Posts
from


D E A T H
of an
AIDS Activist














Bill Weintraub

Bill Weintraub

Death of an AIDS Activist

12-31-12


Prefatory Note:

If you are new to The Man2Man Alliance, you need to know that since 2010 we have, in our writing, put the words "gay" and "straight" in quotation marks, that we do the same, most of the time, with the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual," while referring to folks, where appropriate, as either gay-identified or straight-identified -- without quotation marks.

To understand why, it's crucial that you read Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition.

Again, it's critical that, if you haven't already, or haven't in a long time, read Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition -- you read that article before you read this one.

Clicking on this link -- Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition -- will open that article in a new window, and you can easily return to this one -- when you're done.

Bill Weintraub


Death of an AIDS Activist


Part I

"mortality"

In December 2012 The New York Times ran the obit of an AIDS activist named Spencer Cox.

The obit was revealing of the way those gay-identified males who came to dominate the so-called gay community during the AIDS era -- thought about AIDS; by inference, about anal -- which transmits HIV, the cause of AIDS; and about human life itself.

Cox's story, at first, seems simple enough.

He was born in 1968.

Which means that he was thirteen when, in 1981, AIDS was first described as a "syndrome."

And that in 1984, when HIV was identified as the cause of AIDS and anal as the mode of transmission -- he was sixteen.

He attended college in Vermont, but then moved, at some uncertain date, possibly 1988, to New York.

And, the Times tells us:

He discovered he was H.I.V. positive shortly after arriving in New York.

Which begs the question -- when did he acquire HIV?

Of course it could have happened prior to 1984 -- that is, before he was sixteen.

Or even prior to 1981 -- before he was thirteen.

But neither are likely.

It's far more likely that he was infected after 1984 -- that is, after it had been conclusively demonstrated that anal was mortally dangerous, and that the only way to "survive the plague" -- was to AVOID ANAL.

But Mr Cox didn't do that.

Instead he got infected.

Now -- let's be clear that Larry Kramer, the father of AIDS activism and the creator of the very organization, ACT UP, in which Mr Cox was so prominent, has described those who continued doing anal -- or perhaps just "unprotected" anal -- after 1981 -- as both "murderous" and suicidal.

Does it occur to you that we brought this plague of aids upon ourselves? I know I am getting into dangerous waters here but it is time. With the cabal breathing even more murderously down our backs it is time. And you are still doing it. You are still murdering each other. Please stop with all the generalizations and avoidance excuses gays have used since the beginning to ditch this responsibility for this fact. From the very first moment we were told in 1981 that the suspected cause was a virus, 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. Make whatever excuses you can to carry on living in your state of denial but this is the fact of the matter. I wish we could understand and take some responsibility for the fact that for some 30 years we have been murdering each other with great facility and that down deep inside of us, we knew what we were doing. Don't tell me you have never had sex without thinking down deep that there was more involved in what you were doing than just maintaining a hard-on.

I have recently gone through my diaries of the worst of the plague years. I saw day after day a notation of another friend's death. I listed all the ones I'd slept with. There were a couple hundred. Was it my sperm that killed them, that did the trick? It is no longer possible for me to avoid this question of myself. Have you ever wondered how many men you killed? I know I murdered some of them. I just know. You know how you sometimes know things? I know. Several hundred over a bunch of years, I have to have murdered some of them, planting in him the original seed. I have put this to several doctors. Mostly they refuse to discuss it, even if they are gay. Most doctors do not like to discuss sex or what we do or did. (I still have not heard a consensus on the true dangers of oral sex, for instance.) They play blind. God knows what they must be thinking when they examine us. Particularly if they aren't gay. One doctor answered me, it takes two to tango so you cannot take the responsibility alone. But in some cases it isn't so easy to answer so flippantly. The sweet young boy who didn't know anything and was in awe of me. I was the first man who fucked him. I think I murdered him. The old boyfriend who did not want to go to bed with me and I made him. The man I let fuck me because I was trying to make my then boyfriend, now lover, jealous. I know, by the way, that that other one is the one who infected me. You know how you sometime know things? I know he infected me. I tried to murder myself on that one.

~Larry Kramer, speaking at NYC's Cooper Union in November, 2004.

Notice that Larry says that "From the very first moment we were told in 1981 that the suspected cause was a virus, 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."

And adds, regarding his being the "receptive" partner in anal, "The man I let fuck me because I was trying to make my then boyfriend, now lover, jealous. I know, by the way, that that other one is the one who infected me. You know how you sometime know things? I know he infected me. I tried to murder myself on that one."

"I tried to murder myself on that one."

And it seems likely that that's what Mr Cox did too.

He allowed himself to get infected by allowing himself to be fucked -- which was a suicidal act.

Having discovered, however, that he was indeed infected with HIV, Mr Cox then turned to "AIDS activism" in an effort to save his life and -- we are led to believe -- that of others.

This is what the Times says about his activism -- as you'll see, and as was common with his sort of zealot, he moved quickly through the ranks:

By 1989, at age 20, he had joined the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, better known as Act Up, the organization devoted to pushing government and private industry, often with demonstrations, sit-ins and other tactics, to dedicate more resources for AIDS treatment and prevention.

In 1992, he was among the Act Up members who formed the Treatment Action Group, known as TAG, to focus on accelerating treatment research.

Along with other TAG colleagues, Mr. Cox schooled himself in the science of AIDS, the workings of drug trials and the government approval process. While still in his 20s he represented people with AIDS in high-level meetings with the Federal Drug Administration and other agencies and private companies.

And then came his moment of glory:

In 1995, when antiretroviral drugs known as protease inhibitors began to show promise for treating AIDS patients, Mr. Cox designed a human drug trial for one of the earliest, ritonavir, which was being developed by Abbott Laboratories. The trial created two groups: one would continue taking the medications already prescribed by their doctors and receive a placebo, the other would continue on their medications and also receive ritonavir.

The plan was controversial because no one wanted to receive a placebo, and many AIDS patients and activists believed the best course of action was to approve the drug first and test later. Mr. Cox's design, however, allowed for both speedy data gathering and a relatively accelerated approval process.

After six months, those on the ritonavir had half the mortality rate of those on the placebo; the drug was approved on Feb. 28, 1996. The next day, a rival drug developed by Merck, indinavir, was approved as well.

[emphases mine]

So -- in 1995, when the suffering and death from AIDS among "men who had sex with men" was at its height -- I know, because 1995 was the year my own lover, Brett Averill, died, after seven long years of terrible suffering, from AIDS --

In 1995, Mr Cox used his position of power in the "Treatment Action Group" to decree that in the interests of science, a group of SICK AND DYING PEOPLE would -- for six months -- which, I can tell you, was an ETERNITY in the life of a "person with AIDS" -- an eternity of pain and misery --

Mr Cox, using his position of power and, we're assured, in the interests of science -- determined that one group of those SICK and SUFFERING HUMAN BEINGS and FELLOW GAY-IDENTIFIED MALES would be DENIED a promising, indeed potentially life-saving, drug -- and instead receive a placebo;

While another group would of course have the benefit of new treatment.

The Times:

The plan was controversial because no one wanted to receive a placebo, and many AIDS patients and activists believed the best course of action was to approve the drug first and test later.

"Approve the drug first and test later."

That's described as, in the view of "many AIDS patients and activists . . . the best course of action."

It would also have been the most humane -- human -- and life saving.

But not to the young Mr Cox.

He insisted that one group get a placebo, the other the ritonavir.

What was the result?

After six months, those on the ritonavir had half the mortality rate of those on the placebo ; the drug was approved on Feb. 28, 1996.

"half the mortality rate" says the Times, celebrating this triumph of Coxian science.

"mortality rate"

That's one way to put it.

"mortality rate"

Nice and sanitized, like the anuses you see in "gay" porn, from which all traces of shit and blood have been removed.

"mortality rate"

But doesn't the word DEATH -- about which NOTHING is or can be sanitized --

Doesn't the word DEATH -- belong in there -- somewhere?

Thanks to Mr Cox's machinations, a significant number of Men in the control group -- DIED.

THEY DIED.

"Gay" men DIED.

The very men Mr Cox claimed to be trying to save.

THEY DIED.

My lover Brett wasn't among them, but he almost was.

The reason he wasn't, was -- that in another spasm of political correctness, those drug trials, rather than being held in San Francisco, where we lived, were held in San Diego.

Because too many trials, the HIV-powers-that-be had decided, were being held in SF.

And so Brett died, in San Francisco, unassisted by Mr Cox.

A good thing for Mr Cox, too, because if Brett had died because Mr Cox had decreed he be given a placebo instead of ritonavir, I would have killed him.

No question of that.

And you know, I told one of our guys -- one of our Alliance guys -- that's what I would have done, and he didn't believe me.

That's because he's never been through the brutal experience of losing someone -- his Lover, his Manly Lover -- whom he loved more than his life.

If you haven't been there -- and most of you haven't -- you don't understand the state of mind of the Man who's survived.

And that's the problem.

To most of you AIDS is an academic issue.

To the younger among you it's ancient history.

But it's neither.

What is beyond belief to me is that NONE of the guys whose lovers died in SD -- went after Cox.

They just accepted it, in that bizarre, passive, fucked-up-the-ass way that gay-identified males do.

Beyond belief.

Yet it's true.

Mr Cox lived on.

And the Times *praises* what he did:

"Spencer pushed for data-driven decisions," Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview on Wednesday. "He wanted the facts and was always very meticulous about getting good data rather than just screaming for getting something approved. It's a great loss. He was part of a historic group of people."

Again, I have to wonder about those "gay" boys in SD whose lovers died.

Are they too thankful that Cox wasn't "just screaming for getting something approved"?

Sometimes -- not "screaming" -- and notice the homophobia in Dr Fauci's choice of word -- sometimes, however, not screaming, but simply saying forcefully -- we can't allow human beings to die if there's a chance that giving them this drug will keep them alive -- is the right thing to do.

But then -- what would the, per Larry Kramer, "murderous" gay community know about -- the right thing to do?

So far as I can see -- NOTHING.

And what did Mr Cox's activism in favor of mortality -- avail him?

Also nothing.

A young Mr. Cox can be seen in the documentary about Act Up, "How to Survive a Plague." In recent years he wrote on AIDS issues for POZ and other publications, and founded a short-lived organization called the Medius Institute for Gay Men's Health, which was concerned with issues faced by gay men as they grow older, among them loneliness, depression and substance abuse.

Mark Harrington, the executive director of TAG, said Mr. Cox himself struggled with an addiction to methamphetamines. Some months ago, he said, a despairing Mr. Cox had apparently stopped taking his medication.

"He saved the lives of millions, but he couldn't save his own," Mr. Harrington said.

So -- Mr Cox, having tried to murder himself at some point in the 1980s by acquiring HIV, and then assisting, shall we say, in the "mortality" of others through the withholding of medication -- became addicted to meth -- and killed himself.

"He saved the lives of millions."

NO he didn't.

I don't know what he did -- but he didn't do that.

First off, let me expose the nonsense in this sentence from the Times:

Mr. Cox's design, however, allowed for both speedy data gathering and a relatively accelerated approval process.

The inference is that without Cox's insistence on withholding life-saving medication, ritonavir and other protease inhibitors would have languished on the shelf for months, years, decades.

That is NONSENSE.

People were dying.

People were desperate.

ANY TIME, ANY DRUG, SHOWED ANY PROMISE, it was obtained -- and used.

That was true from the beginning -- when people were turning to dopey and useless alternative therapies like macrobiotics and "compound Q" -- and it was true in 1995.

AS SOON AS WORD HAD GOTTEN OUT about ritonavir -- which would have happened very quickly, not least, and to be fair, through groups like ACT UP -- it would have been obtained and used.

MOREOVER:

WE HAVE KNOWN, since 1981 if you wish, or 1984, if you'd rather, how to "save the lives of millions" and "how to survive a plague."

DON'T DO ANAL.

Because ANAL IS THE MODE OF TRANSMISSION.

It's the anal.

Don't do anal.

We've known it.

The Dutch even demonstrated it.

Yet for saying it, I've been savaged.

But it's the Truth.

But -- not to the "gay" community.

To them, protecting buttfuck and promiscuity have ALWAYS been more important than saving the Lives of Men who Love Men.

And -- look, just look, at how the wicked prosper.

For the "gay" community has gotten away with it.

It's gotten gay-marriage and gays-in-the-military etc.

And anal itself has gotten away with it.

Anal has become normative not just for "gays" -- but for "straights" too.

While The Times praises the self-destructive Mr Cox -- to high heaven.

But I'm not fooled.

And maybe you're not either.


Death of an AIDS Activist


Part II

"How to Survive a Plague"

I said I've been savaged.

Is that true of other people?

For example, Larry Kramer says, referring to the gay-identified males he anally penetrated,

I know I murdered some of them [through infecting them with HIV.]

Did I, or have I ever, done that?

No.

I'm not infected with HIV, so I couldn't infect anyone else with it.

Nor would I, had I been infected, done that.

Nor did my late lover Brett Averill.

He told me, more than once, and after he was mortally ill, that he'd never infected anyone either.

Has Larry Kramer been attacked or criticized for saying that he knows he "murdered some of them?"

No.

That sort of "candor" is seen as "refreshing" in today's essentially valueless and vicious hedonist world.

"Oh yes," says the literary lion, "I murdered some of my bedmates."

"How interesting," replies the animalistic mob.

But Bill Weintraub, who never murdered anyone, through anal penetration, or through sitting on a committee, or in any other way, and whose only sin was to suggest that there was a simple and very sexual way for other "men who have sex with men" to avoid HIV infection -- has been savaged.

How does that weigh out -- on the scales of blind justice?

How does it measure up?

Let's look at some of the things I've said, beginning with my first published article, Hyacinthine Love, and continuing through the present, which have led to my being attacked, over and over and over again.

  1. The simple and sure-fire way to avoid anally-transmitted diseases, including HIV -- is to avoid anal.

    Anyone want to argue with that?

    Mr Cox?

    Dr Fauci?

    Anyone?

    Okay -- then we'll move on:

  2. The way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases in general -- is to avoid promiscuity -- to be True, that is, sexually faithful, to one partner throughout your life.

    No argument there either.

  3. The penetration by one male of another male's anus is a pale substitute for penile-vaginal sex; a substitute which mimics male-female sex without any of its benefits -- and much to the detraction of authentic male-male sex.

    Why?

    1. Because an anus is not a vagina.

      Just as a liver is not a heart;

      nor a lung a spleen.

