So we now make it very clear right on our splash page that this is about MEN.

Not "gays," not "straights," not "bi's", but MEN.

And we go on to say, a few lines later, that

Frot (rhymes with "hot") is the contemporary term for the male-male erotic practice formerly known as "frottage": full-body, phallus-on-phallus sex, done face-to-face and heart-to-heart.

The Man2Man Alliance is a coalition of Men -- some of whom self-identify as "gay," others as "straight," and others as "bi" -- but most of whom today have rejected those out-dated labels and now simply identify as Men -- Men who are determined to win recognition from society of the genuineness of their feelings for one another; and of the validity of the expression of that affection through Frot, phallus-on-phallus sex, which is not only life-affirming and masculine but mindful of both participants' shared and mutual enjoyment.

So, and again, we make it clear from the beginning that the "gay-bi-straight" labels are out-dated, and worthy only of rejection.

As your letter, Eric, makes abundantly clear:

I've been drooling over girls since I was 7 years old. I've been married and I have three wonderful kids.

Like so many other men, however, I grew up feeling confused, ashamed, and somewhat out of place.

And that's regrettable.

You absolutely should NOT have been made to grow up feeling confused and ashamed about your completely normal and natural Man2Man needs and desires.

Yes, I wanted to kiss girls and fall in love with them but it was the other boys that I dreamt of having sex with.

Right.

And that's very common -- indeed, more than common.

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.

Universal, Eric -- and all you guys -- means universal.

If it's universal, it's part of male biology.

And it cannot be escaped or evaded.

Instead, you need to embrace it.

And to embrace it not as a label, but as a Man.

Again, your Man2Man feelings can't be escaped or evaded, nor is it desirable to do so.

Rather, those feelings should be embraced, celebrated, and exalted, and seen for what they are: an integral part of your Manhood.

And Manhood, guys, is Warrior.

Eric:

From my pre-teen years up until now, I've struggled with all kinds of identity issues--

Bill:

I understand.

And Eric, again, as we discuss in Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition, those "identity issues" would not have existed in previous societies, in places, for example, like ancient Greece.

Or any other Warrior Society.

much of those times placing detrimental stress on my heterosexual relationships.

I know we're all used to using them.

But they're not good terms because in back of them is the assumption that male-female is "normal" and male-male deviant.

Far better to get in the habit of saying male-female and male-male.

Which are accurate and descriptive and not loaded with negative value judgements about Man2Man.

So -- all we need do with your last sentence is say

much of those times placing detrimental stress on my male-female relationships.

And Eric -- to say that your identity issues placed "detrimental stress on my male-female relationships" -- is what MANY Men tell us.

Not surprising, not unusual.

But not good either.

How do you convince the woman you love that you're not gay after she's caught you masturbating to images and videos that tell her otherwise?

But now, hopefully, you and Men like you have a tool -- our Man2Man Alliance site in general and in particular Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition.

That's at least one way of explaining yourself.

At least a beginning.

With all due respect, Bill, these notions in my head have literally ruined relationships and even left me thinking I was better off not being born.

Oh yeah.

Eric, I know that's true.

And here's the deal:

Recently there's been a lot in the news about "gay kids" committing suicide because of "anti-gay bullying."

Well, the suicides are certainly real, and the bullying is real.

What's not real is -- "gay."

Now -- that statement is sure to be greeted with howls of protest in the so-called gay community.

But -- while there's no question that there are kids who self-identify as "gay," and who are bullied as a result -- that doesn't mean that the category is real, nor that the identification is valid.

Sadly, it's not unusual for human beings to kill, be killed, and/or kill themselves -- under the sway of an illusion.

And that's what "gay" is -- an illusion.

As is "straight."

And Eric, and the rest of you -- you all need to be clear --

Just as those "gay" kids have been bullied --

so have you been bullied.

And I'll say more about both the invalidity of the labels, and the bullying which the labels nevertheless engender, below.

I lived with this enormous pressure to come up with an explanation or a logical reason for my sexual fantasies.

And again, that pressure is a cultural pressure.

NO ONE in ancient Greece experienced that sort of pressure.

Was I gay or was I straight? I knew that I was sexually attracted to women so that must mean I'm at least "bi"

Right -- in the sense that all Men are "bi."

But I was never attracted to the idea of spending my life in a monogamous relationship with a man my entire life. I didn't want to be another man's partner or husband/wife.

All I wanted, Bill, was the experience of sexual tension and release with another man! That was all I wanted. If we happened to be buddies, that would be great--but without any expectations or life-long commitments.

Okay.

And Eric, I understand where you're coming from.

But historically, what we most often see is Men being involved in male-female marriage;

and also having what is de facto a life-long commitment to another Man.

That particular model or paradigm is particularly pronounced in what we call "Warrior Societies."

Ancient Greece was a Warrior Society.

All Men were expected to bear arms for their city-state, and because warfare between the city-states was endemic, virtually all Men had experience of war.

How you behaved when at war was very important in all the city-states.

But at Sparta in particular, Valour in war was what determined your status in society.

Spartan boys, according to Plutarch, had their first male lover at the age of twelve.

And we have every reason to believe that those male-male relationships were lifelong.

The important thing to understand, Eric, is that such relationships were NOT modeled on male-female marriage.

Marriage was one thing;

male-male was another.

So Eric -- when you say this about yourself:

I wanted to kiss girls and fall in love with them but it was the other boys that I dreamt of having sex with.

If you had been a Spartan boy and had gone through the Agogé, which was their system of education and Warrior training, your feelings would have been regarded as completely and utterly normal and commonplace.

And both parts of what you felt -- the male-female and the male-male -- would have been structured for you.

In other words, there was a structure for male-male -- which we in the Alliance would describe as a Warrior Bond -- and there was a structure for male-female -- marriage.

Both were respected -- both were honored.

But -- your status at Sparta was dependent not upon male-male or male-female -- but upon, as we put it, "your willingness to Fight."

That's what mattered.

The concept of Virtue was directly linked to Manhood / Manliness which was directly linked to Valour -- Courage in Battle.

Now, just to be historically accurate:

The Spartans did expect every Man to marry a Woman.

And there were penalties directed against Men who didn't marry.

However, that was NOT because of some "heterosexual" norm.

The very concept of "heterosexuality" was completely unknown and foreign to them.

Men were required to marry because the Spartan state needed children -- specifically, boys who would become Warriors, and girls who would become the mothers of Warriors.

And while there were penalties for those males who wouldn't marry, they don't begin to compare with the penalty suffered by a male who displayed cowardice on the battlefield.

