Depraved Bitches

Bill Weintraub

Bill Weintraub

Depraved Bitches


One of the things which is striking about gay male culture and the ongoing rise in HIV (and HPV) infection rates is the sheer depravity of it.

Every American gay man knows that there's a very dangerous pathogen loose in the community, and that it's spread through anal penetration.

Yet very large numbers of these men -- easily the vast majority -- continue not just to participate in anal, but to do anal without a condom some of the time, most of the time, or all of the time.

Many of these men know they're HIV+; or they don't know their serostatus -- which means they may be positive.

But they bareback -- regardless.

Thus demonstrating a depraved indifference to the lives of their sexual partners -- their fellow gay men -- and to their own life.

It's very striking.

And it's appalling.

In a previous HIV-related post, titled Many People with Drug-Resistant HIV Having Unprotected "Sex", we saw that a significant number of men who knew they were carrying mutant -- that is antiretroviral drug resistant -- HIV -- were barebacking.

And that as a consequence, the number of people infected with mutant HIV could be expected to double in about a year's time.

Think about that.

You know that you have HIV, and that you're carrying a strain which is resistant "to drugs from all three main classes of anti-HIV drugs."

That was true of 48% of the men in the study.

Yet you go ahead and bareback.

Clearly when you do that, you indicate that you don't care whether the man you're having "sex" with lives or dies.

Because you're not just giving him HIV, you're giving him a strain of the virus which cannot be treated.

In my view that's criminal.

And without any question it's depraved.

Now, we have a new report, coming originally from the LA Times, about negative guys taking an antiviral and then barebacking.

The idea is that the antiviral *might* protect against HIV infection:

T-drug no sure bet in HIV gamble

By Daniel Costello in Los Angeles

December 23, 2005

"TAKING a T." That's what HIV-negative gay men call the growing practice of downing the AIDS drug tenofovir and, with fingers crossed, hoping it protects them from the virus during unprotected sex.

It is being sold in packets with Viagra and ecstasy in gay dance clubs and even being prescribed by physicians, say doctors and AIDS prevention experts.

The trend has alarmed public health officials, who say there is no proof that tenofovir protects against transmission of HIV.

People who practise unsafe sex while taking the drug could still become infected or suffer side-effects from it.

Recreational use of AIDS drugs may also increase overall resistance to the medications, HIV experts say.

"This is a very worrisome development," said David Hardy, an HIV doctor at Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles. He said the drug could lead to an even greater erosion of condom use, which studies show has been falling among high-risk populations.


[emphases mine]

So in this case, gay men are taking a prescription medication developed to help people with HIV survive AIDS, even though doing so "MAY INCREASE OVERALL RESISTANCE TO THE MEDICATIONS."

Think about that.

These men are willing to destroy the usefulness of this drug so that they can party and play -- take drugs and bareback.

They don't care that in so doing they may destroy the effectiveness of the drug, and thus condemn an HIV+ man -- or many such men -- to death.

But that potentially is what they're doing.

Again, it's appalling.

And striking in its depravity and callous disregard for human life.

Particularly so in a minority community which is supposed to be pulling together.

It's one thing after all for a buttboy to say "It's up to the other guy to protect himself."

But it's quite another to say, "I'm going to fuck, and take a drug which probably won't help me, even if by so doing I ruin the medication and condemn a stranger to death."

The "safer-sex" counselors give many reasons for men behaving in these self-destructive and community-destructive ways.

They're said to be depressed, or suffering from low self-esteem, or substance abuse.

Do we in fact know that to be true?

Not really.

For example, many of these men use drugs, but they're often "recreational" users -- not addicts.

They go to the club or party; buy their ecstasy, viagra, and tenofovir; play -- that is have unprotected "sex"; and then go home.

The drugs cost about $100 -- which suggests that most of these guys are able to hold a decent-paying job.

When I lived in NYC, I knew many men involved in what were the various precursors to circuit parties.

They all did drugs on the weekend, but most were dead sober the rest of the week -- they had to be, they were career oriented and devoted to their jobs.

So these explanations -- which are actually excuses -- for depraved behavior among gay men don't really wash.