      They're different organs -- they differ anatomically and physiologically, and they have different functions.

      Anyone disagree?

      Anyone who wants to try to demonstrate that a liver is a heart, or a lung a spleen?

    2. Nor is an anus a penis -- or a clitoris.

      There's no erectile tissue in the anus.

      Nothing which corresponds to the penis or clitoris.

      This is something I discuss at length in an anus is not a vagina.

      For example, I quote a gay-identified, ano-rectal surgeon named Stephen Goldstone who says "your rectum and colon do not have nerves that sense pleasure. While many guys will disagree with me, there is no physiological basis for most of the pleasure you derive higher up in your colon."

      And that's it.

      That's the end of the discussion.

      "no nerves that sense pleasure" means "no nerves that sense pleasure."

      "no physiological basis" means "no physiological basis."

      Again, I discuss this at length in an anus is not a vagina.

      Just click on the link and you'll find the discussion.

      So:

      An anus is not a penis, nor is it a clitoris.

      Is a penis a clitoris, or a clitoris a penis?

      No -- but they correspond to each other morphologically.

      Here's one woman's discussion:

      The visible glans of the clitoris, which is hooded by a prepuce -- (formed by the meeting of the labia minora) -- is only the outward and visible part of a much more extensive structure of erectile tissue. The clitoral structure surrounds and extends into the vagina. The structure contains erectile tissue, very similar to the male penis, so when a woman gets sexually aroused, it engorges with blood. The clitoris is densely packed with nerve endings; while similar in number to the penis, they are much more concentrated and closer together.

      Contrast that description of an "extensive structure of erectile tissue . . . densely packed with nerve endings[, which,] when a woman gets sexually aroused, engorges with blood" --

      with Dr Goldstone's "your rectum and colon do not have nerves that sense pleasure. While many guys will disagree with me, there is no physiological basis for most of the pleasure you derive higher up in your colon."

      Would Dr Goldstone say the same of the penis -- that it doesn't have nerves which sense pleasure, that there's no physiological basis for the pleasure you derive from your penis?

      Of course not.

      An anus is not a vagina.

      An anus is not a clitoris.

      An anus is not a penis.

      An anus is not a sexual organ.

      And pretending that it is -- does not make it one.

      What it does do -- is create a lot of dysphoria, disease, and death.

      That's what I've said.

      And for saying it -- I've been savaged.

Mr Cox, at least according to his Times' obit, never said anything like that.

Instead, he sought to make it safe -- for guys to do anal.

And be promiscuous.

He supported the hedonist agenda.

And so, at his death, he's lionized.

Even though, at a critical moment in his career as an "AIDS activist," he insisted on following a scientific protocol which resulted in what the Times quaintly calls "mortality."

Death.

Mr Cox's insistence resulted in the death of some of his fellow gay-identified men.

But he's one of the good guys.

While I -- for telling Men who Love Men to eschew anal and any other act which mimics "heterosexuality" -- am bad.

Bad Bill.

But I'm not.

Not in any way.

Rather, I am right and correct in every particular.

Not just about what an anus actually is, and not just about the dire health effects of anal penetration, but in my insistence that it's always -- always -- a mistake for a minority to mimic a majority.

And when the minority -- so-perceived -- is a sexual minority, and when the mimicking is of the majority's sex act, and when that mimicking is turned into the core and defining "sexual" act of the minority --

the result is deadly.


Death of an AIDS Activist


Part III

"an addiction to methamphetamines"

The Times:

Mark Harrington, the executive director of TAG, said Mr. Cox himself struggled with an addiction to methamphetamines. Some months ago, he said, a despairing Mr. Cox had apparently stopped taking his medication.

Mr Cox killed himself -- in a very painful way.

Why would he do that?

In It's the anal, I talk about meth addiction among gay-identified guys.

That, in part, is because the New Yorker had, when I wrote It's the anal back in 2005, recently published a piece which spelled out the nexus between and among HIV, anal, promiscuity, effeminacy, and meth.

Like I say, that was in 2005.

Seven years ago.

And the "gay" community still has not figured out what to do about meth addiction.

I wonder why.

Here's part of what I said, and the New Yorker said, in 2005:

We're now in the thirtieth year of the supremacy of anal penetration.

And the 24th year of the epidemic.

24 years is a long time.

We've got 500,000 dead in America alone and another million infected, at least half of whom -- and probably a lot more -- are gay and bi men.

[Update 2012: We're now in the 31st year of the epidemic, and, according to aids.gov,

More than 17,000 people with AIDS in the U.S. died in 2009 and more than 619,000 people with AIDS in the U.S. have died since the epidemic began. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are strongly affected and represent the majority of persons who have died.

And according to avert.org, in 2009 there were more than 48,000 new infections in America, and "msm" accounted for at least 77% of those.

That's as of 12/12 -- let's get back to 2005:]

And every day 60 more gay and bi men get infected -- minimum.

[Another update: The figure for 2009 -- four years later -- is 102 "gay" and "bi" males per day -- quite an increase.]

How do they get infected?

Through anal penetration.

That's the problem.

That's where and how the bad stuff happens.

In the anus and rectum during penetration.

Clearly, we need to get rid of anal.

Instead, with each passing day, anal gets more entrenched.

And that's not an accident.

It's because of the actions of the gay establishment.

Which you can read about in the New Yorker piece.

It's because that establishment NEVER questions anal and instead does all it can to prop up anal and promiscuity and effeminacy.

Early in the New Yorker piece, for example, a prominent San Francisco psychotherapist appears in drag to host "Tina's Cafe" -- a drop-in group about crystal meth.

Here's the New Yorker's description of the scene:

Even today, with a million Americans infected with H.I.V. and half a million others already dead, many of the clinics and counselling facilities that focus on the health of gay men remain dreary places, largely hidden from view. Magnet[, located at the heart of San Francisco's ultra-gay Castro district,] is neither of those things. Its bright setting, modern furniture, and polished wood floors make it look far more like an art gallery than like a doctor's office. One needn't be sick to go there, nor is it necessary to make an appointment. Drop in any time, to be tested for syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, or H.I.V. It also functions as what its director, Steven Gibson, calls a "hotel lobby for the people of the Castro, a place to talk, to worry, to smile, to cry," or, as Magnet's Web site puts it, to "cruise (online or real time)."

Last month, on one of the first genuinely warm nights of spring, the center held a small gathering called Tina's Cafe. The sidewalks of the Castro were filled with men. So were the bars and coffee shops; the Men's Room, the Midnight Sun, and even the "gay" Starbucks, on Eighteenth Street, were all bustling by 8 p.m., and a small crowd had begun drifting into Magnet. A new exhibition had been installed -- a series of sexually suggestive pictures taken from the Internet. The visitors stared at the walls in awkward silence for a while, then took seats at tables covered with lollipops and M&M's. There was a bar with wine and soda in the back, where a d.j. was setting up his equipment. Soon, a tall man in a short dress appeared. His name was Michael Siever, and he wore a brunet wig, high-heeled pumps, and magenta stockings. "Welcome to Tina's Cafe," Siever told the crowd. "I am really glad you are here. We are going to talk about what's real tonight. About paranoia and violence and anger and fear. About reality." A couple of dozen heads nodded in unison. "We are going to talk about what is happening to our world." Siever has the soothing voice of a psychotherapist, which he is. He is also the director of the Stonewall Project, a highly regarded counselling program. "Tonight, above all, we are here to talk about Tina."

Tina is crystal methamphetamine, a chemical stimulant that affects the central nervous system. It is hardly a new drug, and it has many other names: biker's coffee, crank, speed. It has also been called redneck cocaine, because it is available on the street, in bars, and on the Internet for less than the price of a good bottle of wine. ...

[emphases mine]

"Soon, a tall man in a short dress appeared. His name was Michael Siever, and he wore a brunet wig, high-heeled pumps, and magenta stockings. "Welcome to Tina's Cafe," Siever told the crowd. ... Siever has the soothing voice of a psychotherapist, which he is. He is also the director of the Stonewall Project, a highly regarded counselling program."

Think about that:

The intersection of drag and drugs and anal receptivity in this well-appointed gay meeting place at the symbolic center of the gay male world.

The anal, the drag, and to a large extent the drugs too -- are all institutionalized.

Siever, the guy in drag, isn't some marginal figure in the gay male community.

He's the director of "a highly regarded counselling program."

He's part of the gay male establishment.

He's part of the problem.

Also consider how these anally receptive men are going to be on drugs of one kind or another for the rest of their lives.

They'll do meth till they get HIV.

And then they'll do antivirals for the rest of their days.

Unless, like Mr Cox, one of the architects, we're told, of antiviral therapy, they choose to go off their antivirals, and end their lives au naturel.

Why would anyone do that?

Why?

The gay establishment has an answer:

"homophobia"

The rate of substance abuse among the gay-identified is higher than among the straight-identified, the gay establishment admits -- but that's because of homophobia.

A gay-identified guy like Mr Cox was beaten down not just by HIV, but by homophobia -- and that's why he, in Noel Coward's immortal words, "lost hope, shot dope, and locked himself in the john."

Really?

Mr Cox, according to the Times, was born in Atlanta in 1968.

I was born in Baltimore in 1948.

The Baltimore of 1948 was at least as homophobic as the Atlanta of 1968 -- don't you think?

I do.

Mr Cox moved to NYC in 1988 or 1989.

I moved to NYC in 1979.

Ten years earlier.

And I know, because I was there, that the New York of 1979 was far MORE homophobic than the New York of 1989.

Yet I never did meth.

Moreover, Mr Cox continued living in New York, in what we must assume was a predominantly "gay" milieu -- until he died.

At least 24 years.

During which time New York City became one of the least homophobic places on earth.

Even Staten Island -- which, when I was in New York, was the most conservative borough, is now, and has been for a long time, remarkably "gay-friendly"; and you can read about that in this post, titled NYC condoms, NYC censorship, and which discusses Staten Island's efforts, in 2007, to censor a billboard with an "anti-gay" -- actually anti-anal -- message.

So -- Mr Cox spent 24 of his 44 years on this earth -- in a predominantly non-homophobic city which wasn't just "gay friendly," but, as you can see from the Times' obit, celebratory of almost anything and anyone "gay."

And that matters -- because homophobia is a cultural phenomenon.

It's not intra-psychic; it's cultural.

So: homophobia is not the reason Mr Cox was addicted to meth.

Why was he addicted?

I don't know, because I didn't know him.

But I do know, in general, why substance abuse, including meth addiction, is so common among the gay-identified.

It's the anal.

Specifically, it's the way anal degrades Natural Masculinity.

The Male's Innate Manliness.

His Manhood.

Now, I know --

Bad Bill has just used not one, or two, but three Bad Words -- Masculinity and Manliness and Manhood.

How can I possibly, having uttered those terms of abuse, defend myself in the eyes of the "LGBT community?"

Will, for example, my old friend Larry Kramer defend me?

No.

He's already told me that my critique of anal and effeminacy is, in his elegant and eloquent word, "shit."

And my championing of Manliness -- beyond the pale.

He actually compared me to Hitler.

But lacking, as I do, not only facial hair and a political party, but a vast and vastly industrialized nation state, a mighty armed force, an extensive network of secret police, and a huge propaganda apparatus --

and being Jewish to boot --

I thought that was a bit over the top -- even for Larry.

Nevertheless, it's clear that I can't turn to an old buddy like Larry K.

I'll have to look for a new friend.

And you know, I've think I've found him.

Or her -- depends on your point of view.


Death of an AIDS Activist


Part IV

Chastity or Chaz?

She/He is Chaz Bono -- the offspring of Sonny and Cher, born Chastity Bono, and who recently, and in a veritable orgy of media attention -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/fashion/08CHAZ.html ; http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2070191,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-mostpopular -- "transitioned" from female to male.

I said it was an orgy of media attention -- actually, it was an orchestrated orgy, because Chastity/Chaz Bono is, after all, a child of Hollywood, and she/he had a documentary made about her/his "transition," and then hired a PR term to flack it.

And flack it they did -- she/he was all over the media, with major articles in the Times, TIME Magazine, Yahoo!, Reuters, etc.

And, I must say, that Chastity/Chaz -- presumably with the help of her/his PR team -- honed her/his message till it was razor-sharp -- and then stayed admirably on-message throughout her/his fifteen minutes of fame.

That's something that trannies in the media generally do -- they stay on message.

And it's something YOU need to learn to do.

James Carville, interviewed in Rolling Stone, on the recent election:

One of the great statements of the Kerry campaign was when they said, "We have a nuanced and layered message."

It can't be nuanced and layered and be a message -- it just can't.

That's correct.

The message has to be plain and clear, and you have to stay with it doggedly -- and no matter what:

  • Frot -- not anal.

  • Manly -- not femmy.

  • True -- not promiscuous.

Like I say, Chastity/Chaz stayed admirably and doggedly -- on message.

And I like that in a friend.

And who better to be my friend than a current darling of the "LGBT community" like Chastity/Chaz Bono?

I mean, and after all, even her/his name means -- "good."

And she/he, as I keep saying, because it matters, knows how to stay on message.

What was her/his message?

Well, and let me just say, before going any further:

I'm here using Chastity/Chaz's self-report of her/himself as a self-styled "transgendered person."

Do I fully believe that self-report?

No -- or at least, not exactly.

First of all because, as I'll discuss, there are holes in the tranny narrative;

and second of all because, and speaking as someone who's been "out" for 40 years and has known a fair number of transgendered folks, they don't come across as Men and Women;

rather, they come across as stereotypically male or female.

That, of course, isn't a sin, nor is it in any way "bad"; but it does give me pause.

As does the plain fact that psychiatry, which currently champions the transgendered, just a few years ago regarded male-male needs and desires as evidence of mental illness.

Which they clearly are not.

So psychiatry is not, shall we say, and to be charitable, an exact science.

It's subject, not in all matters but in many, to the whims and fortunes of opinion.

Rather than what Plato would call Truth.

And, unfortunately, there's also the Hollywood aspect.

People in Hollywood, people like the Bono's, are trained to represent themselves -- as something they aren't.

Doesn't necessarily mean that Chastity/Chaz is doing that.

But -- she/he probably knows, and well, how to do it.

I mean, how long ago was it that Tom Cruise was traipsing all over Oprah's couch proclaiming his love for someone or another -- from whom he's now separated?

So -- and all that said -- I don't -- *exactly* -- as I say -- believe Chastity/Chaz's self-report.

Which is why I've been referring to Bono as "Chastity/Chaz" and "she/he" etc.