A male who didn't marry could still function within Spartan society.

A coward couldn't.

He couldn't wrestle with the other Men, he couldn't eat at the Men's Messes -- two of the most important male activities -- he couldn't take part in any of the normal activities of the state, including the many festivals and competitions, his daughters couldn't marry, he was subject to assault --

In short, he was de facto destroyed, and most often killed himself.

So and again, the standard against which ALL MEN were judged was that of Valour:

The Spartan concept of Virtue was directly linked to Manhood / Manliness which was directly linked to Valour -- Courage in Battle.

Eric:

But that didn't explain who I "was."

Bill:

Right.

I had to keep digging and searching for a label so I could appease the world around me--so they would know how to treat me or predict the way I vote.

Right -- and very well-put.

Indeed, extremely well-put.

Because it takes note of the unholy alliance between "sexual orientation" and political party.

And that's how the politics of identity function.

Both sides need for "gay" and "straight" to be seen as immutable and mutually exclusive.

In that way, a public politics can be made out of what is actually a personal and very private choice.

My personal identity was such a muddled mess, Bill, that I was convinced that I was a straight female trapped in a man's body. That may sound ridiculous, but it's true!

Eric, I believe you.

And it doesn't sound at all ridiculous to me because that's one of the directions the culture has been going in.

In other words, what was originally the LGB "community" has now become the LGBT "community," and that's because the LG part sees the trannie narrative as adding force to its arguments against Masculinity.

Nevertheless, and in point of fact, however, there's very little reason to believe that there's any such thing as a female who's trapped in a male's body.

I know there are people who believe that's what they are.

But again, thinking something doesn't make it so.

There are many, many holes in the "transgendered" narrative.

I wasted countless hours of my life reading and researching everything I could about sexuality, personification, social constructs, and psychological data on everything the human being is supposed to be.

Once my life finally fell into danger by my own hands, I realized that it was time to say, "fuck it!"

And again, that happens to a lot of guys.

Not all of whom, unfortunately, are strong enough to say "fuck it!"

So, while the attention of the media is on "gay suicide" as the putative result of "anti-gay bullying," no attention is paid to the spiritual, emotional, and even physical deaths of straight-identified Men whose lives are effectively destroyed by the lying labels of sexual orientation.

And that's something we need to change.

I realized that what mattered most is what I thought of myself.

And I think we often see that in Men like yourself who manage to survive despite all the societal opprobrium directed at them.

Why should I care about the labels of modern society? People are going to judge me by whatever means they are comfortable with--whether it's true or false.

But Eric, you can correct them when they mis-judge.

That's the truth.

Right around this time, last year, my experimental phase with the gay community had pretty much confirmed what I've known since I was 7 years old--women are the softest, sexiest, most amazing creatures ever created. I also discovered that, although I could kiss man for hours in a long embrace, I could never maintain an erection for anal sex!

I just wanted to experience a unique bonding with another man. And when I say another man, I mean a real man--not some man who thinks and behaves like a woman.

The whole point to being with a Man -- is that he's a Man.

Manly.

Masculine.

Aggressive.

To make a long story short (my apologies for rambling on for so long), what I do with another man isn't necessarily a representation of who I am.

Sex is an activity. It is something that we do. We can't, however "be" sex. We can "be" happy or we can "be" sad but we can't be an action.

Yes -- and if that formulation works for you, that's fine.

I would put it this way -- A Man engages in a male-male act.

That doesn't make him "a homosexual" or any other variety of human being -- other than a Man.

Which is what he was BEFORE he engaged in male-male.

In other words, he has not fundamentally changed.

Our society may tell him he's changed -- but that doesn't make it true.

To the ancient Greeks, he would not have changed.

And the Greeks were right, just as we're right.

Why?

Because this is a question of culture.

As the great classicist KJ Dover pointed out, and as we discuss in Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition:

Wherever and whenever the emphasis on same-sex love -- that is, Eros -- in the Greek world originated, the simple answer to the question 'Why were the Athenians of Plato's time so fond of male-male relations?' is 'Because their fathers and grandfathers were'.

In other words, male-male among the Greeks was a culturally-mandated activity.

Which was seen as completely normal and natural, and blessed by the Gods.

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

So -- coming back to the here and now --

Our Man who has engaged in Man2Man is still a Man -- just as he was before he engaged in it.

On the following day, that same Man may engage in a male-female act.

That act doesn't make him "a heterosexual" or "a straight"; any more than the previous act made him "a homosexual" or "a gay."

He remains a Man.

As Dover says:

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

And we can reverse the statement:

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

And we can see it in the pic:

Zeus and his wife Hera are seated among the other Gods -- in another words, they're in a social situation -- and Zeus' male lover, Ganymedes, is standing between Zeus and Hera, bearing nectar for Zeus.

"male-female marriage [is not considered] incompatible with concurrent male-male relations."

You can see it, right in front of your eyes:

Ganymedes isn't hidden from Hera or the other Gods, he's not a secret, he's not something about which Zeus is ashamed or conflicted.

Male-male and male-female can be concurrent and indeed publically concurrent.

That doesn't mean, guys, that the Greeks were okay with promiscuity.

They were not.

If you were married, you were supposed to be faithful to your wife; if you had a male lover, faithful to him.

So -- you were to have one of both, but NO MORE than one of both.

That said, the ancients knew that it was relatively common for Men to cheat on their wives --

but virtually unheard of for a Man to cheat on his male lover.

As John Boswell, who was chair of the history department at Yale until his death from AIDS in 1995, points out in his very erudite book, Same-Sex Unions in PreModern Europe:

Most ancient writers -- in striking opposition to their modern counterparts -- generally entertained higher expectations of the fidelity and permanence of homosexual [sic] passions than of heterosexual [sic] feelings.

Plutarch adduces with evident disapproval cases of husbands who allowed their wives to be unfaithful to gain some advantage, and then notes, "By contrast, of all the many [same-sex] lovers there were and have been, do you know of a single one who surrendered his beloved, even to gain favor from Zeus? I do not." (Erotikos 760B).

The proponent of same-sex passion in the Hellenistic Affairs of the Heart says that wisdom and experience teach that love between males is the most stable of loves. This prejudice [sic] was doubtless influenced by the Symposium of Plato, in which heterosexual [sic] relationships and feelings are characterized as "vulgar," and their same-sex equivalents as "heavenly."

This contrast exercised wide influence on subsequent discussions of love.

~ Boswell, 74.

So:

Historically, Men have had Male Lovers -- in addition to having wives -- and those male-male Loves have been Faithful.

