The analist's rather transparently Freudian interpretation of Jonathan's act is that by giving David his sword, Jonathan has voluntarily "effeminized himself."

I laughed when I read that, because presenting a sword to a fellow warrior can mean many things.

For example, we're told that David came from a poor family, and that he faced Goliath with only a slingshot; whereas Jonathan, who was the son of the de facto king of the Hebrews, had already participated, in full armor, in battles against the Philistines, and had, on his own initiative and accompanied only by his armor bearer, raided a Philistine camp and killed about 20 of the enemy.

So Jonathan was a seasoned and well-equipped warrior, so well-equipped in fact that he needed an armor bearer.

Both clothing and weapons were extremely expensive in the ancient world -- in ancient Greece for example, citizen soldiers -- "hoplites" -- had to supply their own weapons and body armor, their "panoply"; while poorer men would accompany them as "peltasts" -- foot soliders who were very lightly armed, like David, with slings, or sticks and stones, and who usually had no body armor at all.

So what Jonathan may have been doing was outfitting David with the weapons and clothing he needed.

But it's equally possible that the sword was given as a token of love, and that ancient readers would have recognized it as such.

So be it.

The question becomes, is the gift of a sword from one warrior to another an ipso facto effeminizing act?

As it happens, I can testify directly about that, because last Christmas, my lover Patrick, who's a former kickboxer and a karate blackbelt and a certified bi-sexual, gave me his sword.

He didn't do that to effeminize himself, and again I can aver that his masculinity was in no way diminished.

He did it as an expression of love.

In point of fact then, there's no reason to believe that the gift of a sword from one warrior to another is ever an effeminizing act.

Yet your friendly neighborhood analist is out there telling you that's what it is.

Guys, I'm posting about this because I want you to understand that without Heroic Homosex and The Man2Man Alliance, the analists will re-interpret every male-male love story of the last five millenia to fit their fucked-up and very time-limited notion of what m2m is about: buttfucking and genderbending.

And the truth -- that two men can love each other without any loss of masculinity -- will be vanquished and vanished and forced from the face of the earth.

It's up to you whether that happens or not.

As I've said repeatedly to you now, I've done as much as I can with the very limited tools I have.

If you want our work to survive and our cause to move forward, you have to donate.

And donate now.

Otherwise the analists, who have far more money and resources than, absent your donations, we do, will win, and their truly gruesome view of male sexuality will continue to dominate your life and the lives of every other man who has sex with men.

Fight back.

Donate.