I know those formulations are awkward.

And it's not that I want to be churlish.

It's that the point to The Man2Man Alliance -- is to know and speak the Truth about Men.

And when it comes to Chastity/Chaz -- I'm just not certain what the Truth is.

I have a strong suspicion.

But I'm not certain.

Which is why I said -- I don't *exactly* believe Chastity/Chaz's self-report.

Nor am I at all eager to find, six months from now, that Chaz has decided he's actually Chastity, and is having his breasts restored.

Does all that sound mean?

But consider the plain fact that Chaz Bono still has -- as part of "his" body -- Chastity Bono's vagina.

Did I mention that?

I'm mentioning it now.

Chaz Bono still has -- as part of "his" body -- Chastity Bono's vagina.

And presumably, her ovaries and womb too.

While lacking a penis -- and testicles -- of his own.

Not to mention an XY chromosome.

You see the problem.

Chaz himself would agree, I believe and, as you'll see, not without reason, that very very very very very very very very very few Men -- have vaginas.

Or lack a penis -- and testicles -- and XY chromosome.

So -- I'm reserving judgment.

That said, moreover, and very much more to the point -- I'm not talking about Chastity/Chaz here because I'm particularly interested in the veracity or lack thereof -- of her/his self-report.

Oh no.

I'm talking about Chastity/Chaz because the embrace by the "gay" community of the transgendered and the transformation of the L-G-B community into the L-G-B-T community is a prime example of the hypocrisy and extreme and irrational prejudice of that community -- against Men who don't and won't do anal.

Men who won't and don't do anal -- because to do anal violates their inner sense -- of being a Man.

Which includes their spiritual sense of being a Man.

For, as we say in Sacred Phallic Love: The Holy Sacrament of Frot, in the Alliance, we believe that Masculinity is a Divine Principle, Manhood a Divine Gift, and Frot a Holy Sacrament.

Indeed, in what is in fact a theurgical sense, and as one of our Warriors has said,

Through the sacred act of Phallic Bonding, "Masculine men are co-creators with each other and with the Divine."

So strongly do we believe these things that many of us Worship a Divine Being whom we call Ares, and who Sokrates, in the Cratylus, identifies as the God of Manhood and Manliness.

Translation: our feelings and beliefs -- our inner, inward, and most core feelings and beliefs -- about what should constitute sex between Men, about who Men are, and about what Manliness, Masculinity, and Manhood mean to Men -- are at least as deeply held -- as are Chastity/Chaz Bono's about "gender."

So -- let's talk about Chastity/Chaz.

In his current aspect -- as Chaz.

Chaz has a message -- clear, and clearly articulated.

Which is:

That since childhood, he has *inwardly* -- INWARDLY -- felt himself -- to be a Man.

And that that inner feeling of being a man -- has been at terrible odds with his biological body -- which is female.

Take, for example, this exchange which occurred in TIME magazine:

TIME:

I think the most dramatic part of the book was when you talk about having your breasts removed. What was that like?

Bono:

It was the greatest day, probably of my life. It was getting rid of something on my body that felt like it didn't belong there since they started to develop at, like, 11 or 12.

TIME:

So you never doubted that after you did it?

Bono:

God, no. I mean I'm so thrilled. Couldn't be happier about that. I think that's something that freaks women out, but if you're a man with breasts, you really don't want them.

See what I mean?

"if you're a man with breasts, you really don't want them"

That is a MESSAGE, and Chaz is ON IT.

Let's try that from the point of view of Men -- who refuse to do anal:

TIME:

I think the most dramatic part of the book was when you talk about telling your family, your friends, and your new boyfriend that you don't and won't do anal. What was that like?

MAN:

It was the greatest day, probably of my life. It was getting rid of something "gay" males wanted to put in my body -- that felt like it didn't belong there since I first heard about guys having sex with guys, at, like, 11 or 12.

TIME:

So you never doubted that after you did it?

MAN:

God, no. Couldn't be happier about it. If you're a Man, you really don't want a dick up your ass.

"If you're a Man, you really don't want a dick up your ass."

Try making that your message, and staying with it.

Because, you see, there's really not that much difference between what we're saying -- and what Chastity/Chaz is saying -- about this question of the Man within.

Except that, her/his solutions are a LOT more DRASTIC -- than are ours.

I mean, our solution to honoring our inner sense of Manliness, our inner certainty of Manhood -- is to not do anal;

To be Men -- which means, among other things, to train in a Fight Sport, which most of you refuse to do -- which means you're NOT yet truly Men; and --

To rub cocks.

None of that requires potentially life-threatening surgery or drugs or -- anything else.

All we have to do is be ourselves.

And in our own, God-given, bodies.

Chastity/Chaz, by contrast, has had her breasts lopped off -- and will have to undergo years of hormone therapy -- and someday, she/he says, when it's possible, will have her vagina replaced with a penis.

Radical stuff.

Yet Chastity/Chaz is adored -- and we're damned -- by the same "community" -- the LGBT community.

Why?

Well, the reason may strike you as profound -- or profoundly stupid.

But Chaz is perceived as bending gender -- that is, violating the rules of gender.

Actually, and as we'll see, he's not -- at least in one sense.

Because his conception of gender is very conventional -- like I said, stereotypical -- in a way that ours isn't.

Nevertheless, that perceived gender-bending is viewed as valuable and "liberating" by a certain segment of radical feminists, who believe that for Women to rise, Men must fall;

And that to achieve that fall, that detumescence of the Phallocentric order, society must weaken -- violently weaken -- indeed, emasculate and, whenever possible, castrate -- Men;

-- and who think that gender-bending does just that.

And you can see their point -- or sort of.

I mean, and after all, if we now have to refer to Chastity as "Chaz" -- even though Chaz still has Chastity's vagina -- doesn't that, in some way, weaken the Phallocracy?

Well, and without question, the general public -- or at least that part of the public that reads the Times and TIME -- believes it does.

Nevertheless, their thinking is fuzzy -- to say the least.

The Truth is that a female who wants to be a male -- or a male who wants to be female -- that is, a person who seeks to change her or his gender because of "gender dysphoria" --

has nothing in common with a Man who chooses to express his natural, normal, and universal male-male needs and desires -- with another Man.

And those needs and desires are indeed universal, as my foreign friend says:

Male sexual desire for other Men cannot be tied to a minority group.

It is a Universal phenomenon, particularly strong among Masculine Men.

MEN DESIRE MEN.

And that has nothing to do with femininity -- and everything to do -- with being a MAN.

So -- the transgendered are, as Chaz himself says, a tiny and anomalous minority;

while we, as Men who desire Men, are part of a vast majority -- at least 3.5 billion strong.

Nevertheless, Men who desire Men -- but who refuse to be emasculated via anal penetration on in any other way -- are seen by the "LGBT community" -- as a problem; while the transgendered, and in particular, a male who wants to be a female -- are seen as a -- and indeed, increasingly, as *the* -- solution.

The effeminized male -- the male made effeminate -- is the solution.

As my foreign friend says:

The heterosexual society cares only for women. It sees men only as a problematic group that comes in the way of what is called women's rights.

Gay-identified males are among the most ardent supporters of heterosexualisation. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated / negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

"Gay" males derive immense power from the heterosexual society. In fact they owe the heterosexual society their existence.

Here are five quotes from Chastity/Chaz's interview with the NY Times -- which bear on these questions:

  • "There's a gender in your brain and a gender in your body. For 99 percent of people, those things are in alignment."

  • "I felt like my body was literally betraying me. I got smacked everywhere with femaleness. That was really traumatic."

  • "I'm constantly shocked by how friendly and cool straight men are to each other. 'Hey, buddy, how's it going?' "

  • "I feel very traditionally male," he said. "I needed a male body."

  • "I am in a holding pattern," he said. "The payoff just isn't quite enough. I wish I had a penis, but I am O.K. for now."

Let's take a look:

  • "There's a gender in your brain and a gender in your body. For 99 percent of people, those things are in alignment."

What Chastity/Chaz means by "a gender in your body" is simply your primary and secondary sexual characteristics: for a guy, penis and testicles, muscularity, body hair, etc.

And "a gender in your brain" -- we of course would say a gender in your soul -- is your inner sense of yourself as a Man -- your Manliness or Manhood.

Chastity/Chaz:

"For 99 percent of people, those things are in alignment."

And that's absolutely correct.

And actually understated.

Most MEN love being MEN.

And that's True of us too.

We love being MEN.

We love MANLINESS.

We don't want to be anything other than Manly and Men.

Is that unusual?

NO.

It's common.

As a matter of fact, there's actually an ancient Greek word -- it goes all the way back to the Iliad -- which means "loving manliness, manly":

The word, which comes from the same root as a word well-known to Christians -- "agape" -- is "agapenor."

Meaning -- and hold on to your hat -- "loving manliness, manly."

That's the Truth -- that's the definition, it's on page 3 of the standard Greek-English Lexicon:

αγαπηνωρ

You'll notice that, like I said, agapenor goes all the way back to the Iliad -- that it's ancient and foundational in Greek thought -- and that it refers to Heroes --

Heroic Warriors ---

Warriors "Loving Manliness," Warriors who are "Manly."


Aristogeiton and Harmodius
Warrior-Lovers and Tyrannicides


Chairedemos and Lykeas
Warrior-Lovers
who died in battle together
and were buried together

So -- it's not uncommon, and it's not unusual -- for Men to be Manly and to Love Manliness.

It is, rather, the NORM.

Moreover, it must be noted that Chaz's insistence that "There's a gender in your brain and a gender in your body" -- both of which are biological -- is a key belief among the "T" segment of the "LGBT community," a belief which violates a key belief among the "G" segment --

which is that gender -- in this case Masculinity -- is not biological, but rather culturally constructed, and therefore almost infinitely malleable.

So:

Chastity/Chaz is celebrated -- even though one of her/his core beliefs is in direct contradiction to one of the core beliefs of gay-identified males.

While we're condemned -- for the same reason.

Seems kinda arbitrary -- doesn't it?

Yes it does.

Until you take into account that Chastity/Chaz has never, to my knowledge, directly criticized either anal or effeminacy -- nor do I think she/he ever will.

They're sacred cows.

The third rail of "homosexuality."

You -- even if you're that Chaz Bono who was once Chastity Bono -- can't -- and don't dare -- touch them.

Next:

  • "I felt like my body was literally betraying me. I got smacked everywhere with femaleness. That was really traumatic."

    Chastity/Chaz is here referring to her/his experience of puberty.

    But what she/he says could equally apply to *our* experience of "coming out" into the "gay" ghetto of analism, and its unrelenting and indeed core mantra -- "You're not really gay if you don't get fucked."

    Because for us -- that is, for Men who won't and don't do anal -- to get fucked -- and to meet with constant demands that we get fucked -- is a BETRAYAL of both our bodies -- and our spirits.

    And, like Chastity/Chaz, we find that in the "gay" community, we get "smacked everywhere with femaleness" -- actually effeminacy.

    And for someone who loves and is looking for Manliness and Manhood -- that's "really traumatic."

    The parallels, if not exact, are very close.

    Yet, and again, when Chastity/Chaz says it -- the "gay" community cheers.

    When we say it -- we're condemned.

    Next:

  • "I'm constantly shocked by how friendly and cool straight men are to each other. 'Hey, buddy, how's it going?' "

    Chastity/Chaz, who for many years identified as lesbian and lived in the "gay" community, is here making, by inference, a not-so-subtle dig at the way gay-identified males so often treat each other.

    She/he is saying, in effect, that unlike "gay" males, "straight" men are "friendly and cool to each other."

    And she/he gets away with it.

    We wouldn't -- we'd be called on the carpet -- and, condemned -- for saying something like that.


    Now -- I said earlier, and at some length, that I had doubts about Chastity/Chaz -- and trannies in general.

    And those doubts center on these two remarks by Chaz -- but which, it must be said, aren't unique to Chaz:

  • "I feel very traditionally male. I needed a male body."

  • "I am in a holding pattern. The payoff just isn't quite enough. I wish I had a penis, but I am O.K. for now."

    Let's start with "traditionally male."

    I said earlier, that speaking as someone who's been "out" for 40 years and has known a fair number of transgendered folks, they don't come across as Men and Women;

    rather, they come across as stereotypically male or female.

    And, sure enough, Chaz says he feels "very traditionally male."

    "traditionally male"

    Anthropologists and others who study gender call this sort of "traditional masculinity" -- "social" or "cultural masculinity."

    It's cultural -- as distinct from the Man's inner feeling of Manliness.

    Easy example:

    In Saudi Arabia, the king and male members of his family are expected to wear flowing robes.

    In Great Britain, the prince-consort and male members of the royal family -- Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Princes William and Harry, etc -- are expected to wear suits and ties.

    The difference in dress is traditional -- and cultural.

    But -- in both countries, the males of the royal family are expected to serve in the military -- that is, to express Aggressive, Warrior, Manhood.

    Which comes, without question, from the Man's inner feeling -- of being a Man.

    For, as my foreign friend puts it, "Fighting Spirit is the Hallmark of Masculinity."

    And that is NOT cultural.

    It's inward and inner.

    Nor is it something which comes simply from testosterone.

    I have a male dog, who like most male dogs in the US, has been neutered.

    He has no testicles, and therefore no testosterone.

    Yet he's FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE than any female dog I've ever owned, including my last, who was roundly considered "an aggressive female dog."

    Which she was -- she was aggressive for a female.

    But WAY LESS AGGRESSIVE -- than her male successor -- who, by the way, is of the same breed.

    There's a difference.

    A big difference.

    So -- what I see and hear from Chaz -- is cultural masculinity.

    What I haven't seen or heard -- so far -- is anything which says to me -- Natural Masculinity, Manliness, Manhood.

    And then there's this:

  • "I am in a holding pattern. The payoff just isn't quite enough. I wish I had a penis, but I am O.K. for now."

    So -- Chastity/Chaz has a vagina -- not a penis and not testicles.

    Among the transgendered, you see, there's both "top" surgery -- the removal or implantation of breasts -- and -- "bottom" surgery -- the removal or fashioning of a penis.

    "top" and "bottom"

    And why are we not surprised?

    The terms are ubiquitous in today's anal-obsessed "gay" culture -- of which trannies are a part.

    And, you'll notice, "bottom" surgery refers, appropriately, and given the artificiality of the bottom's "sexuality," to the destruction of the male or female genitals.

    And their replacement with ersatz organs.

    So:

    Chastity/Chaz has had the "top" surgery -- her breasts have been removed -- but not the "bottom" -- she doesn't have a penis.