Now -- guys and Eric -- remember what Eric said earlier

How do you convince the woman you love that you're not gay after she's caught you masturbating to images and videos that tell her otherwise?

Do you think Zeus or any mortal Greek male had that problem?

No.

Neither the word nor the concept of "gay" existed.

It was taken for granted, it was part of the landscape, that Men would be attracted to Men.

That just as one Man would Fight another;

So would Man be attracted to Man.

It was part of being a Man.

In Sparta, it was taken for granted that Women would be attracted to Women.

It was part of being a Woman.

What it was NOT was part of an identity separate from Man or Woman.

It was not.

Nor should it be in our own culture and society.

So: Having sex with a Man does not permanently and irrevocably saddle you with a condition known as "homosexuality" or "being gay."

Just as having sex with a Woman does not permanently and irrevocably saddle you with the condition known as "heterosexuality" -- or "being straight."

Which is good news.

Both for those Men who currently have sex with Women and those Men who currently have sex with Men.

It means you have options.

It means that how you are now isn't necessarily how you have to be forever.

You can choose.

You can be the master, in this regard, of your own life.

And isn't that preferable to letting some cultural construct dating to 1869 rule your life?

Yes -- it is.

YOU rule your life.

Don't worry about what the "gays" and the "straights" and the Benedicts and the Haggards and all the other preacher creatures of this world tell you to do.

If it's so great, let them do it.

You have YOUR OWN LIFE to live.

Perhaps, there will come a day when people will finally realize that judging people for who they are based on what they do in the privacy of their own homes isn't always the accurate thing to do. Perhaps there will come a day when people are no longer judged: "he's gay, she's straight, they're bi-sexuals." Imagine how the world could be when we're finally judged: "He's Tom, she's Angela, that's Mark and Sarah."

And also well-said.

Once again, Eric, thank you for your excellent letter and post.

Bill Weintraub

So guys --

The choice, as Eric says, is between "feeling confused, ashamed, and out of place," or "staying strong and masculine."

Which would you rather be?

And how would you like to spend the rest of your life?

"feeling confused, ashamed, and out of place," or "staying strong and masculine"?

As Eric very bravely told us, "feeling confused, ashamed, and out of place" can lead to thoughts of suicide.

We know when a gay-identified kid commits suicide pretty much every time now, particularly if the death can be attributed to bullying, because the gay establishment makes sure that the story is carried and prominently featured in the mainstream media.

What we don't know is how many straight-identified guys kill themselves because of never-expressed conflicts over their own perfectly normal and natural same-sex feelings, their normal and natural male-male needs and desires.

We hear a lot, for example, about soldiers, some of whom were in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of whom weren't, committing suicide.

Male-male is never mentioned directly in those cases --

But -- very often we read that the soldier had lost a close buddy in the war.

And it's always phrased as a "buddy" or "close friend."

Well, we know from war memoirs, such as that of Douglas Allanbrook, who we discuss in AGOGE III: The Longing for Masculinity, that missed opportunities to express love to a comrade-in-arms, can be devastating.

Here's Prof John Ibson of Cal State Fullerton in his book Picturing Men, discussing Allanbrook's memoir and others like it:

Many of Life [Magazine]'s wartime [WW II] images and countless examples of wartime vernacular photography could serve as illustrations for one of the most moving evocations of the war, Douglas Allanbrook's memoir, See Naples. Allanbrook, who after the war became a renowned composer and harpsichord player, spent most of the war as an infantryman on hazardous duty in Italy. His memoir captures the war years with stunning detail, grace, and power, yet it is curiously shapeless and out of sorts in dealing with his life as a civilian, despite his considerable postwar accomplishments and the wives and sons who came along after he left the army. "In the middle years," Allanbrook writes as he approaches old age, "there is no drama, death is not imminent, and there's work to be done: children to be raised, music to be written, money to be earned." The war was apparently a hard act to follow.

Among other things, See Naples is a testimony to profound friendships formed during or in anticipation of battle. Writing of men who had "what some of us called, without malice, a second marriage," Allanbrook reminds us (without directly saying so) that it is just as inhibiting to believe that intimacy must involve sex as it is to insist that it dare not, a point implicit in some of Life's wartime pictures and in so much of the war's vernacular photography.

Allanbrook's own most memorable friendship was with Leonard, a soldier who was killed "so soon after our arrival at Naples." Leonard had been a tobacco farmer before joining the army; nearly fifty years after Leonard's death, smoking a cigar could remind Allanbrook of his friend's voice. Indeed, Leonard's voice reverberates throughout Allanbrook's memoir, especially his unanswered beckoning to Allanbrook to join him as they slept outdoors on a December night in Italy. "He was cold; he wanted me. Together we would be warm," Allanbrook recalls a half century later. Although their association had other moments of closeness, regret over his failure to accept this particular offer of intimacy seems paradigmatic, the essential controlling emotion of the rest of Allanbrook's life: "I had not answered then and never would or could. Was that voice, calling out my name, to be forever the guarantor of my loneliness, the only permanence granted or even possible, even though it had no substance and no existence except as a source of infinite regret? Was love to be forever linked to what was no longer and perhaps had never been?" A sense of unrealized possibility permeates Allanbrook's memoir, as it surrounds so many of the images of men that were produced during the war.

Though no veteran's memoir equals Allanbrook's in its melancholy sense of unfulfilled promise, countless autobiographies by veterans speak of the utterly singular importance of comrades. The first chapter of novelist Robert Kotlowitz's haunting memoir, Before Their Time, is titled "My Buddies." Though he ridicules "the absurdly lugubrious lyrics of 'My Buddy' when sung by another soldier sarcastically," it is clear that his wartime associations shaped the rest of Kotlowitz's life with "the accumulated weight of sadness and nostalgia." To Samuel Hynes, a marine pilot during the war and later a Princeton professor of literature, simply no other group was analogous to a squadron -- an involvement that was clearly sexual, with a depth of commitment that exceeded that of "most marriages." Recalling that he and his fellow flyers had felt no longing for women, Hynes would wonder forty years later, "Were we living our sexual lives in bombing and strafing? Or in the comradeship of the all-male, committed life of the squadron?"

...

Even one of the least sentimental of all of the war's memoirs, E. B. (Sledgehammer) Sledge's gritty and gripping account of marine battles for Peleliu and Okinawa, With the Old Breed, celebrates the worth of comradeship. "War is brutish, inglorious, and a terrible waste," writes Sledge, "an indelible mark on those who are forced to endure it. The only redeeming factors were my comrades' incredible bravery and their devotion to each other. Marine Corps training taught us to kill efficiently and to try to survive. But it also taught us loyalty to each other -- and love."

