Reply from:

Bill Weintraub

Re: the most natural thing in the world

1-28-2011

Hey Eric,

It's great hearing from you!

Let's take a look:

Not sure if you remember me

Eric, of course I remember you.

or not but I wrote you back in October and you posted an article I wrote on sexual stereotypes. Anyway, today, I have to share with you my first "real" M2M experience that recently took place.

If you recall, I tried this sort of thing before a couple years back when I was feeling confused about my sexual identity. I thought I needed to pursue the homosexual

Okay.

Eric, as you know we avoid using terms like "homosexual" because they're rooted in a view of sex between Men as deviant.

And that's not correct.

It's normal and natural for guys to have same-sex needs and desires -- and normal and natural for them to act on those desires.

And the most natural and Manly way for them to express those desires physically -- is through Frot.

So -- it would probably be helpful if you read and/or re-read Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition.

Because it's really important that you abandon those antiquated labels of sexual orientation, "gay" and "straight," "homosexual" and "heterosexual."

Why?

Because they make it appear that male-female is normal and male-male abnormal.

That's not true.

But if you believe it's true, it will affect your behavior in a variety of negative ways.

Once again, Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition is really important reading for all site visitors and for all Alliance members.

experience in order to sort garbage out in my head. I was still physically attracted to women (and I still am), but the sexual M2M fantasies that I had since my pre-teen years had never been fulfilled.

Right.

And -- just so guys know -- again, those sexual M2M fantasies and desires are normal and natural.

And for that reason, they don't go away.

You can't, for example, get rid of them through some sort of therapy.

Nor will they go away if you just ignore them or don't act on them.

We just had a post in Frot Club from a guy who's sixty and happily married and has kids and says he has a good life.

But he also says he's tried to deny his attraction to Men all these years and that denial hasn't worked.

And that's right.

The denial doesn't work because, again, the attraction is natural.

Again, it's part of being a Man.

Unfortunately, my initial experience was with a true bona-fide gay man

Okay.

So again, there's no such thing as "a true bonafide gay man."

There are certainly males -- many males -- who identify as "gay" and who take on certain very stereotypical "gay" behaviors.

But that doesn't mean that "gay" has any reality in a biological sense.

who was everything under the sun BUT A MAN! In other words, he was more feminine and girly than anything else.

Right.

And again, his culture, which we call analism, encourages him to behave in those ways.

When he tried to convert me through anal sex,

Right.

As you know, Eric, we don't call anal "sex" because there's no genital tissue in the anus or rectum -- and in our view sex is about genitals -- not anuses.

So we call "anal" what it is -- anal penetration.

Because that's what it is -- penetration of the anus and rectum.

And, as those of us who used to identify as "gay" know, gay-identified males will ALWAYS try to "convert" you through anal penetration.

Because their culture tells them, over and over again, that "if it's not anal, it's not really gay"; -- and that "you're not really gay if you don't get fucked."

Those are core cultural values among these guys, who we call, and properly so, analists.

So -- it's not realistic to think that males who identify as "gay" won't do that.

Sometimes they'll tell you they don't care about anal;

but what we've seen time and time again in dealing with them is that eventually -- and "eventually" is usually just a few days -- they begin demanding anal.

Basically, no matter what they tell you, it's all anal all the time.

I took off faster than a silver bullet. I swore I would never do that again.

Good -- and that speaks well of you.

But my M2M fantasies never went away.

Right.

They won't.

And there's no reason that they should.

I still needed to have that experience. But, to be honest, I was scared to try it again. I didn't want a romantic relationship with another drag queen.

Right.

And unlike Bradley Manning, the US Army Pfc who leaked -- actually just gave -- all those state secrets to Wikileaks.

The inaptly named Manning, says The New York Times, identifies as "gay," and had a "boyfriend" who's a drag queen.

Before being deployed to Iraq, Private Manning met Tyler Watkins, who described himself on his blog as a classical musician, singer and drag queen. A friend said the two had little in common, but Private Manning fell head over heels.