    Because, she/he says, "The payoff just isn't quite enough."

    Translation: a tranny penis isn't functional -- in sex.

    So -- and like the "pregnant man," about whom there was so much hullaballoo -- Chastity's retained her vagina and presumably ovaries and womb.

    Does that make sense?

    If the disjunction between her inner conception of herself as a male -- and her female body -- was so great and so painful -- would not the dysphoria outweigh the desire -- the wish, as Chaz puts it -- to have a sexually-functioning penis?

    Consider the "pregnant man."

    We are a sexually dimorphic species.

    The male body is hard, flat and angular:

    The female body soft, rounded and curvaceous:


    And never more so than when pregnant:


    Yet Chastity/Chaz has retained her/his vagina.

    But guys don't have vaginas.

    Their genitalia are external, and protruberant, often exuberantly so:


    Which means that, to me at least, Chastity/Chaz is not behaving as her/his situation -- would require.

    Now -- and to be fair -- Chaz might say to me, Look, Mr Weintraub, even if I traded my sexually functional vagina for a non-functional penis, you could still and then raise questions about my lack of an XY chromosome.

    And that's true -- I might.

    Nonetheless, it strikes me as odd that Chaz can accept not having a penis.

    If having breasts is dysphoric -- why isn't having a vagina equally so?

    And how is it that the hedonism of the age -- which puts pleasure above Virtue -- trumps Chaz's stated need -- to be a Man -- in body as well as spirit?


    Death of an AIDS Activist


    Part V

    Manhood, Fighting, and Passion

    But -- and all that said -- this is not about, as I said earlier, Chastity/Chaz -- or just Chaz -- the person.

    It's about the gay community's acceptance of Chaz's self-report of his inner sense of being a Man -- and how being required to have a female body violated that sense --

    and the gay community's ongoing rejection of OUR self-report of OUR inner sense of being Men --

    and how being required to get fucked violates that sense.

    And violate it does.

    It violates EVERY Man's sense of being a Man.

    Because getting fucked violates Manhood.

    Viciously.

    And violently.

    And it's *always* been seen that way.

    In Plato's Gorgias, Sokrates describes the life of an analist as "terrible, shameful, and wretched."

    While the great Roman historian Tacitus, who recorded in detail the depredations of the first emperors, tells us that according to contemporary reports, the adolescent emperor Nero had been "corrupting" -- that is, anally penetrating -- his younger step-brother, Britannicus, who was thirteen years old at the time -- and then had him poisoned.

    Says Tacitus:

    If so, his death may have seemed to have come none too soon, and been the lesser outrage of the two.

    That's how anal has always been seen in the West -- as an outrage.

    Now -- and very suddenly -- it's core to "sexual" society.

    Which takes us back to the ultimately unfortunate Mr Cox.

    Because getting fucked violated his Manhood too.

    And so, I suspect, he turned to meth.

    And he died.

    As have so many others before him.

    It is, again, ultimately, a sad story.

    I can easily imagine Mr Cox "coming out," as I did, with bright and great hopes.

    Only to learn that he'd been betrayed -- that for following the strictures of analism, he'd acquired, and at a very young age, a universally-fatal disease.

    Of course he didn't see it that way -- he didn't think of analism as the cause of his distress;

    instead, he sought to defend his life -- and that's certainly not to his discredit -- by joining with others in demanding the development of treatments.

    But in following through on those demands, he designed a protocol which killed yet more of his fellow gay-identified males.

    While the technologies he'd helped enable had the ironical effect of making anal and "unsafe sex" even more prevalent than it had been when he came out.

    And the seventeen years which followed, it would appear, were spent by Mr Cox struggling with an addiction, so common in the "gay" community, so often written about and studied and the subject of ineffectual intervention after ineffectual intervention -- an addiction to meth.

    Ineffectual intervention after ineffectual intervention.

    Failed intervention after failed intervention.

    Failed -- because those interventions seek to preserve and protect hedonism and contemporary society's core expression of sexual hedonism -- anal penetration --

    rather than to Celebrate and Exalt -- Virtue -- and Virtue's Manly Expression -- Manhood.

    And Manhood Against Manhood.

    Expressed as Man Against Man;

    and Phallus Against Phallus.





    Let's re-visit Chaz on just this point.

    Chaz's possession of his male gender is to me, and for now, fragile -- he feels something within, he tells us, but he retains a vagina, he lacks a penis and testicles, he lacks the XY chromosome.

    Nevertheless he's clear that gender is biological -- "I've learned that the differences between men and women are so biological," he tells the Times --

    and that idea, so plainly stated, that gender is biological, puts him at great odds, as I've said, with the G segment of the LGBT community, which sees gender as "culturally constructed" and therefore virtually infinitely malleable.

    IT IS NOT.

    Gender -- in the sense of the inward feeling of which Chaz speaks -- is biological ; there is, as he says, "a gender in your body" -- sex organs and the sexual secondary characteristics -- "and a gender in your brain" ---- that is, Masculinity -- the Male's inward feeling -- which is BIOLOGICAL -- of being a Man.

    Part of that inward feeling, recognized virtually universally cross-culturally and historically, is the Male's need and desire to be Aggressive, and to Fight.

    Fighting.

    In boyhood, in particular, Wrestling is an integral and well-nigh universal aspect of that inward sense.

    Yet -- I've heard nothing from Chaz about that -- though to be fair, I haven't read his book -- perhaps it's in there.

    But I've heard nothing.

    Instead, what's emphasized in the interviews with the Times and TIME etc is that Chastity from adolescence on felt sexual desire towards other women, and therefore was either a lesbian -- or a "transman."

    But NO OTHER CULTURE has EVER defined gender on the basis of sexual desire.

    The Greeks have a word -- ho arren -- the Male, Maleness, or being Male -- which is virtually synonymous with andreia -- Manliness, Manhood, Manly Spirit ;

    and that in turn is defined as the Male's Willingness and Ability to Fight.

    That's how Manliness is defined.

    Classicist JE Lendon:

    Sparta was supreme in andreia . . . the courage displayed particularly in hoplite battle.

    12345678910



    Spartan Warriors

    The Greeks also expected Males to have, at some point in their lives, male-male *Love* relationships.

    And, also at some point, to marry a woman.


    Zeus and his wife Hera on Olympos
    Zeus' male lover Ganymedes stands between them

    But Willingness to Fight was what was paramount.

    I don't hear that from Chaz.

    But -- I hear it from other males.

    For example, after the massacre of school children at Newtown, this quote appeared in the Times:

    QUOTATION OF THE DAY

    "I used to do everything with him. We liked to wrestle. We played Wii. We just played all the time. I can't believe I'm never going to see him again."

    NOLAN KRIEGER, an eight-year-old boy speaking after a funeral service for his friend Jack Pinto in Newtown, Conn.

    "We liked to wrestle."

    Nolan and Jack were normal little boys.

    They liked to wrestle.

    That's what boys do.

    They wrestle and roughhouse.

    And that BIOLOGICALLY-INGRAINED desire to Wrestle, combined with other experiences in all-male groups, helps them become MEN.

    This is what my foreign friend says about that in Natural Masculinity and Phallic Bonding:

    The role of male bonds in developing natural masculinity

    Masculine men are endowed with a 'seed' of natural masculinity which needs a conducive, supportive social environment to develop / grow to its full potential.

    Natural masculinity is defined simply as the feeling or inner sense of being a man.

    If a positive social environment is denied to a man, or if it is hostile, the natural masculinity will not grow to its full potential. Rather it could be seriously throttled or suppressed.

    Masculine male groups and bonds play an extremely important role in the development of physical, mental, emotional and social aspects of natural masculinity. As such they are an important part of the positive environment that all masculine identified boys should have. An otherwise masculine identified man who is deprived of membership in a masculine male group / bond during his growing years will be less than 1/4th naturally masculine than if he had such an opportunity. Masculine identified boys have a natural tendency to seek to join male-only groups, and it's their natural right.

    The masculinity of men flows from their group. It's like their natural masculinity combines and gets manifold when masculine identified men unite. The camaraderie, mutual understanding, support, playing together, learning the ways of the world as a male, dealing with roughs and toughs of life together --- they all help to develop the natural masculinity that exists within him.

    An intimate sexual relationship between two masculine men is equally necessary for the mutual development of their natural masculinity.

    The social classification of "sexual orientation" which is actually a social mechanism to isolate male-male sexual behavior from heterosexual spaces and group it with the third sex under a combined 'homosexual' label, takes away this much needed right from a masculine identified boy who is strongly in touch with his same-sex feelings.

    The heterosexual society has artificially engineered such a strong hostility for same-sex desires in the straight space that such a boy will automatically psychologically keep out of this group. He may linger on the margins of this space by hiding and suppressing his feelings, which is very stressful.

    Thus, in effect, he will not get the chance to hang around with the guys as an 'equal', to play sports with them, to grow with them like normal boys should. Thus he will not know how to relate with masculine men --- or how to relate with others as a masculine man. He will have an underdeveloped masculinity --- something which in nature he is entitled to.

    Just like association with masculine identified males is essential for a masculine identified male, and enhances his natural masculinity several times, association with feminized males can seriously deplete his natural masculinity, even pave the way for an unnatural development and effeminacy.

    Thus when a masculine identified young man associates himself with the gay group --- psychologically made to believe he is one of them --- he will find himself a misfit in the strongly third-sex gay culture. But since there is no other social space for him, he will force himself to relate with the gays.

    The entire experience will subdue his natural masculinity and make him more effeminate.

    Yet -- I hear nothing like that from Chaz.

    Again, his sense of his gender appears to be sexual.

    And that's not what gender is.

    So -- to make this as clear as I can -- there's sexual desire -- and there's gender.

    The cultural left today universally calls sexual desire -- "sexual orientation" -- which is supposed to be either "homosexual" or "heterosexual"; and that in turn locks sexual desire into one of two boxes -- "gay" or "straight"; and that is FALSE.

    Sexual desire can NOT be limited in that way.

    But that's the official "gay" view -- sexual desire is genetic and dyadic; gender is cultural and infinitely variable.

    And that's not correct.

    Gender is a function of biology ; sexual desire a function of culture.

    And Richard Horton, editor of the prestigious UK medical journal The Lancet, thoroughly debunks the "science" behind the search for a "gay" gene in this 1995 article, titled "Is Homosexuality Inherited?", which originally appeared in The New York Review of Books.

    Referring to the idea of "the homosexual as a physical 'species' different from the heterosexual," Horton says

    But there are no convincing historical grounds for this view. As Foucault points out, at the time of Plato,
    People did not have the notion of two distinct appetites allotted to different individuals or at odds with each other in the same soul; rather, they saw two ways of enjoying one's pleasure...

    To which I'd respond -- Foucault's second clause is simplistic, but he's absolutely correct in this: "People did not have the notion of two distinct appetites allotted to different individuals or at odds with each other in the same soul."

    Again, that's absolutely right and we can refer to classicist KJ Dover:

    [The Greeks] did not consider male-male relations incompatible with concurrent male-female relations or with marriage...

    Again: The NORM was for the SAME MAN -- not two different males, but the SAME MAN -- to have BOTH a wife and a male lover.

    And -- the MAN who had both a wife and a male lover did NOT suffer any psychic distress as a result.

    To the contrary -- He saw himself as a complete and whole MAN who was fulfilling two societally-sanctioned roles -- in a responsible and indeed VIRTUOUS way.

    Not surprisingly, given these well-known historical facts, Horton also strongly supports historian Jonathan Ned Katz' contention that "heterosexuality" does NOT "correspond to a true behavioral norm--[rather, it's] an "invented tradition."

    Does that make sense to you?

    I sure hope so.

    Because you can SEE that there was no such thing as "heterosexuality" in Athens or Sparta.

    Or anywhere else in the ancient world.

    When was "heterosexuality" invented?

    I don't know what Katz says, but my answer is -- very recently.

    Ca. 1860.

    Horton criticizes Katz for saying

    Contrary to today's bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable.

    Yet, increasingly, folks in the academy are saying just that.

    Professor Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University as quoted in Scientific American in 2008:

    We should be calling humans bisexual because this idea of exclusive homosexuality is not accurate of people. Homosexuality is mixed in with heterosexuality across cultures and history.

    While in the same article, sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath in England says

    Animals don't do sexual identity. They just do sex.

    [And, he adds, in humans,]

    the categories of gay and straight are socially constructed.

    And if they're socially or culturally constructed -- then they can and INEVITABLY WILL BE -- deconstructed.

    Changed.

    And obliterated.

    And guys, you can learn more about Horton et alia in Staying Strong and Masculine.

    Nevertheless -- and despite what the academy increasingly believes, the official "gay" view is that sexual desire is genetic and dyadic; gender is cultural and infinitely variable.

    But NOT to Chaz -- or, I should say, NOT, at least for the second of those.

    For Chaz, as for us, Gender -- one's inner sense of being a Man -- is a function of biology -- and, for us without question -- spirituality as well.

    Because, ulimately, Manhood is a spiritual quality, mediated by the Gods, and most especially, the Warrior God, the God of Fighting, whom we call Ares.

    In the coming months, I'll be posting a number of articles which will substantially increase our understanding and appreciation of Manhood.

    Manhood.

    Which is by definition Moral.

    And Virility.

    Which is by definition Virtuous.

    To that end, I've recently expanded our Definition of the Greek word Areté.

    Take a look.

    And, assuming that you have, hopefully, taken that look, let's talk for a moment about Manhood.

    For example, Manhood as delineated in Plato's Symposion.


    Men at a symposion ca 470 BC
    Plato's Symposion takes place in 416 BC

    In Plato's Symposion or Banquet or Drinking Party, a number of Men describe the God Eros -- the God of Romantic Passion.

    Male Romantic Passion.

    Manly Romantic Passion.

    Because that's who and what Eros is -- along with his twin and sometime rival, Anteros -- Counter-Love, Requited-Love.

    Agonistic Love.

    Manly Love.


    Eros and Anteros Wrestling
    Eros is an Agonist
    Anteros his Antagonist
    Lovers are Wrestlers and Fighters

    Again, Love is an Agon.

    And the Men speaking -- all -- to a Man -- describe the Men caught up in that Agonistic Love, that Romantic Passion -- as Manly -- indeed, as Most Manly.

    There are a number of words for Manly.

    One is, as I said earlier, arren.

    Arren -- as in Ares -- the God of Manhood.

    Another is andreios.

    Andreios -- as in Andros -- the Men of Manhood.