Only in war would mainstream American culture in the mid-twentieth century make it easy for a man to express such sentiments about another man to whom he was not related.

And that's the tragedy of the last half of the last century, a tragedy which will continue to play out if we don't stop it.

It's a tragedy which comes directly out of the false label and phony concept of "homosexuality" and its evil twin, "sexual orientation."

It's a tragedy which is supported by powerful special interest groups, including the religious right and the "LGBT" community, and not least by an American political establishment, all of whom need "sexual orientation," as Eric so well put it,

so they would know how to treat me or predict the way I vote.

That's a very important point.

The politics of identity has now become part of mainstream politics.

It's indispensable.

And anyone questioning the "gay-straight" status quo is inconvenient, to say the least.

And yet "gay-straight," like so much else in American political life, has nothing to do with reality.

As one of our Warriors -- Warrior Redd -- points out.

He says that because Men and Women are of the same species -- as are Men and Men and Women and Women -- all sex between them, all sex between homo sapiens, can be labeled "homo sexual."

"Heterosexual," he says, should be reserved for inter-species sex.

Well, what Redd's saying may sound playful, but, in light of the huge divide our culture posits between "gay" and "straight," his point is actually subversive and profound.

Here are a few of the comments he's made about this in various emails to me:

People are sexual. One human can have sex with another; human flesh on human flesh feels good, heterosexual and homosexual and any other prefix-sexual are cultural constructions.

Furthermore, sexual activity is also mental, and we don't know what people entertain in their imaginations about sex. If men are the major patrons of porn, and "heterosexual" porn is their preference, then they are watching a man in action with a woman. I contend that the man as much as the woman holds the voyeur's eye.

---

Why we humans like to think that we are either/or amazes me. I think we know what we fear: we know that humans are a single race, a species, but our tribal mentality, trained for centuries to fear differences, imprisons us to our fear of extinction; and two, we know that we are biologically attracted to our own species, period; the gender of attraction, in my thinking, is both male and female. Humans are attracted to humans sexually, psychologically, communally, etc.

Our attraction, I think, bespeaks the type of species we are--social. Our social interactions center around action, activity. Sex is an activity. Human activity among humans feels good to humans; human activity among humans is desired by humans; humans' attraction to humans, therefore, is inevitable. Can a species help their attraction to their own species? As much as we deny what/who/how we are the more we find ways to be what/who/how we are. We lie to ourselves to protect what labels have pigeonholed for us.

---

This makes sense to me, Bill: human beings are one species. Hence, human beings desire intimacy with human beings. They connect emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually. The emotions that connect them--i.e., love, empathy--do not discriminate by gender. Women and men enjoy intimacy, women and women enjoy intimacy, and men and men enjoy intimacy.

The emotions that attract male to female--i.e., love, similar interests, intellectual camaraderie, etc.--are the same that attract male to male or female to female. Why? Because humans are attracted to and desire/crave intimacy with humans, making such attraction natural. The activity of sex, then, between two human beings is a natural activity.

If nothing else, human flesh rubbing human flesh feels good. Men know this; women know this. Western men, I think, are afraid to let themselves establish friendships with men because they fear what they know: that that friendship could, perhaps evenly most likely, turn physical; that they could fall in love. They fear caring, Bill. Caring is intimate. Caring is thoughtfullness. Caring is love. Caring makes you fight for the other.

---

Homo sapiens are attracted to their own species. I reason that homo sapiens are homo sexuals, which I define (as same species) as a species inclined to, desires, and seeks sexual relationships with their own species.

Hence, man2woman, woman2woman, man2man, and man2woman, man2man or man2woman, woman2woman are all homo sexual or same species, natural acts. I suspect, however, that redefining "homosexual" as "same species" probably won't fare well against heterosexualism's domnination.

"redefining "homosexual" as "same species" probably won't fare well against heterosexualism's domnination."

Redd, of course, is right.

But he's also right about this:

"Caring is intimate. Caring is thoughtfullness. Caring is love. Caring makes you fight for the other."

"Caring makes you fight for the other."

That's what the ancient Greeks knew and understood.

That's why they supported male-male so ardently -- because it filled a military purpose.

That's also why they rejected male-male promiscuity.

They needed the bond to be EXCLUSIVE.

People won't fight for their "tricks" -- their anonymous sexual partners.

But they will Fight for a Lover.

And Men in particular will Fight savagely in defense of a Male Lover.

The Greeks understood that.

Redd:

I reason that homo sapiens are homo sexuals, which I define (as same species) as a species inclined to, desires, and seeks sexual relationships with their own species.

Eric:

I wanted to kiss girls and fall in love with them but it was the other boys that I dreamt of having sex with.

Redd:

As much as we deny what/who/how we are the more we find ways to be what/who/how we are. We lie to ourselves to protect what labels have pigeonholed for us.

Eric:

From my pre-teen years up until now, I've struggled with all kinds of identity issues

So: Eric knew what he wanted to do -- fall in love with girls and have sex with boys.

Instead, he spent much of his life doing what society wanted him to do -- struggle with "identity issues" --

which, as Redd says, is done to protect the labels:

As much as we deny what/who/how we are the more we find ways to be what/who/how we are. We lie to ourselves to protect what labels have pigeonholed for us.

Once again guys -- do you really want to spend the rest of your lives lying to yourselves and dying to yourselves in order to protect a bunch of labels?

Labels which aren't even your own?

Labels which some long dead German professor came up with in the middle of the 19th century?

Labels which nowadays American politicians -- whom most Americans seem to agree rank morally with child molesters -- and religious-right pastors and Catholic priests -- many of whom ARE child molesters -- use to further their ambitions.

Tyler Clementi died because he was upset that his roommate exposed his "homosexuality" on the web.

While no one -- at least that I've seen -- has questioned the roommate's "heterosexuality."

Why not?

Why would the roommate be so obsessed with Tyler's alleged "gayness" -- if he wasn't "struggling," to use Eric's word, with same-sex, Man2Man, himself.

Actually, guys, there's significant evidence that "homophobic" kids and young adults like Dharun Ravi -- Tyler's roommate -- are either fighting to suppress their own same-sex feelings and/or actually have secret male-male lives of their own.

Even as they're bullying and sometimes killing guys who identify as "gay."

It's a circus.

Yet, like I say, there's evidence.