And who wouldn't, given what lovable creatures those delightful drags are:

Of course, I don't really see how you can have a "boy" friend who's a drag queen, but, nevermind -- we have a lot more of this to look forward to in today's new, oh-so-"gay," army.

For example, did I mention that, according to the Times, Pfc Manning "lip-synched to Lady Gaga as he copied hundreds of thousand of diplomatic cables"?

Lady Gaga -- gay idol and model soldier

And which of the Lady's songs do you think he chose for that particular activity: "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich," "Money Honey," "I Like It Rough" -- or just, "Born This Way"?

Let's get back to Eric:

Luckily for me, I recently found someone whom I was able to connect with on a true, manly level.

Great!

And you know what? It felt like the most natural thing in the world!

Right!

Because it is.

The most Natural thing in the world.

Guys have been doing this since time immemorial.

But we happen to be living in a very distorted time when it comes to Man2Man, and that's because of an historical process we call "heterosexualization" --

and heterosexualization is what's created "sexual orientation," and the very UNnatural division of Men into "gay" and "straight."

There was no "dating," no verbal exchanges of words like "sweetie" or "baby." We were two grown men--we were "dude" and "bro." More importantly, neither of us wanted anything to do with anal.

Right.

And that's something you need to establish long before you meet.

And interestingly, I see more and more guys being very explicit about no anal in their Frot Club posts.

This is from a guy in California:

I am looking for someone around my age, between 44 to 60 who is NOT in to anal at all. Also, I don't want someone who was in to it at one time. I have never done anal and not interested in it at all and do not want someone with anal experience.

And this from Lee in Iowa:

I will not entertain any anal action of any kind, no exceptions. I am not interested in men that are interested in anal at all. I am looking for a "like minded" man.

So you have to be very explicit in your Frot Club posts, and when emailing with guys.

And this qualifier -- "I do not want someone with anal experience" -- I think is good and appropriate.

For one thing, anal is an exceptionally efficient vector for STD.

Males who do anal are far more likely to have had multiple STD and to harbor STI in the bodies.

It makes sense to avoid contact with those males.

And really, what we want to do is move the culture to the point where *any* experience with anal is unacceptable.

We want to swing the cultural pendulum a full 180 degrees, to the point where anal is throrougly denigrated and disparaged, and only the most pathetic of creatures would ever even consider doing anal.

Eric:

Although my buddy and I exchanged emails for a little while before actually meeting, our first encounter felt relaxed and impromptu. Did I mention how "natural" it felt?

Yep!

Sadly, my new buddy has to move away. Such is the life of the military, and we wish we had done this years ago. But we plan to make the most of our time over the next couple of days and I still am grateful for the experience.

Hope life is treating you well, my friend.

Peace,

Eric

Thank you Eric.

Bill

Now -- Guys -- which is Eric and everyone else --

I don't want to rain on Eric's parade.

But we do need to talk about this:

There was no "dating"

I understand where Eric is coming from with that.

However, it's important that you date and court before you have sex.

Why?

Because that's natural.

What's not natural is the whole hook-up culture which is now pretty much universal but which evolved out of the highly promiscuous "gay" culture of the 70s and 80s.

And that culture isn't natural and it isn't healthy.

So:

Strange as this may sound, Man2Man / male-male used to happen between guys who were --

FRIENDS!!!

Yes, believe it or not, guys used to be buddies and friends and comrades first --

and from that friendship and through that camaraderie there would develop --

romantic relationships, which included sex.

Now, let's backtrack for a moment because I know that some of you react poorly to the idea of "romance" between Men.

So -- we'll backtrack -- for just a moment -- and we'll leave out the word "romance."

So:

Like I said, it used to be that guys would be friends or buddies or comrades, and male-male would occur naturally and spontaneously as part of their friendship.

They would feel a natural affection for each other which would lead to a sexual expression of that affection.

And that's very natural for Men.

And, yes, I know I keep using the word "natural" -- and that's because Man2Man is part of Nature.

Man2Man -- when it's Phallus-Against-Phallus -- is, as Frances says -- natural and organic.