While it's true that many men suffer from depression, anxiety, substance abuse, etc., -- there are others who don't, and who engage in the behavior anyway.

Which suggests that the root cause of the behavior is the culture itself.

In that sense, we can say that these men act in a depraved way because the culture is depraved.

What are the roots of the culture's depravity?

In my view there are two:

The role of anal penetration -- which puts a brutal, effeminizing, non-genital act in which fecal material is always present -- at the center of gay male life;

and the insistence that no consensual "sex" act, no matter how bizarre, how dangerous, or how detrimental to the community, is to be judged.

That to do so is "erotophobic," and homophobic, and patriarchal, and probably anti-feminist as well.

Obviously what's key here is anal penetration.

I've described gay male culture as "multipartnered pansexualism," in which promiscuous, non-judgmental "anything goes" "sex," and lots of it, is the subcultural norm.

But within pansexualism, anal itself is key in three ways:

1. It serves to legitimize other "sexual" acts which are non-genital and/or involve feces;

2. It legitimizes domination, pain, and brutality in male-male "sex"; and

3. It reinforces the sense gay men have of themselves as pseudo-women -- bitches who are to be used.

In a recent email, NakedWrestler said to me

The fags seem to have a spite for someone who doesn't take it up the butt. Like a woman's scorn.

He's right.

Where does that spite and scorn come from?

From internalizing and then acting on a terrible and false self-image.

These "fags" are actually men -- they have XY chromosomes, they have cocks and balls, they have greater muscle mass and broader shoulders and adam's apples -- all the sexually dimorphic markers of masculinity, and the behavioral markers too.

But they think they're women because their culture tells them they are.

And they've internalized that message.

That's why they're such bitches.

And as I've said over and over again, that bitch mentality both facilitates and is a consequence of anal penetration.

The result: they're either treating another man like a bitch.

Or they're being a bitch.

And they get warped -- really fast.

Let's look at a list of gay male "sex" acts:

  • Rimming = oral / anal contact; non-genital with fecal material present.

  • Fisting. Non-genital, fecal material present, brutal and painful.

  • Felching. Non-genital, fecal material present.

  • Dildos and digits. Non-genital, fecal material present, can be painful.

  • Scat. Non-genital, fecal material present.

  • Sado-masochism. The infliction of pain; often includes bondage -- that is the physical restraint of one partner with rope or handcuffs or leather thongs or other material and his assault by fists, whips, boots, chains, dildos, burning cigarettes, etc.

Only oral, in the list of commonly performed gay male sex acts, has the potential to be mutually genital; and when it's not, it becomes yet another platform for domination, with one man "servicing" another.

It's not surprising that in such a sexual culture, in which it's routine for one partner to be denied pleasure, in which fecal material is commonly present, in which guys are expected "get on their knees and have some fun" by being bitches, and in which brutality is seen as a routine part of "sex," individuals should care so little about the long-term effects of their behavior.

If, after all, it's okay for you to brutally assault your bitch, tearing the delicate tissues of his anus and rectum in pursuit of your own selfish pleasure, and then casually wipe the shit off your dick when you pull out, why would it not be okay to give him a disease?

Multipartnered pansexualists frequently insist that their practices, so long as consensual, are humane and an expression of secular humanism and the best part of the Western tradition.

Yet how humane is it to force a fist into a rectum or to bind a man with handcuffs; and what part of the Western tradition is honored by urinating on a partner, or smearing him with feces, or brutally penetrating his rectum so that it may serve as a depository for your sperm?

The truth is, that when it comes to the ugly reality of "it's all sex, and it's all good," the pansexualists are in total denial.

As are the analists.

Here's another graph from that news story about tenofovir:

Marc Conant, an HIV doctor in San Francisco, said he recently began prescribing tenofovir to two uninfected men after they told him they were very sexually active and would not use condoms.

Although he is troubled by the fact that the drug has not been proved effective for such a use and that his patients may be increasing their risky behaviour while using it, he says that using the drug is better than taking no precaution at all.