    So -- in Symposion, one speaker says -- and this is somewhat lost in translation -- that Men who are Arren -- seek out Arren -- they pursue it; and that such Men are the most Manly (andreiotatos)-- that they're Manly and Virile -- andreias kai arrenopias.

    Again, it's hard to translate, but --

    Andros = Man

    Andreios = Manly

    Arren = Male, Masculine, Manly, Strong.

    Men who are into Men are Manly and seek out Manliness in other Men ; such Men are the most Manly -- they're Manly and Virile.

    So basically, when the Greeks talk about Eros -- Manly Love, Manly Romantic Passion -- they keep repeating these words which mean Male and Masculine and Manly and Virile --

    and the repetition becomes in effect an Incantation.

    An Inebriation of Manliness.

    An Inebriation of the Male.

    These guys are high on Manhood.

    And I do mean "high."

    Because, ultimately, says Sokrates, Eros leads to what we would call a "higher state of consciousness."

    To a Vision.

    A Vision of Absolute Beauty.

    Absolute Moral Beauty.

    Which is Absolute Manliness.

    Absolute Manhood.

    Which exists in the World of Being -- the World of Pure Thought.

    In the Warrior Kosmos.

    Why the Warrior Kosmos?

    Because, you need remember, all the Men at the symposion were not just Men -- but were also both Fighters and Warriors.

    First of all, of course, all would have trained nude, daily, at the Palaistra in Fight Sport.

    Moreover -- the Symposion takes place in 416 BC -- during the Peloponessian War -- in which all of them would have Fought.

    Indeed, at the end of the Symposion, Alkibiades, Sokrates' Lover, crashes the party and describes how Sokrates defended Alkibiades when he was wounded at the Battle of Potidea.

    So -- Eros -- Manly Love, Manly, Agonistic, Warrior Love -- is, Sokrates tell us, the Origin of all Spiritual Effort.

    Eros leads to a vision of Absolute Beauty.

    Supreme Moral Beauty.

    Moral Beauty as it exists in the World of Being -- the World of Pure Thought.

    The Eros discussed at the Symposion is Male Eros.

    Which means that the vision and experience of absolute or supreme Beauty achieved through this Male Eros is, by implication, Male Beauty.

    Male Moral Beauty --

    Manhood.

    Manhood is Morally Beautiful.

    Sokrates describes this Supreme Manly Moral Beauty -- this Absolute Manhood -- using the word Kalos -- Manly Morally Beautiful -- and contrasting it with the word aischros -- ugly, deformed, shameful, disgraceful, base, and infamous:

    This Absolute Manly Moral Beauty, this Supreme Manhood, is eternal, unproduced, indestructible; neither subject to increase nor decay; not, like other things, partly Manly and partly base; not at one time Manly and another time not; not Beautiful and Morally Manly in relation to one thing and deformed and shameful in relation to another; not here Manly and there deformed; not Manly in the estimation of one person and base in that of another; nor can this Supreme Manly Beauty be figured to the imagination like a noble face, or strong hands, or any portion of the body, not like any discourse or science. Nor does it subsist or live in any other thing that lives or is, either in earth, or in heaven, or in any other place; but it is eternally uniform, and consistent, and monoeidic [single-formed] with itself.

    All other things are Manly through a participation of it, with this condition, that although they are subject to production and decay, it never becomes more, or less, or endures any change.

    When any one, ascending from a correct system of Manly Love, of Manly Eros, begins to contemplate this Supreme and Absolute Manhood, he already touches the consummation of this labour.

    . . .

    A Life spent in the contemplation of this Supreme Manhood, is the Life for Men to Live.

    Which if you chance ever to experience, you will esteem far beyond gold and rich garments, and even beyond those handsome persons whom you and so many others now gaze on with astonishment, and are prepared neither to eat or drink, so that you may behold and live for ever with these objects of your love.

    What then shall we imagine to be the aspect of the Supreme Manhood itself, simple, pure, uncontaminated with the intermixture of human flesh and colors, and all other idle and unreal shapes attendant on mortality, the divine, the original, the supreme, the self-consistent, the monoeidic Manhood itself? What must be the life of him who dwells with and gazes on that which it becomes us all to seek?

    To him alone belongs the prerogative of bringing forth not images and shadows of virtue, for he is in contact not with a shadow, but with Reality; with Virtue -- that is, Manhood -- itself, in the production and nourishment of which he becomes dear to the Gods, and if such a privilege is conceded to any human being, himself immortal.

    So:

    This essentially inner knowledge of Supreme and Absolute Manhood, Manliness, Manly Spirit --

    this inner knowledge of Absolute Manhood, which is the prerogative of the Man, the Fighting Man, the Warrior, who Loves another Man -- purely and incorruptibly --

    this inward knowledge of Absolute Manhood is what enables that Man to become involved in the production and nourishment of Manliness -- in the "outer" world -- the daily, physical, world of the senses.

    I'll have a lot more to say about how this inner, spiritual, and certainly mystical knowledge of Manhood -- affects outer behavior -- in the coming months.

    Finally:

    Earlier in this post, I said that if Mr Cox's insistence on a double-blind study had brought about the death of my Lover, I would have killed Mr Cox.

    And I said that when I told one of our guys about that -- it was actually Warrior NW, who's something of an expert when it comes to male-on-male violence -- he didn't believe me.

    That's revealing.

    How many times have I talked about, on this site, how after Hektor killed Patroclus, Achilles killed Hektor -- even though Achilles had been told that if he did, his own life would soon end?

    How many times?

    For example, this sentence, which also appears in Plato's Symposion,

    There's no valour more respected by the Gods than that which comes of Manly Love.

    refers directly to Achilles' killing Hektor to avenge Patroclus' death.

    The word for valour in that sentence, is areté; and, of course, Areté *is* Manhood.

    Which means we can say:

    There's no Manhood more respected by the Gods than that which comes of Manly Romantic Passion -- for another Man.

    Manly Love, then, is an expression of an Aggressive Ethos.

    And then there's Alexander the Great and his Lover Hephaestion.

    When Hephaestion died, Alexander had the physician who was supposed to have been attending him, and instead had gone to the theater -- crucified.

    While when the Emperor Hadrian's beloved Antinous died, Hadrian had Antinous deified and had temples containing statues of him erected throughout the empire.

    And then went into seclusion -- and remained there until his own death.

    That's Eros.

    Male Romantic Passion.

    Manly Romantic Passion.

    Manly Romantic Passion -- for another Man.

    Passion.

    You cannot have a great passion -- without passion.

    And in particular, a Man cannot have a great passion for another Man -- without Manhood.

    Manhood.

    Manhood is virtually synonymous with Fighting.

    Achilles was a Warrior.

    Alexander the Great was a Warrior.

    While Hadrian too was a Warrior -- who'd actually trained as a gladiator.

    Manhood is virtually synonymous with Fighting.

    Manhood is synonymous with Fighting.

    Manhood is Fighting.

    The Manly Passion of Fighting.

    The Manly Ecstasy of Fighting.

    The Manly Peace of Fighting.

    That's something almost none of you understand.

    For one thing, you lack role models -- models like Achilles and Alexander and Hadrian.

    You need to find those models.

    And with them, your Manhood.

    Indeed, you must exalt and strengthen your Manhood in every way.

    In every way that's pleasing to the Warrior God.

    The only God who's actually on your side.

    Before you too end up, like Mr Cox, the all-too-willing victim of a disease you'd spent your entire life -- seeking to evade.

    Bill Weintraub

    December 31, 2012

    © All material Copyright 2012 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.


    Reply from:

    Ann

    1-1-13

    Great essay, as usual. I came to your site years ago after a great personal crisis, realizing then that I would probably never have children. I would not realize a key feature of biological destiny. It was freaking me out (something, I hadn't thought of when younger) and I was finding it hard to cope with. Somehow, I identified with the crisis you were talking about with gay-identified men and the betrayal of their masculinity. I guess I felt like I was under-going something similar. Now, years later, you and others have helped me see the connections.

    I have no doubt that the cultural construct known as the "gay" community is being tasked wittingly, and to a large extent un-wittingly to help destroy manhood. We have seen the cultural norms changing, to the benefit of an elite that will benefit from weakened manhood. Women have been and are being used to help trounce manhood and traditional values among women. I see some say Gloria Steinem actually worked for the CIA as a culture warrior (not sure if this is outlandish or not, I only know that a similar cultural shift was going on among women at the same time, and was being pushed from above).

    I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard a story that when a tribe was enslaved, often the men were killed violently in front of the women and the women were warned that if they did not train their young males to be subservient, they would meet the same end. Hence, the strong, domestically dominant spirit of oppressed women towards their young sons who they teach to keep their heads down out of terror for their lives. Survival first. It violates the spirit of manhood, but, women are all about protection.

    Probably one of the reasons boys were separated from their mothers at a certain age, when instead of being a benefit, she became a liability to the future man.

    I work with a woman who expressed a little embarrassment about being anxious about her newborn baby boy whom she has to leave in order to work. I reassured her that she had good instincts, and that it should only be a source of embarrassment were he say, 18 years old.

    The Oligarchy is trying to crush us and their assault is multi-pronged.

    Stay Strong and I'll try, though I don't have your spiritual strength. Epic days are ahead.

    Your friend,

    Ann


    Reply from:

    Bill Weintraub

    1-7-13

    Thank you Ann.

    Ann says,

    Great essay, as usual. I came to your site years ago after a great personal crisis, realizing then that I would probably never have children. I would not realize a key feature of biological destiny. It was freaking me out (something, I hadn't thought of when younger) and I was finding it hard to cope with. Somehow, I identified with the crisis you were talking about with gay-identified men and the betrayal of their masculinity. I guess I felt like I was under-going something similar. Now, years later, you and others have helped me see the connections.

    Right.

    So -- For a Woman, and to Ann, having children is "a key feature of biological destiny."

    For a Man, and for Men like ourselves, Fighting and Loving another Man -- is a key feature of biological destiny.

    To deny that biological destiny -- is to create a crisis --

    in both the individual and in society.

    Somehow, I identified with the crisis you were talking about with gay-identified men and the betrayal of their masculinity. I guess I felt like I was under-going something similar. Now, years later, you and others have helped me see the connections.

    Yes.

    They are connected.

    I have no doubt that the cultural construct known as the "gay" community is being tasked wittingly, and to a large extent un-wittingly to help destroy manhood. We have seen the cultural norms changing, to the benefit of an elite that will benefit from weakened manhood.

    That's correct.

    The present elite, which is a de facto oligarchy, wants to destroy Manhood, because Money and Manhood are irrevocably opposed to each other.

    As Plato well understood:

    Where money is prized, Manhood is despised.

    Let's look at that again:

    Where money is prized, Manhood is despised.

    That's from the Jowett translation, and Jowett actually says,

    Where money is prized, Virtue is despised.

    But, the word used for Virtue is, of course, areté, and as we've seen, and as I will continue to make clear and ever clearer, the term Virtue in archaic and classical Greece more often than not reduces to -- means:

    Manhood.

    As is explained in Liddell and Scott's Ancient Greek Lexicon:

    From the same root [ARES] comes areté [excellence] ...the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war; cf. Lat. virtus.

    And, Liddell and Scott re-inforce that point by saying that areté is

    goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess, Hom., Hdt. (like Lat. vir-tus, from vir).

    Manhood.

    Virtue is Manhood.

    Manhood is Goodness.






    Now --

    The source of Jowett's quote -- "Where money is prized / Manhood is despised" -- is Book VIII of Plato's brilliant Republic, in which Plato looks at four types of state -- and individual -- as they degenerate, one into the other: Timocracy -- the Rule of Warrior Honor -- leading to oligarchy leading to democracy leading to tyranny.

    Plato argues that as Warrior Societies become corrupted by money, and

    they advance in the pursuit of wealth, the more they hold that in honor the less they honor virtue. May not the opposition of wealth and virtue be conceived as if each lay in the scale of a balance inclining opposite ways?"

    "Yes, indeed," he said.

    "So, when wealth is honored in a state, and the wealthy, virtue and the good are less honored."

    "Obviously."

    "And that which men at any time honor they practise, and what is not honored is neglected."

    "It is so."

    "Thus, finally, from being lovers of victory and lovers of honor they become lovers of gain-getting and of money, and they commend and admire the rich man and put him in office but despise the man who is poor."

    ~Plat. Rep. 8.550e - 551a, translated by Paul Shorey

    As is true with virtually every page of the Republic -- and Shorey's translation of the Republic -- and I've updated the Heroes Reading List so that you can see how to easily access Shorey's translation and his *introduction* to that translation -- online --

    Plato's Republic -- and Shorey's translation -- is a treasure trove -- not of money, but of wisdom.

    So -- we're going to look at it again:

    • [as men] advance in the pursuit of wealth, the more they hold that in honor the less they honor virtue.

    • May not the opposition of wealth and virtue be conceived as if each lay in the scale of a balance inclining opposite ways?

    • When wealth is honored in a state, and the wealthy, virtue and the good are less honored. (The source of Jowett's pithier, "Where money is prized / Virtue is despised.")

    • And that which men at any time honor they practise, and what is not honored is neglected.

    • Thus, finally, from being lovers of victory and lovers of honor they become lovers of gain-getting and of money, and they commend and admire the rich man and put him in office but despise the man who is poor.

    Now -- as I've said, functionally, and in the Greek mind, the word Virtue and the word Manhood are virtually synonymous and interchangeable:

    • [as men] advance in the pursuit of wealth, the more they hold that in honor the less they honor Manhood.

    • May not the opposition of wealth and Manhood be conceived as if each lay in the scale of a balance inclining opposite ways?

    • When wealth is honored in a state, and the wealthy, Manhood and the good [the Greek word is agathos -- a better translation would be "those who possess Manly Moral Beauty"] are less honored.

      So we'll play it again:

    • When wealth is honored in a state, and the wealthy, Manhood and the Men who possess Manly Moral Beauty are less honored.

    • And that which men at any time honor they practise, and what is not honored is neglected.

      Notice that Shorey says, in a footnote to this phrase, that this observation "has been much quoted" by folks like Cicero, a Roman philosopher, and Libanius, a Greek philosopher and friend of the Emperor Julian.

      It's a very important observation:

    • And that which men at any time honor they practise, and what is not honored is neglected.

    • Thus, finally, from being lovers of victory and lovers of Manhood they become lovers of gain-getting and of money, and they commend and admire the rich man and put him in office but despise the man who is poor.

