The defamation of male love



The defamation of male love


Thank you.

Before I write anything else, I wanted to say thank you. Your website gave me, and continues to give me, something to believe in, even if I don't post regularly -- I don't even remember if I've ever posted, although I think I have.

I've been meaning to donate for years. Especially considering the lack of donations recently -- I didn't have any money that I could call my own. I found your site, I want to say, in high school. I don't remember how I found it but I thank all that I hold dear that I did. I told myself on my birthday that, sort of as a present to myself, I'd donate. I'm a college student now, I don't have enough to donate as much as I wish I could. I hope that this helps though and I'll try to send more when I can.

I've had a fairly lucky life, at least in terms of my sexuality. I never had a crisis over my sexuality and I attribute part of this to the influence of Heroic Homosex. I was able to clearly articulate to my mother the way I felt, and the historical background of male love, and she was able to, at least partially, come to an understanding with me.

I had the good fortune of having a friend in school who I was quite close with. At some point, I don't even remember where, our relationship became physical, and it seemed very natural to both of us. Other people I have spoken with seem to express an almost innate fear of their sexuality, as if from birth they held a conviction that male love was wrong. I believe this stems from a conflation of "gay sex" and "male love," which seem to have little if anything to do with one another.

The two of us couldn't understand why more people didn't do what we did -- it felt right, and natural, the highest expression of our friendship. It wasn't a deep love, but it was a true friendship, and it seemed very natural to do what we did. I've spoken to people, friends of mine, helped them through their crisis of self-discovery, not understanding why that process of self-discovery had to be a crisis.

I came to two conclusions. One: fear of the thing you discovered yourself to be, and Two: fear of people's reactions. No one wants to be gay, which is something that makes me laugh when people say that sexuality is a choice. Being gay in the world the way it is now is almost a life sentence to lies and sadness, and a life lived behind either the mask of assumed heterosexuality, or the mask of 'top/bottom' demanded by 'the scene' -- if you want to 'live' or have a life as a gay man, you're expected to fulfill a role in a ridiculous system.

I don't entirely agree with you about masculinity -- fundamentally I do, and I'm looking forward to joining my campus' Kendo club, I think I'll find a part of myself I didn't think I had. I'm by no means -- feminine -- and I wouldn't want to be, although I do like making cookies and I playfully resent the implication that being sensitive (or having baking talent...) somehow decreases one's masculinity. I hold, perhaps, a Taoist view wherein no person is complete without balancing themselves between the masculine and the feminine. I do COMPLETELY agree with your conclusions -- that people shun the idea of a balanced personality in favor an effeminized shadow of who they are. People assume that a desire for male love is equal to "being gay," and they equate "being gay" to being a stereotypical shadow-self, someone who is disgusting to them. I have a good friend who was unable to accept his own sexuality until I patiently explained to him that being gay didn't mean he had to give up being himself, but rather, it let him fully understand himself.

At the same time, I don't even understand how there could be anything biologically feminine about a guy... I mean, hello? That's part of what frustrates me SO much - along the lines of your 'ass is not a vagina' post - Disregarding the fact that I don't understand why you'd want to get your dick covered in shit.. if you wanted to stick yourself in someone's hole, why are you doing things with a guy in the first place? It just doesn't make sense.

People who conflate homosexuality with femininity muddy the issue. For one thing, it makes guys -afraid- to express any of their sensitivity, because being 'feminine' means that they're being 'gay', so you wind up with all these overly-macho guys running around acting just as delusional as the normal guys who are gay and thus feel they have to put forth this air of being 'femme'.

Personally, physically, looks-wise, I -like- (not to the exclusion of everything else by any means, my taste in guys is rather random, which is a good thing, because it means I'm not taken up by what people -look- like versus who they -are-) guys that look a little feminine. The second a guy starts -trying- to look or act femme, though, there's NOTHING there for me at all.

On both sides of the fence, though, fear of homosexuality / being homosexual makes people alter their personality in weird, unnatural ways, and that's INTENSELY damaging.

For many years I didn't say anything to my mother about my sexuality -- she was very against homosexuality, or so it seemed. Finally we discussed it and I cleared up some wrong ideas she had similar to my friend's -- then she told me the reason she didn't want me to be gay, the real reason, was that she'd never known a happy gay man. This jumped out at me as a clear proof of the sheer depravity of the world -- something so natural an expression as that, twisted and vilified, largely because of the BFD and the religious right.

I talked to my mom about this, and she said that her personal problem with homosexuality was that she thinks that anal is fundamentally and horrendously -wrong-, and she didn't even know of the EXISTENCE of other options. I spent a very, very long time explaining a lot of things to her, most of it inspired by your site - I gave her the link to the Alliance page, although I don't know if she's bothered to go - but once I explained what I liked, and that there -were- good ways for two guys to be together, she lost all of her fear, and started to really understand the kind of pain and frustration that I'm in as a minority in a minority.