"What choice do I have?" he said. "Forty thousand people are still getting infected every year. Everyone knows condoms work, but they're not using them. All I am trying to do is reduce the risk that people harm themselves."

[emphases mine]


What choice indeed?

He admits that the drug has not been proven effective and that "his patients may be increasing their risky behaviour..."

Not "may be" doctor -- they're going to bareback, plain and simple, and you're helping them do so.

It's classic co-dependent behavior -- the doctor is enabling his patients' self-destructive acts.

Now, for those of you not from San Francisco, Marcus Conant is not simply "an HIV doctor" -- many would consider him the leading HIV physician in the city.

And when he asks "what choice do I have," the answer is that he could take the lead in helping his patients and the rest of gay SF in examining the cultural assumptions which underlie their bad and very dangerous behavior.

Anal is not a necessity of life, and neither is promiscuity.

And Conant knows that.

And there's another, very big issue of which Conant must be aware:

"This is a very worrisome development," said David Hardy, an HIV doctor at Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles. He said the drug could lead to an even greater erosion of condom use, which studies show has been falling among high-risk populations.

[emphasis mine]

"greater erosion of condom use ... among high-risk populations"

I've spoken of the next epidemic.

There's already an epidemic of anal HPV -- although no one is talking about it, perhaps because it's too late -- virtually everyone's infected.

But what about H-"X"-V -- the next pathogen to come down the pike?

As fewer and fewer men use condoms, their vulnerability to other pathogens soars.

Why isn't Conant concerned about that?

Truth is, every gay man who does anal is part of a "high-risk population."

Every epidemic which has struck the gay male community since 1975 has been anally-vectored: syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, intestinal parasites, hep B and C, HIV, HPV, LGV.

Doesn't it make sense to discourage men from doing anal?

Yes -- if you think of them as men.

No -- if you think of them as depraved bitches.

It's difficult not to conclude that that's how the culture thinks of its members; and, not surprisingly, that's how they behave.

Remember what one of SF's leading HIV physicians said: "What choice do I have?"

The choice is to treat them as human beings:

There is in man, created in the image of God, a Divine spark: each human life, therefore, is sacred and of infinite worth.

Rabbi Joseph Hertz, The Daily Prayer Book

I was taught that when I was twelve years old; and I venture to say so was Marcus Conant.


And you can't help guys spread disease.

It doesn't matter what the pansexualists and analists say.

It doesn't matter.



Re: Depraved Bitches


Great post Bill!!!!

It has always amazed me about that type of behavior. I chalk some of it up to pure selfishness. The desire to have one's way regardless of what the consequences are, or who they may affect.


Oscar Moreno Vallejo

Re: Depraved Bitches


Thank you for your report Bill as usual its very revealing and useful. And its specially shocking because Marc Conant is a familiar name to me. Accordding to Randy Shilts a San Francisco Chronicle reporter who covered extensively the beginning of the AIDS epidemic Marc Conant was one of the very first persons who realized that a new disease had arrived to San Francisco Being a practicing dermatologist in Abril 1981 he watched an alarming rise of Kaposi´s Sarcoma cases an extremely rare type of skin cancer in young gay men in the Bay Area . When he shared the information about these cases with other doctors like Alvin Friedman-Kien from NYC and Jim Groundwater from San Francisco he figured it out: it was not a coincidence. There was a new infectious agent around.

All this is like a major deja-vu. All this already happened once. Its been 25 years and the same doctor is feeling the same impotence while trying to protect gay men´s health. Conant´s struggle to warn medical establishment and the gay “community” about the gravity of the HIV-related health conditions and effects is very well documented and now he comes back to the scene frustrated and powerless again.

And now like in the mid-eighties the activists who denounce the insane passive acceptance of the increasing infections and health conditions among gay men and criticize the behaviors that directly cause them are being called the same senseless names.

In 1981 Larry Kramer had an argument through the pages of the New York Native with a gay writer named Robert Chesley who wrote this: “ In essence Kramer is telling us that something that we gay men are doing (drugs ? perverted sex ? ) is the cause of Kaposi´s sarcoma. Its dangerous to be alarmist. ….I think that the hidden meaning of Kramer´s sentimentalism is the triumph of guilty: that the gay men deserve to die because of their promiscuity. If one reads carefully all of Kramer´s I think will find that the underlying theme is the same: the fruit of the gay sin is death. I am not minimizing the seriousness of the Kaposi´s Sarcoma. Although here is happening something that is also grave: Gay homophobia and Anti-erotism.”