    Now:

    If you don't like my re-translation, you're certainly free to stick with "Virtue" rather than "Manhood" --

    But, as you'll see in a forthcoming post, the EVIDENCE AMPLY SUPPORTS what I'm saying:






    And not just with the word areté, but many other ancient Greek words.

    As I say, that's in a forthcoming post.

    Let's just say for now, that archaic and classical Greece was a Masculinist society, and that Manhood Ruled.

    Now -- Plato continues -- and as you read what he says, remember this key phrase:

  • That which men at any time honor they practise, and what is not honored is neglected.

    Book VIII of the Republic:

    He who abandons the Warrior Way -- the Love of Honor, which is actually Manhood, says Plato,

    grows timid, I fancy, and forthwith thrusts headlong from his bosom's throne [his heart] that principle of love of honor and that high spirit, and being humbled by poverty turns to the getting of money, and greedily and stingily and little by little by thrift and hard work collects property. Do you not suppose that such a one will then establish on that throne the principle of appetite and avarice, and set it up as the great king in his soul, adorned with tiaras and collars of gold, and girt with the Persian sword?"

    "I do," he said.

    "And under this domination he will force the rational and high-spirited principles to crouch lowly to right and left as slaves, and will allow the one to calculate and consider nothing but the ways of making more money from a little, and the other to admire and honor nothing but riches and rich men, and to take pride in nothing but the possession of wealth and whatever contributes to that?"

    "There is no other transformation so swift and sure of the ambitious [honor-loving, ambitious for honor] youth into the avaricious [money-loving] type."

    Plat. Rep. 8.553b, translated by Shorey

    So:

    Plato's saying that when a male turns away from the founding principles of his society -- in this case, when he turns away from the Way of Honor --

    and from Manhood --

    he's likely to turn to the way of greed -- the way of appetite and avarice.

    And to make the principle of appetite and avarice -- the great king in his soul.

    And to force the rational and high-spirited principles of his soul -- to be slaves to appetite and avarice.

    To enslave his reason to the calculation and consideration of nothing but the ways of making more money;

    and to enslave his spirit to admire and honor nothing but riches and rich men, and to take pride in nothing but the possession of wealth.

    Now:

    Plato, speaking of ancient Greece, says there are three types of individual:

    The Lover of Wisdom -- the Philosopher;

    The Lover of Honor -- the Warrior; and,

    The Lover of Gain.

    We might, nowadays, refer to the last as a capitalist.

    Or, if you think that's too ideologically and politically-laden, we could call him a captain of industry.

    Or, perhaps, a -- I don't know, perhaps a -- uhhhhh -- financier.

    Yes, that's right, a financier!

    The sort of bright young fellow to be found on Wall Street these days.

    And, of course, in Washington DC.

    And what Plato's saying is that as such a one "turns to the getting of money," he "forthwith thrusts from his bosom's throne" -- his heart -- the Warrior's "Principle of Love of Honor and High Spirit."

    And instead, "greedily and stingily and little by little by thrift and hard work collects property."

    Now, asks Sokrates,"Do you not suppose that such a one will then establish on that throne [-- that is, in his heart --] the principle of appetite and avarice, and set it up as the great king in his soul, adorned with tiaras and collars of gold, and girt with the Persian sword?"

    Sounds likely, doesn't it?

    Which means that the principle of appetite and avarice -- of greed -- has replaced that of Warrior Virtue, Manly Valour -- and has become "the great king in his soul, adorned with tiaras and collars of gold, and girt with the Persian sword."

    And under the domination of this Great King Greed, this king not of comedy but of appetite and avarice, the financier will force the "rational and high-spirited principles [of his soul] to crouch lowly to right and left as slaves, and will allow the one to calculate and consider nothing but the ways of making more money from a little, and the other to admire and honor nothing but riches and rich men, and to take pride in nothing but the possession of wealth and whatever contributes to that."

    And that indeed is what happens.

    Because it matters, you see, what men believe.

    If, for example, a male who's attracted to other men believes that a "man who has sex with men" is actually a type of ersatz woman, then he'll be eager to be penetrated anally -- so that he too may become a pseudo-woman.

    Don't believe me?

    That's too bad, because, actually, I have proof of that from our great nation's great paper of record, The New York Times:

    Brooklyn Museum Review

    [T]his show is a historic event. It is the first major museum exhibition to focus on homosexuality and to trace some of the ways that same-sex desire -- and unconventional notions of masculinity and femininity in general -- have been manifested in early Modern, Modern and postmodern American art, as evinced primarily in portraiture.

    So -- what the Times is saying is that "same-sex desire" is linked to "unconventional notions of masculinity and femininity."

    "Unconventional," of course, means that masculine -- isn't masculine.

    It's feminine.

    Or, better, effeminate.

    So -- in our culture, the widespread, cultural belief, is that same-sex aka male-male desire is NOT masculine.

    And if it's not masculine, it must be effeminized.

    In which case, a male who desires sex with another male must be, like I said, a type of ersatz woman -- who must be penetrated.

    Anally.

    Vaginally, of course, would be ideal, but because he's a male, he doesn't have a vagina.

    Not yet anyway.

    So he has to be penetrated -- anally.

    He's a pseudo-woman, and he has to be penetrated, anally.

    That's a cultural BELIEF.

    And among human beings, BELIEF governs BEHAVIOR.

    Or, as Plato puts it, "That which men at any time honor they practise, and what is not honored is neglected."

    Which means that, in the sexual sphere:

    If a male who's attracted to other men believes that a "man who has sex with men" is actually a type of ersatz woman, then he'll be eager to be penetrated anally -- so that he too may become a pseudo-woman.

    Femmy will be honored, Manly dishonored.

    While in the economic sphere:

    If a male believes that appetite and avarice should be his guiding lights, if appetite and avarice are the be-alls and end-alls of his world, then surely the rational and high-spirited principles of his mind should be enslaved -- should exist solely to serve -- appetite and avarice --


    avarice and appetite

    and reason should be allowed "to calculate and consider nothing but the ways of making more money from a little," while his spirit should be allowed "to admire and honor nothing but riches and rich men, and to take pride in nothing but the possession of wealth and whatever contributes to that."

    As Sokrates' companion in the conversation says:

    "There is no other transformation so swift and sure of the honor-loving youth into the avaricious type."

    And that's what's been going on in America -- and not just America, but much of the rest of the world -- for the last thirty years -- and more.

    Youth -- which is of its nature both idealistic and ambitious, and can easily be turned from one to the other --

    Has been told, over and over and over again, that Money -- not Manhood -- is what matters.

    Youth is told, over and over and over again, to calculate and consider nothing but the ways of making more money from a little, and to admire and honor nothing but riches and rich men, and to take pride in nothing but the possession of wealth and whatever contributes to that.

    Don't believe me?

    Once again, that's too bad, because once again, I have proof of that from our great nation's paper of record, The New York Times:

    Perfect 10? Never Mind That. Ask Her for Her Credit Score

    . . .

    The credit score, once a little-known metric derived from a complex formula that incorporates outstanding debt and payment histories, has become an increasingly important number used to bestow credit, determine housing and even distinguish between job candidates.

    It's so widely used that it has also become a bigger factor in dating decisions, sometimes eclipsing more traditional priorities like a good job, shared interests and physical chemistry. That's according to interviews with more than 50 daters across the country, all under the age of 40.

    "Credit scores are like the dating equivalent of a sexually transmitted disease test," said Manisha Thakor, the founder and chief executive of MoneyZen Wealth Management, a financial advisory firm. "It's a shorthand way to get a sense of someone's financial past the same way an S.T.D. test gives some information about a person's sexual past."

    [emphases mine]

    Notice -- and, really, one couldn't help laughing aloud were it not so seriously UN-funny -- that Ms Thakor, "founder and chief executive of MoneyZen Wealth Management" --

    And don't you love it?

    "MoneyZen Wealth Management" -- you can't make this stuff up --

    or can you?

    Anyways, Ms Thakor, "founder and chief executive of MoneyZen Wealth Management," believes that STD's -- the result of sexual promiscuity aka infidelity -- and credit scores -- are what should matter in a "dating" situation.

    And that makes sense -- a balanced sense -- in our very hedonistic and greed-driven society, and in society as Plato and his fellow Greek philosophers saw it, and as I said in Sexual Freedom:

    There's a link between our contemporary dominant economic culture of greed-and-growth;

    and the dominant sexual cultures of hedonism, pansexualism, and analism.

    Even though their proponents tend to sit on opposite sides of the political fence.

    And it's far more than a link guys.

    Plato, in his immense wisdom, uses the phrase "appetite and avarice."

    And that's right.

    "Appetite" is the insatiable hunger for pleasure, sexual and otherwise; and

    "Avarice" is the insatiable hunger for money.

    Hedonism and Greed.

    Avarice and Appetite.


    avarice and appetite

    Now -- can I prove that there's not just a "link," but a relationship between affluence aka a "good" credit score -- and STDs?

    Can I actually demonstrate a link between greed and hedonism?

    YES!

    Because, both in the post-industrial West and in Africa, HIV / AIDS has been by and large a disease of AFFLUENCE.

    I know, I know, years of right-wing propaganda about sexually promiscuous welfare queens driving around in pink Cadillacs while pumping out illegitmate babies --

    and years of left-wing propaganda about how "poverty" causes AIDS --

    has tended to confuse the public, which includes you, dear reader, on this point -- but -- I'm correct.

    The link between HIV infection and affluence in Africa can be found in this terrific article by the Washington Post's estimable Craig Timberg, which, remarkably, is still online; and in this article on our site:

    Men, War, Promiscuity, Affluence, and AIDS.

    And, I wonder, how many of you remember that there's a DIRECT LINK between the Christian Suppression of Manhood and Manhood Rituals in Africa -- and the Rise of AIDS?

    Probably NONE of you -- so you need to re-read The Suppression of Manhood and the Rise of AIDS.

    So -- this may all come as a surprise to Ms Thakor of MoneyZen Wealth Management, but we can argue, based on what we've seen both in Africa, and in America and Western Europe -- that a "good" credit score -- and STD infection -- actually go together.

    Sure, poor people can and do get infected with HIV and die of AIDS -- but -- in both Africa and the West, AIDS is far more likely to be a disease of affluence.

    Think of all the big-name and very wealthy gay-identified (including closeted gay-identified) males who died of AIDS:

    Rock Hudson, Roy Cohn, Liberace, etc etc.

    Let's come back to Ms Thakor and her MoneyZen - whatever the fuck that is:

    "Credit scores are like the dating equivalent of a sexually transmitted disease test," said Manisha Thakor, the founder and chief executive of MoneyZen Wealth Management, a financial advisory firm. "It's a shorthand way to get a sense of someone's financial past the same way an S.T.D. test gives some information about a person's sexual past."

    To be fair to Ms Thakor, she's careful to hedge what she says: "It's a shorthand way to get a sense of someone's financial past the same way an S.T.D. test gives some information about a person's sexual past."

    Problem is -- that it's just a sense and some.

    For example, when I met my late lover Brett, he would have passed an STD test with flying colors -- even though he was already infected with HIV.

    Because -- HIV had NOT YET BEEN DISCOVERED!!!

    So -- you might be hooking up, dear boy, with some hot number -- who has some similar stealth virus lurking within -- about which no one knows.

    Far better to make clear and from the git-go -- that infidelity is OFF the table.

    And as for credit scores -- well, if money is all that matters to you -- you deserve what you'll get:

    Hedonism and Greed.


    Avarice and Appetite.

    That's all that's left of America -- and much of the rest of the world.

    Which is why as a society we're far more interested in the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous -- than in the Lives of the Saints.

    Or in the Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans -- Noble not because they were rich, but because they were Virtuous.

    We're not interested in the Saintly or the Virtuous.

    We're interested in the Rich and Famous -- because society tells us to be interested in the rich and famous.

    You get what the culture says you'll get.

    Or, as Plato puts it, "That which men at any time honor they practise, and what is not honored is neglected."

    And if the culture says to to calculate and consider nothing but the ways of making more money from a little, and to admire and honor nothing but riches and rich men -- that's what you'll do.

    Most of you.

    You'll be consumed, in short, with appetite and avarice.

    Plato understood that.

    Plato lived in Greece.

    And Greece was very devoted to the freedom of the individual.

    Plato lived in Athens.

    And Athens was particularly devoted to the freedom of the individual.

    So much so that it neglected what we might call its common or communal responsibilities.

    And after not too many years of such neglect, Athens was on the ropes.

    Athens -- in the form of the Athenian people, because Athens was a democracy -- had made one bad decision after another.

    As a consequence, it had lost the Peloponessian War --

    and then executed Sokrates -- probably the wisest man who ever lived.

    Both had happened before Plato was even thirty years old.

    And Plato could see that more bad things were coming --

    Because Athens resolutely refused to consider the communal side of the coin.

    And then there was Sparta.

    Sparta too greatly cared about the rights of the individual.

    It too was Greek.

    But Sparta -- uniquely among the Greek states -- also taught its citizens -- from cradle to grave -- to pay strict attention to their communal obligations.

    Which is why, when Plato set about to devise his ideal Republic -- he clearly had Sparta in mind.

    This is how Plato summarizes the first five books of the Republic in a subsequent work, the Timaeus.

    Socrates
    The main part of the discourse I delivered yesterday was concerned with the kind of constitution which seemed to me likely to prove the best, and the character of its citizens.

    Timaeus
    And in truth, Socrates, the polity you described was highly approved by us all.

    Socrates
    Did we not begin by dividing off the class of land-workers in it, and all other crafts, from the class of its defenders?

    Timaeus
    Yes.

    Socrates
    And when, in accordance with Nature, we had assigned to each citizen his one proper and peculiar occupation, we declared that those whose duty it is to fight in defence of all must act solely as guardians of the State, in case anyone from without or any of those within should go about to molest it; and that they should judge leniently such as are under their authority and their natural friends, but show themselves stern in battle towards all the enemies they encounter.

    Timaeus
    Very true.

    Socrates
    For we said, as I think, that the soul of the Guardians ought to be of a nature at once spirited and philosophic in a superlative degree, so that they might be able to treat their friends rightly with leniency and their foes with sternness.

    Timaeus
    Yes.

    Socrates
    And what of their training? Did we not say that they were trained in gymnastic, in music, and in all the studies proper for such men?

    Timaeus
    Certainly.

    Socrates
    And it was said, I believe, that the men thus trained should never regard silver or gold or anything else as their own private property; but as auxiliaries, who in return for their guard-work receive from those whom they protect such a moderate wage as suffices temperate men, they should spend their wage in common and live together in fellowship one with another, devoting themselves unceasingly to virtue, but keeping free from all other pursuits.