She thinks that homophobia comes largely from fear of sodomy. Fear of being dominated in such a perverse and unnatural way as anal sex brings about. This makes sense to me, and it holds with what you said about people only fearing homosex after sodomy became linked with it.

This is, then, another reason to END the god damned BFD - How many guys are there out there who might be living in some kind or another of a lie, because they DON'T KNOW that they can have feelings for another guy, make love with another man, and have it be good, and true, and pure?! It makes me sick! It makes me so sick, and so angry. I have a huge problem with unfairness in the world, whenever I see it, and this just seems unfair. To everyone. To every young man who questions his sexuality but isn't -able- to find a word for what he is, because he's not straight, and he's not 'gay' in the modern social sense of the term. He's a frot guy, but he doesn't know it.

This leads to my next issue, one which you have discussed -- the modern homosexual man, to use the term, has no role models to associate with beside negative role models. The bisexual or avowed straight man who still has feelings for other men is in, perhaps, even worse of a bind because they have no role models at all!! Meanwhile, society loudly decries any legitimacy to male love whatsoever. Yours is the only voice, not only resisting the affronts of the BFD, but resisting the dark-ages societal view of male love in and of itself.

If you asked me to make a list of the most important sites on the internet right now, I'd put yours at the top of the list. People NEED to hear about your site. There's someone who I am very much in love with, and I have a feeling that he might be receptive to the message that your site upholds, and I hope to someday, sooner rather than later, tell him about your site and prove to him that male love is possible and CORRECT.

The defamation of male love is one of the most horrifying white-out jobs in history. It MAKES NO SENSE. It upsets me on a very physical level. It has probably hurt more people touched by "Western Culture" (which, ironically, traces its roots to the Greeks and Romans and Ibero-Celtic peoples, all of whom deeply felt the power of male love) than any war or plague. My question, one I have not received an answer for .. WHY? Who did this to us, why, and what can we do to make the world right? I salute you, for trying to answer, at least, the third question, and I hope that my support helps in - some - way.

Thank you.

Bill Weintraub

Re: The defamation of male love


Thank you Jon.

You're a true Warrior.

Jon says:

The defamation of male love is one of the most horrifying white-out jobs in history. It MAKES NO SENSE.

It has probably hurt more people touched by "Western Culture" (which, ironically, traces its roots to the Greeks and Romans and Ibero-Celtic peoples, all of whom deeply felt the power of male love) than any war or plague. My question, one I have not received an answer for .. WHY?

That's a difficult question.

And I don't know that there's any one explanation.

John Boswell, who was the openly gay chair of the history department at Yale, wrote a book titled Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, and he couldn't come up with a good reason for that defamation.

Homosexuality per se is harmless; and warrior cultures have always seen homosex as a force for good.

Also, there's debate about the extent of homophobia in Western culture over the past 2000 years.

At one time, it was believed that homophobia and persecution of homosexuals had been a constant of Western history.

But more recently, scholars have taken the view that such persecution was sporadic and episodic.

That was Boswell's view too, in his book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.

He argued that the Church celebrated some form of same-sex unions for about its first 1000 years.

There was a lot of debate about Boswell's book when it was first published.

He was very erudite -- but, unfortunately, he died of AIDS in 1995, so he wasn't around to defend it.

In any case, a group of scholars filed a "friend of the court" brief when the US Supreme Court was hearing the 2003 sodomy case, and they argued that persecution of homosexuals was NOT part of the warp and woof of Western civ.

The justices said that, that was an important argument in favor of repeal of the sodomy laws.

Where does all that leave us?

Well, the suggestion is that persecution of homosexuals has probably been most severe and widespread globally during the 20th century and now into the 21st.

Which suggests in turn that such persecution is related to changes which occurred as a result of the industrial revolution.

Among those changes was a gradual end to the extended family and more and more people living in nuclear families.

In that sense, society became what my foreign correspondent, whom I quoted at length in THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE, calls "heterosexualized."

If there is no heterosexual society there would be no homosexuals. And no heterosexuals either. Male-male sex is isolated only because in the western society, its spaces and its customs are completely heterosexualised (i.e. made mixed gender with pressures to be heterosexual). But heterosexual spaces are themselves unnatural --- and it was only through financial and technological power brought by industrialisation that the western society could create such an artificial unnatural heterosexual environment.

Does that make sense?

He's saying that where before, men and women did not often mix socially, and where the emphasis was on all-male associations such as the military, now society emphasized the male-female dyad.

And that though some of this was in train for centuries, what we see today all happened pretty recently.