For example, this study, which is discussed on Frontline's website:

Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright Jr., and Bethany A Lohr, Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105., No. 3 (1996), pp. 440-445

The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli. These individuals were selected on the basis of their report of having only heterosexual arousal and experiences.

Unfortunately, Frontline has taken down some of the more prurient details of the study.

Not to worry -- Bill can fill you in:

What Adams et al did was to first have their subjects -- a bunch of college guys -- answer a questionnaire about tolerance of "gays" -- among other social issues.

Then the researchers put a device which measures arousal on the guys' penises -- and showed them male-male, male-female, and female-female porn.

And what they found was that the guys who'd been most "homophobic" in their answers on the questionnaire, and who self-identified as "exclusively heterosexual," showed the most arousal to the male-male porn.

And this is something which people involved in anti-violence work -- and that includes me, because I was, among other things, a founding board member of the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project back in 1983 --

So, like I say, folks involved in anti-violence work have long known -- that "gay bashers" and the like not only have strong same-sex feelings, but often -- almost always -- have secret male-male sex lives.

So the bashing is a cover for the same-sex sex -- they're actually engaging in.

And this too is discussed on Frontline's site -- here:

Interview with Steven Mullins, a "skinhead" who murdered a gay man named Billy Jack Gaither in 1999.

This is Mullins' initial police confession from March of 1999. A former Skinhead who worked hard at appearing tough and sinister, Steve Mullins worked construction jobs occasionally, but was often unemployed and frequently relied on others to get by. On February 19, 1999, he says, he decided that Billy Jack Gaither "didn't need to live any longer." That night, he slit Billy Jack's throat, beat him to death, and set him on fire. "I had to 'cause he was a faggot," says Mullins. At trial, however, a number of witnesses came forward to allege that Steve Mullins himself had been involved in homosexual [sic] acts, and may have had a relationship with Billy Jack. Compare contradictory statements he made in later interviews and testimony.

And isn't that interesting?

Do you think that maybe, just possibly, Dharun -- Tyler's roommate -- was engaged in same-sex acts too?

I do.

Why else go to so much trouble to "expose" your roommate -- if you're not trying to conceal something about yourself?

Why?

Now -- I don't know why Tyler killed himself -- basically, when folks kill themselves, while there may be a precipitating event, there are usually other things going on with the person pyschologically.

So -- I don't want to say that I could have prevented Tyler's death -- because I don't know that to be true.

But -- since 1980 and to this day, I've championed Self-Defense -- learning how to Fight -- for kids like Tyler.

And for adults, putative men, like 99.99% of the guys who visit this site.

So -- the first thing I would have done with a kid like Tyler is taught him how to throw a punch.

I know, I know, he was a violinist.

You think violinists can't Fight?

You're WRONG.

Famous 1930's play and then a movie, Golden Boy, written by Clifford Odets, famous 1930s leftist playwright, about a boxer -- William Holden in the film --

who's also a violinist.

Odets was a "socialist realist."

He based his play on people and situations he knew.

Which means there are violinists who box and boxers who play the violin.

In the movie, Holden's character, who lives in a dirt poor immigrant neighborhood, chooses boxing because there's a lot more money in it.

But -- in today's world, a kid like Tyler wouldn't have to give up the violin.

All he needs to do is learn how to throw a punch.

Which anyone can learn.

It involves torquing the body in such a way that the weight of the body is behind the punch.

A fighter about to throw a right cross
He's jabbed with his left
Now he'll pivot on his right foot and hit with his right fist

This is a video -- warning -- it's full of annoying ads -- which shows the cross, along with the pivot -- which is critical.

And here's a step-by-step in words alone.

Like I say, anyone can learn to do it, and do it effectively.

Of course a kid like Tyler should also learn that he can take a punch.

That he can get hit without falling apart.

That there are worse things in this world than getting hit.

He should learn that too.

But once he's been put in touch with his Male Aggressive Power -- by throwing a punch -- the issue of taking a punch usually pales.

Because there's an elation which comes from throwing a punch.

Which can carry you through quite a few hits.

Please understand -- I'm not saying that getting hit is good.

It's not.

Not in and of itself.

But it's essential that Men and boys learn that they can get hit -- and can hit back.

So -- that's the first thing I would have done with a kid like Tyler -- taught him how to throw a punch, how to effectively block a punch, and how to kick.

And then he could have, had he been so inclined, punched Dharun out.

Of course, Rutgers might have expelled him.

But at least he'd still be alive.

I would have also told Tyler that another way of dealing with Dharun, and a more effective way of dealing with Dharun, in my view, would have been to expose him as a conflicted and self-loathing closet case --

simply by posting some of these same studies and interviews I've just posted here.

What could Dharun have done?

Said, No no no, I don't have those feelings?

Then why did you do what you did?

Why?

And do you think those feelings are bad and have to be denied?

For Dharun, it would have been lose-lose.

For Tyler, win-win.

Now:

There's another article on the Frontline site which bears greatly, to put it mildly, on this issue of "gay /straight."

It's under a link labeled a 'gay gene'?

The article is from The New York Review of Books.

The New York Review of Books is the most intellectually rigorous general-interest journal in the nation.

Translation: There are specialty journals for folks like, say, chemical engineers, which are intellectually rigorous;

but The New York Review of Books is the most intellectually rigorous general-interest journal.

And it is rigorous.

Not for the faint of heart.

The article from the Review on the Frontline site is a critique of the "science" behind the search for a "gay gene."

It was written in 1995 by Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, a very prestigious British medical journal.

And it is DEVASTATING.

What the article says, in effect, is that the "science" is junk science.

Worthless.

Translation: There is NO "gay gene."

Just some flawed research that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

And the article quotes a number of people, who, like myself, understand that "sexual orientation" is a cultural construct.

Translation: an idea.

NOT a biological reality.

The article mentions a Gay Liberationist and scholar named Jonathan Ned Katz who published a book in 1995 titled The Invention of Heterosexuality.

I haven't seen the book.

But the title is certainly right on.

As any classicist could tell you.

Here are some excerpts from Horton's article:

Classifying sexuality into homosexual and heterosexual categories may have benefits of simplicity for researchers, but how closely does this division fit the real world? Poorly is the answer. Sexual behavior and styles of life among men and women vary from day to day and year to year, and a conclusion about whether or not sexual experience is characterized as homosexual frequently depends on the definition one uses.[20] The slippery nature of our crude categories should alert us to beware of conclusions about groups labeled as "homosexual" or "heterosexual."

