact as polluting to the heart as it is dangerous to the body.

Right.

Anal penetration is "as polluting to the heart as it is dangerous to the body."

Anal penetration is a social evil.

While analism itself is -- the enemy of humanity.

What I hope guys will see from reading Dave's post -- is that when you tell your friends -- particularly your straight-identified friends -- that you don't do anal --

it helps them;

and it helps YOU.

Which means it's something you need to do.

"Coming out" is always the first step.

And it's one the vast majority of you have put off -- for far too long.

Thank you Dave.

An excellent post.

From a true Warrior.

Bill Weintraub

August 18, 2009

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

Dave

Re: ...amazing what happens when you "come out"

8-21-2009

How right you are: homosexuality is a myth, a construct of a prevailing "rational" society which seeks to put a label on everything, like lepidopterists pinning dead insects to a board.

And it's important that this myth is rapidly deconstructed, because as a youth I had my heart broken too many times by lovers who betrayed me for the sake of the "strictly heterosexual" label.

Just the other day a friend looked me in the eye and said "It is never going to happen". I imagine he thought that he was puting me in my place; letting me know that he was strictly reserved for the ladies. But in fact he gave himself away. He denies himself. Because why would he need to say such a thing if the idea had never entered his head? And the loss is his.

The sad thing is that he, and most other young men, accept the identity handed to them by society and never think to question it. That is by no means democratic. It is a tyranny over men's souls, and I wonder how many men suffer wordlessly, and needlessly, over their less-than-perfect "heterosexuality"?

That is why the Alliance is important and that is why I contribute to it.