Prior to 1869, after all, there wasn't even a word "homosexual."

There were just sex acts.

Remember what my foreign friend said:

If there is no heterosexual society there would be no homosexuals. And no heterosexuals either.

But the 19th century, with its passion for science, both invented the word "homosexual" and medicalized "homosexuality."

And it became associated with "inversion" -- effeminacy and, to some degree, anal sex.

Probably because the most obvious "homosexuals" for doctors to study were "inverts" -- effeminate males into anal.

Masculine-identified men who loved men could easily pass as "straight."

And many times these men were married.

Which is what my foreign correspondent argues.

That masculine-identified men who loved other men simply went unnoticed.

In addition, society tolerated what was called the "confirmed bachelor."

Who, so long as he was masculine, was not regarded as "gay."

Again, anal was not a major player in the lives of gay men prior to 1975.

But even in the 19th century, those who were medicalizing homosexuality were going after anal.

That's part of the problem.

"Homosexuality" became identified with anal and effeminacy.

The fact of the matter is that 'straight' actually means 'masculine'. It is only that the west has for long propagated 'heterosexuality' as masculine, so that today it is seen as being synonymous with 'straight'.

Again, the real meaning of 'queer' is feminine, although it is used interchangeably for 'gay'.

You should also know that the word 'homosexual' and later 'gay' was originally used for feminine identified males who were believed to be feminine on account of their desire for men.

Again, Jon, we've looked more closely at the problem of heterosexualization and the creation of a separate "gay space" in the message thread titled THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE.

It's important to look at that post because it makes a start at trying to explain how Masculine-identified Men were cut off from the love of other Masculine-identified Men.

Which has to be one of the great human tragedies of our era:

The destruction of the love of MAN for MAN.

Another part of the problem, in my view, is that same-sex love aka homosexuality got caught up in the wars between capitalism, communism, liberal democracy, and fascism.

Toward the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, campaigns for "homophile liberation" emerged in Germany, which was probably the most advanced country in Europe at the time, and England, and to some extent in the US.

The campaign in Germany was in some ways an offshoot of the German Youth Movement, which celebrated nature and natural masculinity.

WW I and its aftermath wiped those campaigns off the map.

The world became sharply polarized between right and left, and homophiles were generally associated with the left.

What that meant as a practical matter varied from country to country.

In Germany, homosexuals were protected under Weimar, and then brutally persecuted under Hitler.

In Russia, Lenin was tolerant, Stalin a monster.

In America and the UK, persecution became most severe AFTER WW II, when the Red Scare hit and homosexuality was lumped in with communism.

So the 50s and 60s were a particularly virulently anti-homosex era.

You can also see how a martial concept of homosex would have been destroyed by these forces.

For example, homophile sentiments and homosex were said to have been fairly common in the pre-WW I German officer corps.

And in Germany in general there was a lot of interest in Sparta and ancient Greece.

However, in the post WW I years, the officer corps became very right wing.

Also, many of the old guard were associated with the defeat, and had been discredited.

The new people regarded homosex as a communist / Jewish issue.

And not without some reason.

The leader of the post-WW I German homophile movement was Magnus Hirschfeld, who can be thought of as a cross between a sex researcher like Kinsey and an activist like Harvey Milk or Larry Kramer.

Hirschfeld was both a Jew and a leftist.

Of course there were right-wing homosexuals like Ernst Roehm of the Nazi Party.

But he wasn't exactly a positive role model -- he was essentially a thug and a vicious anti-Semite -- and he was executed at the behest of the German officer corps, who did not want his brownshirts constituting a force which could rival the army.

So homosexuality became forbidden.

Here in the States, puritanism has always been powerful.

But in the 19th century, Whitman and his admirers had begun softening up the culture to be more tolerant.

Again, that was wiped out by first by WW I, and then WW II and the Red Scares, etc.

Fact is though, that the US military completely tolerated homosexuals until after WW II.

Prior to that, so far as I know -- and I may be wrong about this Jon -- there wasn't even a screening for homosexuality.

If there was, no one took it seriously.

Indeed, the reason NYC and SF took off as "gay centers" is that they were the ports of debarkation for the European and Pacific theaters in WW II.

So the history is complex, but we need to understand that history if we're ever to dig our way out of this mess.

Who did this to us, why, and what can we do to make the world right? I salute you, for trying to answer, at least, the third question, and I hope that my support helps in - some - way.

Thank you Jon.

What we can do to make the world right is understand that the love of Masculine Man for Masculine Man is completely Natural and normal.

While the division of Men into gay and straight is UNnatural and false.

And we have to make those points over and over again.

Thank you again Jon.

You're a true Warrior.

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

Add a reply to this discussion

Back to Personal Stories


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


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 |
| 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 - 2010 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.