Moreover, the concept of sexuality itself cannot easily be analyzed. It exists at several levels--chromosomal, genital, brain, preference, gender self-image, gender role, and a range of subtle influences on behavior (hair color, eye color, and many more). Each of these can be grouped together with the others to produce a single measurable component on a scale, devised by Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, that allegedly shows a person's degree of homosexual preference. Hamer used this scale somewhat uncritically to categorize his volunteers. Stephen Levine, a medical expert on sexual behavior, has noted that the conflated and crude Kinsey scale "does not do justice to the diversity among homosexual women and men."[21]

. . .

Two major studies examining the historical origins of modern sexual categories show how social groupings that evolve over time can mislead one into supposing that inherent biological classes exist in some unchangeable sense. Michel Foucault chronicled the history of sexual norms by concentrating on the fluid notion of "homosexuality."[23] He denounced what he called "Freud's conformism" in taking heterosexuality to be the normal standard in psychoanalysis. He concluded:

We must not forget that the psychological, psychiatric, medical category of homosexuality was constituted from the moment it was characterized--Westphal's famous article of 1870 on "contrary sexual sensations" can stand as its date of birth[24]--less by a type of sexual relations than by a certain quality of sexual sensibility.... The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.

This analysis, it seems to me, points to a critical error in the research of both Hamer and LeVay. Both, in spite of their qualifications, adopt the idea of the homosexual as a physical "species" different from the heterosexual. 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...

The cultural historian Jonathan Katz has recently attacked the naive partitioning of sexual orientation by tracing the dominance of the norm--heterosexuality --throughout history.[25] He provides a convincing argument that the "just-is hypothesis" of heterosexuality--i.e., that the word corresponds to a true behavioral norm--is an "invented tradition." He shows that the categories of gay and straight are gradually dissolving as notions of the family become more various. Basing his view more on intuition than on sociological evidence, he predicts "the declining significance of sexual orientation."

. . .

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question when we set out to find whether there is a gene for sexual orientation. We know that genes are responsible for the development of our lungs, larynx, mouth, and the speech areas of our brain. And we understand that this complexity cannot be collapsed into the notion of a gene for "talking." Similarly, what possible basis can there be for concluding that there is a single gene for sexuality, even though we accept that there are genes that direct the development of our penises, vaginas, and brains? This analogy is not to deny the importance of genes, but merely to recast their role in a different conceptual setting, one devoid of dualist prejudice.

The search for a single dominant gene--the "O-GOD" (one gene, one disorder) hypothesis--that would influence a behavioral variant is likely to be fruitless. Many different genes, together with many different environmental factors, will interact in unpredictable ways to guide behavioral preferences. Each component will contribute small quanta of influence. One result of such a quantum theory of behavior is that it makes irrelevant the overstretched speculations of both Hamer and LeVay about why a gene for homosexuality still exists when it apparently has little apparent survival value in evolutionary terms. The quest for a teleological explanation to identify a reason for the existence of a "gay gene" becomes pointless when one understands that there is not now, and never was, a single and final reason for being gay or straight, or having any other identity along the continuum of sexual preference.

Let me just say a few things about this article.

It was written in 1995 and, to me, clearly, its use of terms like "homosexual" and "heterosexual" -- and "gay" and "straight" -- are badly out-dated.

Nevertheless, Horton acknowledges and strongly supports Michel Foucault's point that "social groupings that evolve over time can mislead one into supposing that inherent biological classes exist in some unchangeable sense."

Translation: "gay" and "straight" do NOT exist as "inherent biological classes . . . in some unchangeable sense."

All they are -- are "social groupings" which evolved -- we know -- as a result of heterosexualization.

Once again, the major point Foucault makes is that "gay" and "straight" do NOT exist as "inherent biological classes."

Which is clearly true and which, again, Horton *strongly* supports.

And guys -- and there is no way around this -- if "gay" and "straight" do NOT exist as "inherent biological classes" -- then they don't exist.

Other than as cultural constructs.

Ideas.

Horton clearly understands that because he condemns what he calls "dualist prejudice" -- that is, "gay/straight prejudice."

Horton also refers to Foucault's statement that the word "homosexual" was characterized "less by a type of sexual relations than by a certain quality of sexual sensibility"; what Foucault means by that -- or should -- is that "homosexual" didn't mean male-male so much as it meant a "sexual sensibility" which we would call analist.

That's what the word "homosexual" was about -- and still is.

Horton also strongly condemns those who "adopt the idea of the homosexual as a physical 'species' different from the heterosexual."

What that means, guys, is that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are neither biological realities nor immutable categories.

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 back to 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.

Good example: King Agesilaus of Sparta, who's described by both Xenophon and Plutarch as a model husband and father -- and as the ardent Lover of a Persian youth named Megabates -- and perhaps other guys as well.

And please understand: Agesilaus is not in any way exceptional -- he's the NORM.

And Agesilaus, who's a king, has a role model who's also a king:

Zeus, King of the Gods:

Suppose you weren't a king, by the way.

Were there other role models?

Yeah.

Achilles and Patroclus, for example, mythic Warrior-Lovers.

How about historic role models?

Yeah.

Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Athenian lovers and tyrannicides:

These two statues are Roman copies of Greek originals which stood in the Agora -- the Athenian "marketplace" -- the very heart of Athens.

So -- there was, at the center of Athens, a statuary group of the two MALE LOVERS who'd conspired together to rid the city of a tyrant -- and thus create Athenian democracy.

Not surprisingly, given these well-known historical facts, Horton also strongly supports 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.

So -- as time has gone on -- and remember that Horton was writing in 1995 -- fifteen years ago -- Katz's view -- "the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed" -- is increasingly carrying the day.

While the search for a "gay gene" appears to have been abandoned.

Because, as Horton says,

We know that genes are responsible for the development of our lungs, larynx, mouth, and the speech areas of our brain. And we understand that this complexity cannot be collapsed into the notion of a gene for "talking." Similarly, what possible basis can there be for concluding that there is a single gene for sexuality[?]

There isn't.

Which is why Horton concludes that the search for a "gay gene" will be "fruitless."

Now:

Horton's loath, at least in 1995, and still trapped as he is, to some degree, in the categories of sexual orientation, to fully embrace what Katz is saying.

But Katz is correct:

the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature

As is Foucault:

social groupings that evolve over time can mislead one into supposing that inherent biological classes exist in some unchangeable sense.

So -- what all these guys are saying -- is what I'm saying -- what The Man2Man Alliance says:

"homosexual" and "heterosexual", "gay" and "straight" do NOT exist as inherent biological classes or anything else -- other than cultural constructs.

Labels.

THEY DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE.

And in that sense, THEY ARE NOT REAL.