But what's happened is that Men have been told that anything sexual between two guys = "gay."

And because "gay" is a trap -- a cage -- a box -- guys don't want to go there.

So they end up suppressing their same-sex feelings.

And then -- when someone like Eric -- or Omar -- acknowledges those feelings -- he's more or less forced to fall back on the internet to meet someone.

But obviously that's not the best way for that to happen.

God and nature intended for this to happen as an expression of friendship.

In other words, friendship first -- then a sexual expression of affection.

What goes on now is that guys have sex -- and then maybe they become friends and maybe not -- usually -- that is, 99.99% of the time -- not.

And that's really not good.

What about the "romance" part?

Well, and again, in our society, romance is reserved for a Man and a Woman -- or, maybe, for two gay-identified males.

But two MEN are NOT allowed to love each other.

What you guys need to see is that that's a stereotype which is VERY OPPRESSIVE of MEN.

Oh yeah.

Your fear of romance is actually a buying-into of a heterosexualized conception of male.

In which "real" male can only love female.

That's a lie.

It's also a very recent lie.

In his book Picturing Men, which is on the Heroes Reading List, Cal State Fullerton Prof John Ibson describes a romance between two nineteenth-century Men, one of whom was VERY famous -- Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan.

Mahan was regarded as the "father of the modern American navy" and was the author of a tremendously important book, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, which in turn had a huge influence on President Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy.

Think Panama Canal guys.

What is less well known, says Ibson, is

the extensive and highly romantic correspondence that Admiral Mahan carried on with a fellow officer, Samuel Ashe, letters documenting a relationship of forty years that had begun when both were Annapolis midshipmen before the Civil War.

In one letter, Mahan provocatively wrote: "I lay in bed last night, dear Sam, thinking of the gradual rise and growth of our friendship. My first visit ever to your room is vividly before me, and how as I went up there night after night I could feel my attachment to you growing and see your own love for me showing itself more and more every night."

"When you come to a question of sex," wrote the father of the navy on another occasion, "on the whole commend me to men."

No kidding.

And Ibson says

Before homosexuality was culturally conceived as a condition rather than simply an activity, there was perhaps less anxiety in the military, as in society at large, about the precise line between acceptable and forbidden degrees of closeness between men. Photographs of American military men from the Civil War through World War I document, as they must also have nurtured, an environment of even more intimacy than one sees in civilian photos of the same era.

And notice that Ibson makes a key differentiation between male-male "as a condition rather than simply an activity."

Those of you who don't understand what that difference is about need to read our Man2Man Alliance Policy Paper, Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not A Condition.

Again, it's very important, if you don't understand the difference, to read Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not A Condition.

So -- Alfred Mahan and Samuel Ashe had a relationship of forty years which began when they were midshipmen at the Naval Academy.

That was a Romantic Relationship.

Between two MEN.

Which began before male-male was conceived of as a condition.

Let me suggest to you ALL that your fear of male-male romance is grounded in your understandable dislike and rejection of that condition.

But the point to my work is that you can have the activity -- not just the sex, but the LOVE and romance too -- without the condition.

You needn't accept the pseudo-science of "gay" -- to love another guy.

Ancient Men -- who in terms of true Manliness beat modern males hands down -- didn't worry about a condition.

If they loved a guy -- they loved a guy.

So why shouldn't you?

Why let the analists and their grisly rectal fetish -- rob you of the LOVE of another MAN?

There's no reason to.

Anymore than there is to let the heterosexists rob you of it.

Or the religious fanatics.

You have the right to Love another Man.

Exercise it.

Use it.

Do it.

Don't run away from it.

Because if you do -- run away from it, that is -- you may find yourself, forty years from now -- or sooner -- regretting it.

If Love takes the form of another Guy -- then that's the form Love takes.

Reject it -- and him -- at your peril.

Now, on this site and in the Alliance we place a lot of emphasis on the ancient Greeks, and male-male among them was very structured.

There were a number of institutions which supported male-male, including, at Athens, the palaistra or wrestling school;

and the symposium, or all-male dinner party.