Larry Kramer is still alive and Mr: Chesley died of AIDS in 1990.

“Alarmist” “gay homophobia ” he wrote. I have been called the same way. In the debate a barebacker-in-denial called me “ hysterical” and said that I had “internalized homophobia”. When I read that I decided to quit the debate because I couldn´t take this person seriously anymore and I started to doubt about his sincerity.

Me! An homophobe! God! . I came out as a gay man in national television here in Mexico when I was 21 and a prestigious psychiatrist told me on that show that he was glad to see a gay person with so much self-stem. Its on record. I am also an agnostic so zero religious guilt here. My family accepts me completely and with no conditions and I have expressed many times my unapologetic love and passion for the beautiful and heavenly masculine body mind and spirit. “Internalized homophobia” What a pathetic and desperate affirmation.

And about “Hysterical” . Frankly it was an honor to be called that way from a person who dares to say that certain barebacker webmaster gives “health messages”.

Like sero-sorting just to take one example. I have read that webmaster´s site and he recommends it and sees it as a valuable strategy to stop HIV. One wonders what imaginary world they live at. Poz with poz and neg with neg. Yeah of course. All gay men get tested every six months and when someone is at a sex club or cruising online is gonna go asking : Are you poz ? Are you neg ? to guys he doesn’t give a shit about and just wants to add to the “I fucked with” men collection. Yeah in fantasy island.

I attended a group support session at a local AIDS service organization a couple of months ago as a guest to talk about non-penetrative sex and monogamy to a group of HIV positive persons and one of the valuable things they shared with me was that most of them never reveal their sero-status to anyone (including fuck buddies of course).

I have known men who have decided to reveal openly their positive sero-status and I have seen that that´s not easy. One of them was a guy named Chuy who acted with me in one of the gay plays I participated at to raise funds for The MCC Monterrey. In the play we were partners and as a part of the script we kissed several times. Some guys had rejected to play my character because they didn’t want to do this but I knew that it was safe and it was a good opportunity to educate people about it and I did it. But on the other side one guy I had sex with wasn´t so sincere about it. He was another guy participating in the plays. Very handsome and very nice and well built. We meet at an after-show party. We got drunk while we had a nice chat and certainly he didn’t mention his HIV-status at all. At 4 am we went to the sex-club I worked at those days. It was closed that day but I had a key. Once we were naked and on bed amidst all the admiration and delight exclamations we shared he told me something: “ We will do whatever you want “ Mmmm That´s nice I thought. My boss never had condoms there “If they want to use them they have to bring their own” he said. For a moment I thought about penetrating him and making him penetrate me but I was tired I didn’t want to soil my boss´s bed with you know … shit so I thought “We´ll do it on another occasion”. So I forgot about that and we had a very hot and nice frot and mutual masturbation session with tons of kissing and nipple sucking . Next morning we had breakfast and I was excited about the possibility of starting to date him but that was not on his agenda and he said the famous words before leaving: “ I´ll call you”. The next time that I saw him it was three years later and he was just a portrait. It was on an special ceremony on his honor at the MCC . He was 29.

While same-sex attraction is worth it to be enjoyed and celebrated anal penetration will will never be accepted by mainstream society because they are reading the disastrous reports about gay men re-infecting themselves with dangerous microorganisms and they will never want their children to be exposed to that. Just like smoking just like junk food anal penetration will never be cool. Because its debilitating. Just like having douches is debilitating. Blood and rectal mucus in the toilet are weakening. HAART is horribly debilitating. Physically and economically And no matter if you paid 100000 dollars at Harvard or Stanford to get a degree you will never get that infection risk and contact with fecal material are considered cool. Denial and calling names won´t delete the reality: If we want to be strong enough to defeat all the menaces against us ( multiple disease –homophobia -religious groups alienation -drug abuse –physical aggressions etc ) we gay men need to practice self-criticism about our sexual behavior and we need to start to change it.