Horton et alia also say "there are no convincing historical grounds" for the view of "the homosexual as a physical 'species' different from the heterosexual."

"No convincing historical grounds" -- means NO convincing historical grounds.

Which is something else I and The Man2Man Alliance tell you constantly.

Once again:

"homosexual" and "heterosexual", "gay" and "straight" do NOT exist as inherent biological classes or anything else -- other than cultural constructs.

Labels.

THEY DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE.

And in that sense, THEY ARE NOT REAL.

They're ideas.

Of course, a statement like "Masculinity is a Divine Principle and Manhood a Divine Gift" can be classified as an idea or concept too.

The difference is that behind the concept "Masculinity is a Divine Principle and Manhood a Divine Gift" stands both a biological reality -- for both Masculinity and Manhood are rooted in our most basic male biology -- and a Spiritual Reality.

And that Spiritual Reality is, Plato tells us, more powerful than any other reality in the Universe.

While behind the concept / idea "all males are either gay or straight" there's -- nothing.

There's no reality of any sort behind it or otherwise able to prop it up.

It's just an idea, and an invalid idea at that -- invalid physically, psychologically, intellectually, spiritually.

Katz:

the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature

And it's not in Heaven -- or on Olympos -- either.

And when I say "not in Heaven" -- for those of you who are Christian -- that's why the term "homosexuality" never appears in the Bible.

The Bible talks about acts -- most especially anal -- but not "homosexuals" and not "homosexuality."

"the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature" -- and it's not in the Bible -- or in Homer -- either.

Now -- here's what's really interesting:

The Adams et alia study -- and the Billy Jack/Steve Mullins story -- have been around for years.

And they're not secret.

Nor is Horton's New York Review of Books article hidden away and under lock and key.

As I just showed you, they're ALL sitting up on the Frontline website.

Freely accessible to anyone with a computer.

Yet, they haven't really had what people in show biz call "legs."

They're known -- but they're not known.

Why?

Because they're inconvenient.

They suggest and more than suggest that the categories of sexual orientation -- of "gay" and "straight" -- into which such HUGE SOCIETAL RESOURCES have been thrown -- and which have such HUGE SOCIETAL BACKING --

are FALSE.

If college students who self-define as "exclusively heterosexual" and say they're opposed to "gay rights" get turned on by "gay" porn -- there's a problem --

With the categories of sexual orientation.

If the straight-identified killers of femmy guys like Billy Jack are actually having "gay sex" -- there's a problem --

With the categories of sexual orientation.

And if there's NO "gay gene," and "the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature" but is something which was created by human beings under the sway of social forces -- there's a problem --

With the categories of sexual orientation.

Which lead-columnist Frank Rich of The New York Times nevertheless tells us are immutable.

Clearly, they are not.

So -- who's right?

Nature -- or The New York Times?

Obviously, Nature is right.

But -- Nature doesn't control the debate.

The New York Times -- and institutions like it -- controls the debate.

Which is why these discussions -- that is, these articles and others like them -- are de facto censored.

Put simply, they're never discussed.

Because to talk about them, would completely undermine the heterosexualized status quo.

Yet it should be undermined -- it should be under constant and unrelenting attack.

Jonathan Ned Katz -- whom I vaguely recall meeting many many years ago -- was a Gay Liberationist.

What does that mean?

Gay Liberation was the radical, "question everything," revolutionary moment in the history of the "gay" movement.

It came together in 1970 and was gone by 1975.

Why?

Because people need stability and certainty.

Most people cannot live in a revolutionary milieu forever -- it's too unsettling.

Which is why Gay Liberation was succeeded by the "gay movement" as we know it today.

Which is not concerned with Truth.

But with getting a piece of the political pie.

As big a piece as possible.

And the way that's being done is to insist, DESPITE THE EVIDENCE, that "gay" and "straight," "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are -- totally discrete, mutually exclusive, and eternally immutable categories.

THAT'S A LIE.

And it's told to YOUR detriment.

So -- what you gonna do bro?

Spend the rest of your life in a gay or straight closet protecting those labels?

Eric said he'd grown up and spent much of his life "feeling confused, ashamed, and out of place" --

because of his male-male, Man2Man, and Manly, same-sex feelings.

But in his Frot Club post -- written after he'd found our site and read Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition -- he said

I believe that it is possible for two healthy, grown men to experience sex with one another while staying strong and masculine.

And of course, he's right.

Strong and Masculine.

That's what most guys want to be.

Strong and Masculine.

You, dear reader, have to decide what you're going to be.

Are you going to remain confused, ashamed, and perenially out of place?

Or will you reclaim your MANHOOD and your MASCULINITY which are yours by Right of Birth -- and become

Strong and Masculine.

Whatever else was going on with Tyler, what precipitated his death, what killed him, were the lying labels of sexual orientation.

And which almost killed Eric too.

Yes, Tyler was bullied, but what gave the bullying its force were the labels.

And I would remind my innumerable critics that I too, once upon a time, was a "gay" / "homosexually-identified" kid, and that I was Tyler's age in that year of Grace 1966, which was a far more brutal time to identify as "homosexual" because there was NO support whatsoever for kids like myself.

NOTHING.

Tyler had at his disposal the whole vast internet and "gay" chat rooms and libraries crammed full with The Joy of Gay Sex and Buttfuck Mountain and gender studies and queer studies and AIDS Service Organizations and LGBT community centers and "gay" movie stars and "gay" rock stars and "gay" talk show hosts and "gay" psycho-therapists etc etc etc.

I had nothing.

Other than my mind.

My ability to reason.

And my determination to get at the Truth about Men -- and the Love I knew they felt for other Men.

The TRUTH about the LOVE that MEN feel for each other.

That's what I had and have.

It sustained me then, it sustains me now.

And hopefully it's sustaining a few of you too.

The labels are false.

The labels are a lie.

MAN -- that's what's real.

WARRIOR -- that's what's real.

MANHOOD -- that's what's real.

The WARRIOR expresses his MANHOOD in the FIGHT.

That too is real.

As is the Fighter-Warrior's attraction for his fellow Warrior.

This is something Warrior NW, who wrestled in college and more recently has trained in mixed martial arts/MMA/UFC-style Fighting, said in a recent email:

For me wrestling was a male-erotic experience.

Fundamentally that's what wrestling is: A Masculine Male Erotic Experience of Aggression with another Male.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing.

It's RIGHT.

The terrible denial in our over-Judeo-Christianized/Muslim-ized society is that we have a phobia about recognizing the connection between male sexuality and aggression.