At Sparta, there was the agogé;

and the phiditia, which were all-male messes.

And those institutions nurtured male-male Man2Man romance.

We have no institutions like those today.

But we could.

I keep telling you to start Regional Chapters.

Regional Chapters would function as institutions.

Not, right off the bat, as powerful as the Greek institutions.

But you need to have some vision -- and a sense of history.

Which I do.

I remember when the "gay community" had nothing -- other than "gay" bars -- which were owned and run by the mafia.

That was about forty years ago.

Nowadays, every major city has an LGBT Community Center -- owned and run by the community.

And those have been around for a while.

You could have your own Man2Man centers -- we'll call them Man2Man Sanctuaries.

With eating clubs, sleeping quarters, gyms, training in Fight Sport -- even a Temple of Ares.

And all of it Man Space -- Nudity Required, no clothes allowed.

And even better than Man2Man Sanctuaries in the cities would be Man2Man Sanctuaries and Communities in the great outdoors.

This is from Plutarch's Spartan Institutions:

They always went without a shirt, receiving one garment for the entire year, and with unwashed bodies, refraining almost completely from bathing and rubbing down.

The young men slept together, according to division and company, upon pallets which they themselves brought together by breaking off by hand, without any implement, the tops of the reeds which grew on the banks of the Eurotas. In the winter they put beneath their pallets, and intermingled with them, the plant called lycophon, since the material is reputed to possess some warming qualities.

Intriguing, isn't it?

You could have something like that.

It wouldn't be identical -- but it could be along those lines.

You could have it.

You'd just have to work at it.

You don't want to do that.

You don't want to do anything.

You want to sit on the internet, jerking off to porn, and then when you can't laid in real life and/or Prince Charming doesn't come riding in the door -- you complain.

No.

Won't get you anywhere.

You could also have what Alfred Mahan and his buddy Sam Ashe had.

But again, you'd have to work at it.

And that would mean changing the society.

You can't, I don't think, have it in society as it's now constituted.

You couldn't get away with it.

There'd have to be some significant cultural changes.

And that would require work.

But eventually the work would pay off for you.

In greater freedom to be yourselves, and to find the sort of Love you want and need.

For now, my advice to Eric is that he try to stay in touch with his new-found friend.

Even if the guy moves away, there are many ways of staying in touch -- and there are airplanes.

Because -- these sorts of relationships aren't so easy to come by.

If two guys find each other, and they're right for each other -- they need to figure out a way to keep what they've found and to nurture it.

Eric is right that Frot is "the most natural thing in the world!"

But the times we live in are most Un-natural.

And to preserve what is natural and organic between Men, is and will remain, a struggle.

Do you have a choice as to whether to participate in the struggle?

No.

You have to live the life of your times.

And in sexual terms, you're living in a heterosexualized time dominated by a gay-straight dichotomy, which is false, and which is informed in its every aspect, by greed.

That's why the "gay" Pfc Manning, "in love" with a drag queen, was lip-synching to a song sung by a female "idol" and titled "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich" -- as he stole state-secrets.

That's what you have to struggle against.

If you don't struggle against it, it will eat you up and swallow you down.

This too is from Plutarch's Spartan Institutions:

They were no less seriously concerned over their music and their songs. These contained a stimulus to awaken a spirit of pride and to afford an inspiring and effective impulse. Their language was simple and plain, consisting merely of praise of those who had lived noble lives, and had died for Sparta, and are now counted among the blessed, and also censure of those who had played the coward, and now, presumably, are living a tormenting and ill-fated existence; and therewith profession and boasting in regard to valour, such as was fitting for the different periods of life.

So there were three choirs, corresponding to the three periods of life, which were made up at their festivals, and the choir of old men would begin with this song:

Young valiant men long days ago were we.

Then the choir of men in the prime of life would sing in response,

And that are we; look, if you will, and see.

And the third choir, that of the boys, would sing,

And better far 'tis certain we shall be.