The ultimate gay taboo: Sexual Self-criticism specially about anal penetration and promiscuity

It's time to get over it.

Oscar Moreno Vallejo


Bill Weintraub

Re: Depraved Bitches


Thank you Bill G and Oscar

Both Bill and Oscar are right.

The problem is the underlying culture.

Oscar is correct about the debate in the NY Native between Kramer and Chesley.

My late lover was editor of the Native at the time and let the debate, though it was acrimonious, go forward.

That would never happen today.

The gay press today will not sustain a serious examination of any issue.

Acrimonious or otherwise.

I knew both Kramer and Chesley.

Chesley's was certainly the dominant point of view in 1981.

Most people, including myself, simply did not understand the danger and thought that Kramer was being alarmist and probably "erotophobic" as well.

Now, to be fair, remember that at the time the Kramer-Chesley dust-up started, which was in Native Issue 22, October 5-18, 1981, there had been 120 AIDS cases and 30 deaths -- that's in the whole of the USA.

So Chesley's imputation of alarmism doesn't sound so far-fetched.

Nevertheless, Chesly and those who agreed with him, like myself, were wrong.

Kramer was right.

And as I've said before, people who don't share that history are on very shaky ground when they criticize me.

Because I've seen how quickly and devestatingly an anally-vectored disease like AIDS can develop and kill.

It's sad about Robert Chesley, because he was a good guy.

He wasn't a bad person.

That's what you need to understand.

A pathogen like HIV and an epidemic like AIDS kills indiscriminately.

If you make the wrong choices, chances are you'll die.

Chesley was wrong.

Larry Kramer was right.

But that doesn't mean Larry's always right.

I started writing him about Frot in 1999.

I sent him a hard copy of Hyacinthine Love, which he read and liked; and he acknowledged, in a letter to me, that peer pressure to do anal had to be factored in to the causes of the epidemic.

And then he was silent for six years, despite the fact, as he later said publicly, that I'd emailed him regularly on the issue.

Six years.

During which time 120,000 American MSM developed new HIV infections.

That's the minimal figure.

And many more were infected with anal HPV.

And of course many were infected with syphilis, gonorrhea, LGV, and HEPATITIS B and C -- and all the other anally-vectored illnesses.

Finally, in February 2005, Larry stated on that

For some time now, an old friend of mine Bill Weintraub has been dunning me to talk about frottage -- or "frot," as he now calls it -- as a safe replacement for anal sex. He has been on a sort of one-man crusade for this since his lover died a number of years ago. His lover, Brett Averill, was also a good friend of mine whom some of you may remember as a truly wonderful journalist and editor of the New York Native in one of that paper's better periods.

I received an even more fervent plea from Bill to speak out about frot. In view of the possibility of this supervirus making an appearance, his plea seems more than reasonable. He has sent me a Web site to look at. It is a very hot Web site indeed. It struck me that perhaps we should circulate its information.

One thing is certain: We must make all efforts to de-eroticize anal sex. Why has it become written in stone that no sexual encounter is complete without an anal experience? Perhaps frot is a way to try doing this. This Web site is certainly hot enough in its own right. ...

But at the first sign of discontent in the politically-correct ranks over Frot, Larry ran for cover.

And has never been heard from since.


Because, as I said, "The underlying culture is the problem."

What that means is that what individual actors, like Larry or Conant, may do, is less important than the culture itself.

The culture supports three behaviors:

Anal penetration



And it will not allow any critique of any of the three.

Which is not surprising -- since the three feed upon each other.

That's the problem.

If Larry were the fearless guardian of gay men's health that he presents himself as being, he would say, "Well, we may disagree with Bill about effeminacy or whatever" --

And guys, please understand, there will always be a "whatever" -- the analists will come up with an *infinite* number of excuses to avoid facing the facts -- so compromising with them on key points like effeminacy will not make any difference -- because they'll just come up with others;

So, Larry could say, "We may disagree with Bill on this or that point, but we need to keep our eyes on the prize -- stopping the epidemic."