And a phobia about recognizing the beauty of males and natural aggression (a good old fashioned fight is cool).

It is my view (and I wish I had understood this YEARS ago) that normal males are attracted to masculinity and masculine males.

There really is no "gay" per se. "Gay" is political B.S. I went to the Gay Pride Parade last year, and I felt so removed from that stuff that I was sort of shocked by it all. I thought: This is not how men should act.

I know that offends some people. But I don't apologize.

The cool thing is that MMA is busting through the crap and coming out on top.

Masculinity is Natural. Masculinity is necessary for survival. And Nature always finds a way to survive.

Fight school was a TOTAL blast for me. Eye popping. It was fundamental, Masculine, shirtless, full body contact.

Because of its so fundamental, basic nature, MMA attracts the butch, un-feminized males in society, who happen to also be attracted to masculinity, and masculinity in other males.

Coincidentally, MMA dudes, tend to have to hide what they do for real man-fun, if they have office jobs. In today's office world, you have to be a femmy male to be accepted in an office job. I was snubbed at a couple jobs for even admitting that I liked the Ultimate Fighter show. That really happened to me. That is how far control of the office has fallen into the hands of Feminists and Femmy males ("gay-" or "straight-" identified). That has been my experience. It has a tendency to kill the normal competitiveness of males.

I also see it at my current job all the time.

MMA is not gay (as some dumb-shits have suggested).

MMA is normal male behavior.

ALL the fighters I knew in fight school were gentle, honest, masculine, respectful, totally un-pretentious, dudes. They were all beautiful warriors. No fancy uniforms. The man hugs at the end of fight class were just a physical act of the gentleness of the warrior...Respect and Acknowledgment of the other males.

I think that freestyle wrestling would make some sort of comeback if it was streamlined and simplified back into some semblance of the battlefield skill it originated from (eg, beach wrestling).

And it would be an improvement for freestyle wrestling to bring back the masculinity of going shirtless.

Skin is good (even if Muslims and Christians and Orthodox Jews don't think so).

The masculine fighter/wrestler male body is beautiful.

---

So -- Warrior NW says "we have a phobia about recognizing the connection between male sexuality and aggression. And a phobia about recognizing the beauty of males and natural aggression (a good old fashioned fight is cool). It is my view (and I wish I had understood this YEARS ago) that normal males are attracted to masculinity and masculine males."

That's correct.

"Normal males are attracted to masculinity and masculine males."

And he says there's a "connection between male sexuality and aggression."

That too is correct.

NW: "Masculinity is Natural. Masculinity is necessary for survival."

To which I'd add: Fighting is Natural. Fighting is necessary for survival.

NW: "Because of its so fundamental, basic nature, MMA attracts the butch, un-feminized males in society, who happen to also be attracted to masculinity, and masculinity in other males."

Right.

Normal males are attracted to Masculinity, and to Masculinity in other males.

That attraction is a Universal Male Phenomenon -- especially strong among Masculine Men.

And Masculinity is about Aggression.

NW: Fundamentally that is what wrestling is: A Masculine Male Erotic Experience of Aggression with another Male.

That's right.

And I'd say, Fundamentally that's what Frot is: A Masculine Male Erotic Experience of Aggression with another Male.

That's why, when I re-worked the Alliance splash page, I emphasized the Phallus-AGAINST-Phallus aspect of Frot.

Some languages, like English, say Cock2Cock, Dick2Dick.

Others, like German and Dutch, say Cock against Cock:

Schwanz gegen Schwanz.

Lul tegen Lul.

To me, the "against" is more accurate and more descriptive.

The two Men are putting their two Cocks AGAINST each other and rubbing them AGAINST each other.

The sensation is at once Erotic and Aggressive -- and that's because it's male-male, Man2Man, Man Against Man.

NW: "Masculinity is Natural. Masculinity is necessary for survival."

To which I add: Fighting is Natural. Fighting is necessary for survival.

Fighting is part of Masculinity.

Fighting is part of Sex between Men.

What's happened is that male-male has been heterosexualized -- which, hopefully, you all understand because you've all read Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition.

But -- male-male cannot and will not survive in that form.

Male-male cannot be a poor imitation of male-female.

Male-Male has to be about Men, it has to be about Aggression, it has to be about Phallus, it has to be about Fighting.

Strong and Masculine says Eric.

He's right.

I thank Eric for his post and his letter.

I'm glad he found the Alliance.

I hope that all of you reading this will understand that for every guy like Eric who writes, there's a thousand or ten thousand guys who, like Eric, have benefitted from what they've seen on our sites, but who don't write.

That's just the way people are.

But that doesn't mean we're not reaching them.

We are.

Eric represents a thousand, or ten thousand, guys who, thanks to us, have at least a chance of being re-born as Men.

Help them.

Help yourself.

FIGHT BACK.

It's been twenty-eight years since I met my late lover Brett Averill.

Twenty-two years since he was diagnosed.

Fifteen years since he died.

Brett was very Masculine.

Guys were attracted to him not just because he was young and handsome, but because he was Masculine and Aggressive.

Appropriately so.

But Aggressive nonetheless.

Didn't matter.

He was caught up in the great and insatiable maw of heterosexualization, which chewed up and devoured and destroyed his young life -- and him.

Don't let that happen to other guys.

Don't let it happen to you.

You're a Man.

Live your Life as a Man.

FIGHT BACK.

Bill Weintraub

October 30, 2010

© All material Copyright 2010 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

PS

Look at this picture.

It's Spartan.

Notice how in this picture, the Men are CARRYING THEIR FELLOW MEN.

That's what a MAN is supposed to do.

That's what a MAN is supposed to do.

You may say to me, But Bill, the guys they're carrying are dead.

To which I respond -- Right.

And which is worse -- to be physically dead -- or spiritually dead?

You're spiritually dead.

But -- you've been shown the way back to Life.

Once you've been shown the way back to Life, you have an obligation.

To lift the souls of your fellow Men who are still spiritually dead -- to shoulder and show them the way.

There's NO escaping that.

Reply from:

Brian Hulme

Re: staying strong and masculine

10-31-10

A Warrior hello to Warrior Eric!

I have read your post and can I say don't worry about that cracking sound it is just the chains of "heterosexuality" breaking and falling off!

Now you just need a woman who can understand that you having a male buddy who you can also enjoy the occasional cock 2 cock with does NOT hurt either her or the relationship that you have with her (ask the women of Sparta).

Well is not freedom just great? I think so -- now let's hope many others will follow Warrior Eric.

With Warrior Love (from England)

Brian