Moreover the rhythmic movement of their marching songs was such as to excite courage and boldness, and contempt for death; and these they used both in dancing, and also to the accompaniment of the flute when advancing upon the enemy. In fact, the law-giver Lycurgus coupled fondness for music with military drill, so that the over-assertive warlike spirit, by being combined with melody, might have concord and harmony. It was for this reason that in time of battle the king offered sacrifice to the Muses before the conflict, so that those who fought should make their deeds worthy to be told and to be remembered with honour.

So -- that may sound hopelessly archaic to you, but it enabled Men to live lives of nobility and valour.

In such a society, someone like Pfc Manning wouldn't have felt any conflict between his need for Man2Man and the rules of his culture.

To the contrary -- he would have chosen or been assigned a male lover at an early age -- and stayed faithful to him.

He would never have questioned his loyalty to Sparta and its Rule of Honor;

while a song which equated Beauty with Money would have been abhorrent to him.

One of the noble and blessed privileges which Lycurgus appears to have secured for his fellow citizens was abundance of leisure. In fact it was not permitted them to take up any menial trade at all; and there was no need whatever of making money, which involves a toilsome accumulation, nor of busy activity, because of his having made wealth wholly unenvied and unhonoured.

At Sparta, wealth was unenvied and unhonored.

And so it would have been for Pfc Manning also.

He would have equated Beauty with Valour.

Brave Beauty.

And he would have understood that Beauty isn't Beautiful -- unless it's Brave.

You guys think you can't have something like that.

But you can.

Cultures periodically go through convulsions of hedonism and greed and godlessness and immorality.

Athens did.

And then they -- or groups within them -- find their way back to the moral center.

And that's what you have to do.

If you'll begin working with each other --

and commit to doing not what's expedient but what's right --

you'll have what you both want and need -- in this life.

If you don't, you'll end up like Pfc Manning.

Not in every detail of course.

But the pull of the larger culture will be too great for you.

You won't be able to withstand it.

And you'll succumb to it.

Which means your choice is plain:

Fight -- or die.

Thank you again, Warrior Eric.

I'm glad you found someone.

Bill Weintraub

January 28, 2011

© All material Copyright 2011 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Reply from:

Warrior Brian Hulme

Re: the most natural thing in the world

2-1-11

Hi Warriors

I don't won't to give you a Bible study but you may find these verses useful especially in connection to those "Religious Fanatics" and as you say Frot is a Godly and therefore natural thing; if it were not He would say so through scripture.

But He does want us to accept what He does SAY (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and one thing that is clearly stated is the LOVE between those two Warriors, David, and Jonathan as, 1 Samuel 20:17. But how great was that love? See 2 Samuel 1: 26 for the answer.

David and Jonathan is after all a story of the development of friendship to that of them being lovers and although it is not directly mentioned it is pretty obvious (at least to me it is) they expressed that love in the way men do, that is FROT.

With Warrior Love

Brian

Reply from:

Bill Weintraub

Re: the most natural thing in the world

2-1-2011

Thank you Warrior Man Brian

And once again, guys, Warrior Man Brian gets the point -- and right off the bat.

"David and Jonathan is after all a story of the development of friendship to that of them being lovers"

And that's right.

David and Jonathan are two of the mightiest Warriors in the Bible, and they start off as friends.

There's a natural progression for them from being fellow soldiers and comrades to being Lovers.

And Brian's correct about God wanting us to accept what He does say, in this case about Love:

1 Samuel 20:17 -- And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.

2 Samuel 1: 26 -- "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

And you can read all about that in Warriors or Sodomites.

Plus we have two more articles about D and J: When David was the butch and Jonathan his bitch; and David and Jonathan -- Kristof Agrees.

Finally, the idea that Man2Man Love is "more wonderful" than that of male-female is common in Warrior cultures, and wherever Men are at War.

Including among American soldiers in World War II, whose memoirs, says John Ibson in Picturing Men, starting with that of Douglas Allanbrook, bear witness:

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."

You can read more about Ibson and Picturing Men in AGOGE III: The Longing for Masculinity.

Once again, thank you Warrior Brian.

You're a true Warrior.

Bill