    Plat. Tim. 17c, translated by Lamb.

    "the men thus trained should never regard silver or gold or anything else as their own private property; but as auxiliaries, who in return for their guard-work receive from those whom they protect such a moderate wage as suffices temperate men, they should spend their wage in common and live together in fellowship one with another, devoting themselves unceasingly to virtue, but keeping free from all other pursuits."

    "devoting themselves unceasingly to virtue"

    And of course the word for "virtue" is areté, which as you know, means --

    Manhood.

    As is explained, once again, in Liddell and Scott's Ancient Greek Lexicon:

    From the same root [ARES] comes areté [excellence] ...the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war; cf. Lat. virtus.

    And, Liddell and Scott re-inforce that point by saying that areté is

    goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess, Hom., Hdt. (like Lat. vir-tus, from vir).

    Manhood.

    Virtue is Manhood.

    And Sparta was all about Manhood.

    At birth, a Spartan male was assigned a plot of land -- his kleros -- big enough to support him and his family.

    As a child, he went through the agogé -- which emphasized aggression and self-control:

    [A]s soon as boys reached the age of seven, Lycurgus [the Spartan lawgiver] took charge of them all himself and distributed them into Troops [the Spartan word was "herd"]: here he accustomed them to live together and be brought up together, playing and learning as a group. The captaincy of the troop was conferred upon the boy who displayed the soundest judgement and the best fighting spirit. The others kept their eyes on him, responded to his instructions, and endured their punishments from him, so that altogether this training served as a practice in learning ready obedience. Moreover as they exercised boys were constantly watched by their elders, who were always spurring them on to fight and contend with one another: in this their chief object was to get to know each boy's character, in particular how bold he was, and how far he was likely to stand his ground in combat.

    ~Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus, 16, 17, translated by Talbert.

    That was the Spartan's childhood.

    As a Man, his only responsibilities were to provide food to his all-male communal mess -- and his family -- from his plot of land --

    and to Valiantly and Valorously Fight for Sparta.

    He wasn't allowed to engage in a trade or business, or to own gold and silver.

    And the vast majority of his time was spent with his fellow Warriors, either training, or hunting, or eating, or just hanging out in what were called "the officers' quarters."

    So -- Spartan Warriors weren't allowed to make money, and as Plato says, they "live[d] together in fellowship one with another, devoting themselves unceasingly to virtue, but keeping free from all other pursuits."

    "devoting themselves unceasingly to Manhood" --

    Which is what Men must do.

    And then we come to the heart of the matter, from the Greek point of view:

    Socrates
    May we say then that we have now gone through our discourse of yesterday, so far as is requisite in a summary review; or is there any point omitted, my dear, which we should like to see added?

    Timaeus
    Certainly not: this is precisely what was said, Socrates.

    Socrates
    And now, in the next place, listen to what my feeling is with regard to the polity we have described. I may compare my feeling to something of this kind: suppose, for instance, that on seeing beautiful creatures, whether works of art or actually alive but in repose, a man should be moved with desire to behold them in motion and vigorously engaged in some such exercise as seemed suitable to their physique; well, that is the very feeling I have regarding the State we have described. Gladly would I listen to anyone who should depict in words our State contending against others in those struggles which States wage; in how proper a spirit it enters upon war, and how in its warring it exhibits qualities such as befit its education and training in its dealings with each several State whether in respect of military actions or in respect of verbal negotiations.

    Plat. Tim. 19c

    Sokrates actually says that, having designed his ideal Republic, his ideal State, what he would most like to see is that State -- at War.

    Now -- you need to remember that the Republic is both the ideal State -- and the ideal Man.

    Which means that if the Test of the Ideal State is War -- then the Test of the Ideal Man -- is Fighting.

    And that's what Manhood is about.

    Now -- and to get back to Ann, who, believe me, I haven't forgotten --

    Ann says that "gay" and other such constructs are intended to produce a "betrayal of masculinity" which will "help destroy manhood" --

    "to the benefit of an elite that will benefit from weakened manhood."

    Right.

    Moneyed elites do not like Manhood.

    It frightens them.

    They seek to control -- and if possible -- destroy it.

    Tacitus, commenting on the Fall of the Roman Republic, says that the establishment of the Empire was greatly facilitated by the plain fact that "War and judicial murder had disposed of all Men of spirit."

    It's a simple formula:

    You send your Men of Spirit off to war.

    And if that doesn't do the trick, you have them "judicially murdered."

    Tacitus adds that during that Fall,

    criminality went unpunished, law and morality were non-existent, decency was often fatal.

    Tacitus, by the way, and like virtually all other ancient thinkers, including Plato, believed that Society was happiest when there was "neither rich nor poor" -- that is to say, under a regime of equality and austerity.

    Tacitus also believed that primitive Men had lived under such a regime, but that --

    When men ceased to be equal, egotism replaced fellow-feeling, and decency succumbed to violence.

    So you'll notice that he says, not once but twice, that decency, which to the ancients was an integral part of Manhood -- is destroyed by the inequalities of, per Plato, appetite and avarice.

    Paul Shorey: "the social, political, and ethical ideals of the Republic and Laws as a whole [constitute] a Dorian [Spartan] and Pythagorean ideal of order, harmony, discipline, and restraint opposed to the laxity of the Athenian democracy."

    Here's Plato, speaking, in the Laws, of primitive Men:

    [A] community which has no communion with either poverty or wealth is generally the one in which the noblest characters will be formed; for in it there is no place for the growth of insolence and injustice, of rivalries and jealousies. So these men were good, both for these reasons and because of their simplicity, as it is called; for, being good-hearted and guileless, when they heard things called bad [shameful] or good [morally beautiful], they took what was said for the truth and believed it. For none of them had the shrewdness of the modern man to suspect a falsehood; but they accepted as true the statements made about Gods and men, and ordered their lives by them . . . [So] they were also more guileless and good-hearted, and manly and temperate, and in all ways more righteous.

    Plat. Laws 3.679

    Again, both Plato and Tacitus see economic equality -- neither poverty nor wealth -- as key to social decency.

    And they believe that the Men benefitting from that equality -- will be more Manly -- more Righteous.

    So:

    When Ann speaks of

    an elite that will benefit from weakened manhood

    and says that

    the purpose of the cultural construct known as "gay" is to help destroy manhood

    She's correct.

    Ann:

    Women have been and are being used to help trounce manhood and traditional values among women. I see some say Gloria Steinem actually worked for the CIA as a culture warrior (not sure if this is outlandish or not, I only know that a similar cultural shift was going on among women at the same time, and was being pushed from above).

    Yes.

    In every social movement, there are always moles and other de facto secret police.

    I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard a story that when a tribe was enslaved, often the men were killed violently in front of the women and the women were warned that if they did not train their young males to be subservient, they would meet the same end. Hence, the strong, domestically dominant spirit of oppressed women towards their young sons who they teach to keep their heads down out of terror for their lives. Survival first. It violates the spirit of manhood, but, women are all about protection.

    Probably one of the reasons boys were separated from their mothers at a certain age, when instead of being a benefit, she became a liability to the future man.

    Yes.

    That's why Warrior societies practice that sort of gender segregation.

    To fully develop Manliness, boys must be among boys, and men among men.

    I work with a woman who expressed a little embarrassment about being anxious about her newborn baby boy whom she has to leave in order to work. I reassured her that she had good instincts, and that it should only be a source of embarrassment were he say, 18 years old.

    Yes.

    The fact that so many Women are now in the work force can be seen and certainly experienced by some of those Women -- as liberating.

    But -- the plain fact that where once one income sufficed, now two incomes are required to keep American families afloat -- has NOTHING to do with liberation --

    and everything to do with oppression.

    It's one thing for a Woman to choose to work.

    It's another for her to be forced to, de facto, abandon her kids for most of the day -- in order to keep those same kids fed.

    Ann:

    The Oligarchy is trying to crush us and their assault is multi-pronged.

    Yep.

    Stay Strong and I'll try, though I don't have your spiritual strength.

    You seem strong to me.

    Epic days are ahead.

    Yes.

    And that's not really good news.

    As Gore Vidal -- who died recently, and who, by the way, was into Frot and very much opposed, as are we, to the word "gay" and the use of that word to separate one jack from his fellow --

    Mr. Vidal tended toward what he called "same-sex sex," but frequently declared that human beings were inherently bisexual, and that labels like gay (a term he particularly disliked) or straight were arbitrary and unhelpful.

    ~Gore Vidal Dies at 86; Prolific, Elegant, Acerbic Writer

    By the way --

    Does that NY Times obit mention that Vidal was into Frot, particulary with his great childhood love, Jimmie Trimble, and that Vidal didn't like anal?

    NO.

    It just says that Vidal "had sex" with so-and-so.

    99.99% of the readers of those words will assume -- that the "sex" was anal.

    Does that bother -- even one of you?

    I wonder.

    So:

    As Vidal, whose novel Julian I've just added to the Heroes Reading List, used to say, there's an ancient Chinese curse --

    "May you live in interesting times."

    We're living in interesting times.

    Some of you -- like Ann and Warrior NW -- understand that.

    Most of you don't.

    Which does not bode well -- for you.

    Thank you Ann.

    You're a true Warrior.

    Bill Weintraub

    January 7, 2013

    © All material Copyright 2016 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.


    QUOTE OF THE DAY

    [I]nnate knowledge subsists in our very essence, is superior to all judgment and choice, and exists prior to reason and demonstration. From the beginning it is united with its proper cause, and is established with the soul's essential desire for the Good.

    But to speak the truth, contact with the Divine is not knowledge. For knowledge is separated [from its object] by otherness. But, prior to the act of knowing another as being, itself, "other," there exists a spontaneous [. . .] uniform conjunction, suspended from the Gods.

    ~Iamblichos, Neo-Platonist Philosopher, ca 260 - 325 AD







    Add a reply to this discussion

    Back to Personal Stories









    who reject anal penetration, promiscuity, and effeminacy
    among men who have sex with men

    and















    AND


    Warriors Speak is presented by The Man2Man Alliance, an organization of men into Frot

    To learn more about Frot, ck out What's Hot About Frot

    Or visit our FAQs page.


    Warriors Speak Home

    Cockrub Warriors Site Guide

    The Man2Man Alliance

    Heroic Homosex

    Frot Men

    Heroes

    Frot Club

    Personal Stories

    | What's Hot About Frot | Hyacinthine Love | THE FIGHT | Kevin! | Cockrub Warriors of Mars | The Avenger | Antagony | TUFF GUYZ | Musings of a BGM into Frot | Warriors Speak | Ask Sensei Patrick | Warrior Fiction | Frot: The Next Sexual Revolution | Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not A Condition |
    | Heroes Site Guide | Toward a New Concept of M2M | What Sex Is | In Search of an Heroic Friend | Masculinity and Spirit |
    | Jocks and Cocks | Gilgamesh | The Greeks | Hoplites! | The Warrior Bond | Nude Combat | Phallic, Masculine, Heroic | Reading |
    | Heroic Homosex Home | Cockrub Warriors Home | Heroes Home | Story of Bill and Brett Home | Frot Club Home |
    | Definitions | FAQs | Join Us | Contact Us | Tell Your Story |

    © All material on this site Copyright 2001 - 2016 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.










    It was my own innate understanding of the essentially Combative and Aggressive nature of Men, and my own instinctual relating of that to the testicles, which produced those fantasies and gave them so much power in my life.





































  • In this Dialogue, written in the first century AD by Lucian but presenting an imagined conversation between the *sixth century BC* Athenian lawgiver Solon and a Scythian visitor to Athens named Anacharsis, we get some idea of what that training was like -- starting with Athenian kids, and then progressing to Spartan youth:

    Anacharsis: And another thing, my dear Solon, why are those young men acting in this way? Look, some of them are grappling and tripping each other, others are choking their friends and twisting their limbs, rolling about in the mud and wallowing like pigs. But before they began to do this, I noticed they first took off their clothes, then put oil on themselves, and in a peaceful fashion took turns in rubbing each other. But now, experiencing some emotion I do not understand, they have lowered their heads and are crashing into each other, and butting their heads together like rams! And look! There is one who has just seized the other by the legs and thrown him down; then he flopped on him and did not allow him to get up, but shoved him down into the mud. And now he is finally twisting his legs around the other person's waist and choking him with his arm under his throat. The other is slapping him on the shoulder, trying to ask him, I suppose, not to choke him to death. They do not avoid getting covered with dirt even to save the oil, but on the contrary wipe it off, and smearing themselves with mud and rivers of perspiration they make themselves ridiculous, in my opinion, by sliding in and out of each other's hands like eels.

    Others are acting in the same way in the open part of the courtyard. However, these are not in the mud, but they have this deep sand in the pit which they sprinkle on themselves and each other, just like roosters, so that they cannot break out of their grasp, I imagine, since the sand decreases the slipperiness and offers a surer grip on a dry skin.

    Others also covered with dust are standing up straight and striking and kicking each other. See that one there! Poor fellow, he seems to be ready to spit out a mouthful of teeth considering how full of blood and sand his mouth is; he has got a blow to the jaw, as you can see for yourself. But the official there does not separate them and stop the fight -- at least I assume he is an official from his scarlet cloak. On the contrary he encourages them and cheers the one who struck that blow.

    All around different people are all exercising: some raise their knees as if running, although they remain in the same place, and as they jump up they kick the air.

    What I want to know is, what reason do they have for doing this? It seems to me these actions are almost insane, and there is no one who can easily persuade me that people who act like this have not lost all their senses.

    [Solon explains that customs differ from one land to another. He then explains to Anacharsis what is happening.]

    Solon: This place, dear Anacharsis, is what we call a gymnasion and it and is sacred to Lykeian Apollo. You can see his statue, leaning against a stele, holding his bow in his left hand. His right arm is bent above his head as if the artist were showing the God resting, as if he had completed some laborious task. As for those exercises in the nude, the one done in the mud is called wrestling. Those in the dust are also wrestling. Those who strike each other standing upright we call pankratiasts. We have other athletic events: we have contests in boxing, diskos, and the long jump, and the winner is considered superior to his fellows and takes the prize.

    Anacharsis: These prizes of yours now; what are they?

    Solon: At Olympia there is a crown of wild olive; at Isthmia, one of pine; at Nemea, one woven of celery; at the Pythian Games, laurel berries sacred to the god, and here at home at the Panathenaic Games, oil from olive trees which grow in the sacred precincts. What are you laughing at, Anacharsis? Do these prizes seem valueless to you?