Larry hasn't done that.

Larry remember doesn't "just" have HIV.

He also has hepatitis C and had to have a LIVER TRANSPLANT.

Quite a price to pay for, as Chuck Tarver puts it, maintaining the anal sex norm.

Yet Larry would rather maintain that norm than take on some of the core issues in the subculture.

Oscar is also correct about Marcus Conant's actions in the early days of the epidemic.

But now, like Larry, he's behaving in effect as an agent of the dominant culture -- analism.

When confronted with patients who are barebacking and demanding the antiretrovial tenofovir as prophylaxis -- he says, "What choice do I have?"

And gives them the tenofovir.

But he has a choice.

He could say to his patients who want to bareback that he won't give them tenofovir because:

1. its effectiveness in prophylaxis has not been demonstrated;

2. we run the risk of destroying its efficacy for those who need it; and,

3. there are alternatives to anal.

He doesn't do that.

Instead he gives them the drug.

So Conant's part of the problem.

As are virtually all of you reading this post.

The MSM HIV epidemic, in the sense of new infections, should have ended in 1985.

Once we knew what was causing the disease and how it was transmitted -- which neither Robert Chesley nor Larry Kramer knew in 1981 -- both were essentially guessing, and Chesley guessed wrong and Kramer guessed right -- we could have ended the epidemic.

If you're a man who has sex with men, this is a difficult disease to acquire and VERY EASY to avoid.

Instead, we have at least 20,000 new MSM infections in the US alone every year.

That's about 55 per day.

Each and every day.

And it may be higher.

Some people think it's closer to 80 per day.

Each of those guys -- each and every one -- we now know by the way, is also infected with anal HPV.

Yet we -- in the sense of the community of men who have sex with men -- could stop those infections.

Every last one of them.

If we had the will.

But we don't.

Which is why I said that not only are Conant and Larry part of the problem;

But so are virtually all of you reading this post.

Because you don't donate.

Making it impossible for us to get our message out.




The idea that you can continue coming to this site while ignoring the basis on which the site exists -- is nonsense.

Because I won't tolerate it.


If you don't want to change that culture, if you're happy living among shitfairies and effeminists and multipartnered buttboyz -- and will be happy living among them and their diseases for the rest of your life -- you should LEAVE.


And I'm here for the MEN who want to work SHOULDER-TO-SHOULDER TO GET THE JOB DONE.

Guys like:

Bill G -- who's a regular poster and donor.

Oscar -- who again has helped us very handsomely this month -- and, like Bill G, he made a great post too.

Bill Schuler -- who just sent in his boycott money -- the first person I know to have actually done that.

If a thousand of you would do what Bill just did -- your lives would change dramatically and so much for the better.

It would be night and day.

And by the way, Bill G and Oscar and Bill S are all guys of modest means.

They're not rich.

They just have big hearts.

What's stopping you from joining them?

What have you got to lose?

Other than your selfishness and cowardice?

It's like Bill G said:

It has always amazed me about that type of behavior. I chalk some of it up to pure selfishness. The desire to have one's way regardless of what the consequences are, or who they may affect.

Selfishness -- not "honor diversity" and not "it's all sex and it's all good" -- is what drives gay male life.

Including the vast majority of you who are on this site and don't donate.

Your presence here is SELFISH -- you want to get laid.

That's also true of the bi guys.

You're just as selfish.




JOIN your FELLOW WARRIORS BILL G and BILL S and OSCAR and CHUCK and MART and DON and ROBERT and LOGAN and BEAGLE and everyone else who takes an ACTIVE part.

And put an end to this subculture run on selfishness and greed which is KILLING US.

Oscar says:

If we want to be strong enough to defeat all the menaces against us ( multiple disease -- homophobia -- religious groups alienation -drug abuse -- physical aggression etc ) we gay men need to practice self-criticism about our sexual behavior and we need to start to change it.

The ultimate gay taboo: Sexual Self-criticism specially about anal penetration and promiscuity

It's time to get over it.



The pity of it is your lives could be so much better.

And you won't even help yourself.









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.