    [Solon explains the symbolic value of the prizes, justifies the pursuit of athletics, the education of the citizens. Then Anacharsis asks Solon to explain the government of Athens.]

    Solon: It is not easy, my friend, to explain everything at once in concise form, but if you will take one thing at a time you will learn everything about our belief in the gods, as well as our attitude toward parents, marriage, or anything else.

    I will now explain our theory about young men and how we treat them from the time when they begin to know the difference between right and wrong and are entering manhood and sustaining hardships, so that you may learn why we require them to undergo these exercises and force them to subject their bodies to toil, not just because of the athletic games and the prizes they may win there, for few of them have the ability to do that, but so that they may try to gain a greater good for the entire city and for themselves. For there is another contest set up for all good citizens and the crown is not made of pine nor of wild olive nor of celery, but is one which includes all of man's happiness, that is to say, freedom for each person individually and for the state in general: wealth, glory, pleasure in our traditional feast days, having the entire family safe from harm, and in a word, to have the best of all the blessings one could have from the gods.

    All this happiness is woven into the crown to which I referred and is acquired in the contest to which these exhausting exercises lead.

    [Solon goes into more detail about the training of young men and about the responsibility of the citizens.]

    Solon: As for physical training, which you particularly wanted to hear about, we proceed as follows. When the boys reach an age when they are no longer soft and uncoordinated, we strip them naked. We do this because first, we think they should get used to the weather, learning to live with different seasons, so they are not bothered by the heat nor do they yield to the cold. Then we massage them with olive oil and condition the skin. For since we see that leather which is softened by olive oil does not easily crack and is much stronger, even though it is not alive, why should we not think that live bodies would benefit from oil? Next we have thought up different kinds of athletics and have appointed coaches for each type. We teach one how to box, another how to compete in the pankration, so that they can become used to hard work, to stand up to blows face to face, and not to yield through fear of injury.

    This creates two valuable traits in our young men: it makes them brave in the face of danger and unsparing of their bodies, and it also makes them strong and vigorous. Those who wrestle and push against each other learn how to fall safely and spring up nimbly, to endure pushing, grappling, twisting, and choking, and to be able to lift their opponent off the ground. They are not learning useless skills but they get the one thing which is the first and most important thing in life: through this training their bodies become stronger and capable of enduring pain. There is another thing too which is not unimportant. From this training they acquire skills which they may need some day in war. For it is clear that if a man so trained grapples with an enemy, he will trip and throw him more quickly and if he is thrown he will know how to regain his feet as easily as possible. For we prepare our men, Anacharsis, for the supreme contest, war, and we expect to have much better soldiers out of young men who have had this training, that is, the previous conditioning and training of naked bodies, which makes them not only stronger and healthier, more agile and fit, but also causes them to outweigh their opponents.

    You can see, I should think, the results of this, what they are like when armed, or even without weapons how they would strike terror in their enemies. Our troops are not fat, pale, and useless nor are they white and scrawny ... enervated by lying in the shade, simultaneously shivering and streaming with rivers of sweat, gasping beneath their helmets, particularly if the sun, as now, is burning with noontime heat. What use could people be who get thirsty and cannot endure dust; soldiers who panic if they see blood, who die of terror before they come close enough to throw their spears or to close with the enemy? But our troops have skin of high color, darkened by the sun, and faces like real men; they display great vigor, fire, and virility. They glow with good health, and are neither shriveled skeletons nor excessively heavy, but they have been carved to perfect symmetry; they have used up and sweated off useless and excess flesh, and that which is left is strong, supple, and free, and they vigorously keep this healthy condition. For just as the winnowers do with wheat, so our athletes do with their bodies, removing the chaff and the husks and leaving the grain in a clean pile.

    Through training like this a man can't avoid being healthy and can stand up indefinitely under stress. Such a man would sweat only after some time, and he would seldom be seen to be ill. Suppose someone were to take two torches and throw one into the grain and the other into the straw and chaff -- you see, I am returning to the figure of the winnower. The straw, I think, would burst into flames much more quickly, but the grain would burn slowly with no large flames blazing up nor would it burn all at once, but it would smoulder slowly and eventually it too would be burned.

    Neither disease nor fatigue could easily attack and overcome such a body or easily defeat it. For it has good inner resources which defend it against attacks from outside, so as not to let them in, neither does it admit the sun or the cold to its hurt. To avoid yielding to hardships, great vigor springs up within, something prepared long in advance and held in reserve for time of need. This vigor fills up at once and waters the body in a crisis and makes it strong for a long time. For the previous training in bearing strain and hardship does not weaken their strength but increases it, and when you fan it the fire burns stronger.

    We train them to run, getting them to endure long distances as well as speeding them up for swiftness in the sprints. This running is not done on a firm springy surface but in deep sand, where it is not easy to place one's foot forcefully and not to push off from it, since the foot slips against the yielding sand. We train them to jump over ditches, if they have to, or any other obstacles, and in addition we train them to do this even when they carry lead weights as large as they can hold. They also compete in the javelin throw for distance. In the gymnasium you also saw another athletic implement, bronze, circular, like a tiny shield with no bar or straps. You handled it as it lay there and expressed the view that it was heavy and hard to hold on to because it was so smooth. Well, they throw this up in the air both high and out, competing to see who can throw the longest and pass beyond the others. This exercise strengthens the shoulders and builds up the arms and legs.

    As for this mud and dust, which originally seemed so amusing to you, my friend, listen while I tell you why it is used. First, their fall will not be on unyielding dirt but they will fall safely on soft ground. Next, their slipperiness has to be greater when they sweat in the mud. You likened them to eels, but the facts are neither useless nor humorous: it adds not a little to strength of the sinews when they are forced to hold firmly to people in this condition when they are trying to slip away. Do not think it is easy to pick up a sweaty man in the mud, covered with oil and trying to get out of your arms. All these skills, as I said earlier, are useful in combat, if it were necessary to pick up a wounded friend and carry him easily to safety or to seize an enemy and bring him back in your arms. And for this reason we train them beyond what is necessary, so that when they have practiced hard tasks they may do smaller ones with much greater facility.

    We believe the dust is used for the opposite reason than the oil is, that is, so that a competitor may not slip out of his opponent's grasp. For after they have been trained in the mud to hold fast to something which is escaping from them because of its slipperiness, they then practice escaping out of the arms of their opponent, no matter how impossibly firm they may be held. Furthermore when this dust is used liberally it checks the perspiration and makes their strength last longer and furnishes protection against harm from drafts which otherwise attack the body when the pores are open. Besides, the dust rubs off the accumulation of dirt and makes the skin gleam.

    I should dearly like to stand one of those white-skinned fellows who live in the shade beside one of our boys who work out in the Lykeion, and after I had washed off the dust and the mud, ask you which one you would like to resemble. For I know that you would choose at first glance, without hesitation, even without putting either through any tests, the one which is solid and hard rather than soft, weak, and pale, because what little blood he has has been withdrawn into the interior of his body.

    [Anacharsis then ridicules the idea that athletic training could be useful in war. Why not save your strength, he asks. Solon explains that strength cannot be saved like a bottle of wine; it must be constantly used.]

    Anacharsis: I just don't understand what you said, Solon. It is too intellectual for me and requires a sharp mind and keen insight. But above all, tell me this, why, in the Olympic Games and at Isthmia and Delphi and elsewhere, where so many competitors, you say, assemble to see these young men compete, you never have a contest with weapons but you bring them before the spectators all naked and exhibit them getting kicked and punched, and then, if they have won, give them berries and wild olives? It would be worth knowing why you do this.

    Solon: My dear Anacharsis, we do this because we think that their enthusiasm for athletics will increase if they see that those who excel at them are honored and are presented to crowds of Greeks by heralds. Because they are to appear stripped before so many people, they try to get into good condition, so that when they are naked they will not be ashamed, and each one works to make himself capable of winning. As for the prizes, as I said earlier, they are not insignificant: to be praised by the spectators, to be a recognized celebrity, and to be pointed out as the best of one's group. As a result of these prizes, many of the spectators who are of the right age for competition go away completely in love with courage and struggle. If someone should remove love of glory from our lives, what good would we ever achieve, Anacharsis, or who would strive to accomplish some shining deed? But now it is possible for you to imagine from these games what sort of men these would be under arms, fighting for fatherland and children and wives and temples, when they show so much desire for victory in competing for laurel berries and wild olives.

    Furthermore, how would you feel if you should observe fights between quails and between roosters here among us, and see the great interest which is shown in them? Wouldn't you laugh, particularly if you should learn that we do this in accordance with our laws and all men of military age are instructed to be present and to see these birds fight until they are exhausted? But it is no laughing matter, for eagerness for danger creeps insensibly into their souls so that they try not to seem less courageous and bold than the roosters nor to give in too soon because of injury or fatigue or any other distress.

    As for trying them in armed combat and seeing them receive wounds -- never! It is brutal and dreadfully wrong, and in addition it is economically unfeasible to destroy the bravest, whom we could better use against our enemies.

    Since you tell me, Anacharsis, that you expect to travel to the rest of Greece, if you get to Sparta, remember not to laugh at them nor think that they have no purpose when they compete in a theater, rushing together and striking each other, fighting over a ball, or when they go into a place surrounded by water [known as Plantanistas, or Plane-Tree Grove], choose up sides, and fight as if in actual war, although as naked as we Athenians are, until one team drives the other out of the enclosure into the water, the Sons of Herakles beating the Sons of Lykurgos or vice versa; after this contest there is peace and no one would strike another.

    ~ translated by Sweet.



























    The great Greek philosophers Sokrates and Plato spent a lot of time debating and defeating the hedonists of their day.

    Plato wrote three very powerful books detailing that debate, beginning with the Protagoras, continuing in the Gorgias, and culminating in the Republic, one of the most important works of Western literature.

    In the Gorgias in particular, Sokrates identifies hedonism with those who in his day, engaged in anal.

    And since anal was proscribed -- forbidden -- by the Greeks, he uses that fact to defeat the hedonists.

    Here's the debate -- the hot-headed hedonist is a guy named Callicles, and he's debating Sokrates:

    Socrates. Come now, let me tell you another parable:

    Consider if each of the two lives, the temperate and the licentious, might be described by imagining that each of the two men had a number of jars; the one man has his jars sound and full, one of wine, another of honey, and a third of milk, besides others filled with other things, and the sources which fill them are scanty and difficult, and he can only obtain them with a great deal of hard toil. Well, one man, when he has taken his fill, neither draws any more nor troubles himself a jot, but remains at ease on that score. The other, in like manner, can procure sources, though not without difficulty; but his vessels are leaky and unsound, and night and day he is compelled to fill them constantly, and if he pauses for a moment, he is in an agony of extreme distress. If such is the nature of each of the two lives, do you say that the licentious man has a happier one than the orderly? Do I not convince you that the opposite is the truth?

    Callicles. You do not convince me, Socrates, for the one who has filled himself has no longer any pleasure left; and this, as I was just now saying, is the life of a stone: he has neither joy nor sorrow after he is once filled; but a pleasant life consists rather in the largest possible amount of inflow.

    Soc. Well then, if the the inflow be large, must not that which runs away be of large amount also, and the holes for such outflow be of great size?

    Cal. Certainly.

    Soc. The life which you are now depicting is not that of a dead man, or of a stone, but of a plover [a bird thought to drink and then to eject the liquid]; you mean that he is to be hungering and eating?

    Cal. Yes.

    Soc. And he is to be thirsting and drinking?

    Cal. Yes, that is what I mean; he is to have all his desires about him, and to be able to live happily in the gratification of them.

    Soc. Capital, excellent; go on as you have begun, and have no shame; I, too, must disencumber myself of shame: and first, will you tell me whether you include itching and scratching, provided you have enough of them and pass your life in scratching, in your notion of happiness?

    Cal. What a strange being you are, Socrates! a regular stump-orator.

    Soc. That was the reason, Callicles, why I scared Polus and Gorgias, until they were too modest to say what they thought; but you will not be too modest and will not be scared, for you are such a manly fellow. And now, answer my question.

    Cal. I answer, that even the scratcher would live pleasantly.

    Soc. And if pleasantly, then also happily?

    Cal. To be sure.

    Soc. But what if the itching is not confined to the head? Shall I pursue the question? And here, Callicles, I would have you consider how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a catamite is not terrible, shameful, and wretched? Or would you venture to say, that they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want?

    Cal. Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics into the argument?

    Soc. Well, my fine friend, but am I the introducer of these topics, or he who says without any qualification that all who feel pleasure in whatever manner are happy, and who admits of no distinction between good and bad pleasures? And I would still ask, whether you say that pleasure and good are the same, or whether there is some pleasure which is not a good?

    ~translated by Jowett and Lamb

    So: Socrates asks, "Is there some pleasure which is not a good?"

    And the word "catamite" in the original Greek is kinaidos, that is, one who is anally passive, and/or who participates in anal penetration.

    That is, an analist.

    "Is there some pleasure which is not a good?"

    Anal.

    The life of an analist, says Sokrates, is "terrible, shameful, and wretched."

    And Callicles doesn't dare disagree with him.

    Because the cultural prohibition against anal is too severe.

    I have no question that privately, Callicles thinks anal is okay.

    That to his mind, "If it feels 'good,' do it!" and "It's all sex and it's all good!" -- are imperatives.

    But he doesn't dare say so -- regarding anal.

    Because again, the cultural prohibition against anal is too severe.

    As it should be.











    In the protection of your Manhood.

    In the safeguarding of your Life. Recently I've been reading John Milton, the great English poet and defender of the Puritan and Parliamentary Revolution.

    I've been reading his prose pieces -- which were written to advance that Revolutionary cause.

    If you think I'm dogmatic and militant -- you should read Milton.

    But his militancy helped bring about the freedoms we have today.

    As Warrior Brian said to me in an email regarding the need to organize:

    If an army went into battle without proper training and organisation they would lose. Historic example, in the English Civil War (1642 to 1646) the army of King Charles 1st was better organised and won most of the first battles; however Oliver Cromwell trained and organised the men fighting on Parliament's side into the New Model Army, and they won! If they had not been so organised the King would have carried on as the dictator he had been. Maybe eventually we would have got the freedoms that we enjoy now but it would have come more slowly and the monarch would have given them very grudgingly; so organisation is as you say vital to winning.

    And Militancy is vital -- to organization.









    How a MAN May Become Aware of His Progress in VIRTUE