Greg

FACT: Effeminateness in gay men is a leftover psychological concept from the late 1800s.

FACT: The human species has always had a clear and biologically-based dichotomy between the roles of men (as hunters) and women (as caretakers).

FACT: Effeminateness encourages promiscuity and the practice of anal sex.

Don’t believe me? Look it up.

Bill's website far from discriminates against gay men who are "less than butch." He states numerous times that the good feminine qualities of nurturance and intuition are never present in the gay male representation of a pseudo-woman. This leaves a bitchy, queeny, empty shell of an individual and encourages him to take the role of a woman (being fucked) without having the nurturing qualities to form relationships, thus spreading promiscuity. Any woman or gay-identified man should be offended by this and most straight-identified men are.

It's time to see effeminateness as it truly is, a useless left-over psychological construct from a time when women were viewed as, not simply different, but also inferior to men.

It’s time to expose the effeminate, bitchy gay man as what he is: the Uncle Tom of gay male life.

And if men want to value nurturance and intuition, they are free to do it, just drop the bitchy, queeny attitude.

But to call Bill discriminatory for decrying this stereotype is equivalent to saying a black man who objects to the Uncle Tom stereotype is racist.

Because Bill's website shows numerous examples of men acting in tender, nurturing capacities, such as ancient Greek depictions of men tending each others’ wounds after a battle.

So if you guys want to limit yourselves to a role as ineffectual, bitchy, slutty pseudo-women, that is your choice.

But it is my choice to call you out like I see you, and I'm not going to be called personally, nor have anyone who thinks like me called "discriminatory" for it.

hi, I am Oscar Moreno Vallejo and my e-mail is nodigastips@hotmail.com

I don't know about you , but I am a man and I like men. I like MASCULINE, STRONG, HEALTHY , and NOBLE men. I adore men to look and act as men. And I LOVE men who like men. I support Bill Weintraub's work because I would love that, as much as possible, every man who has sex with other man was like that. I don’t have a lover, but if I had one , I would definitely want him to be manly and faithful. Focused only on me and me only on him. And I like the idea of my glans touching the beautiful and sensitive skin of other man's penis, while I kiss him and touch all his body, feeling his entire body with my own till we both share our orgasms. And enjoying all this naturally, spontaneously, knowing that it's exclusive, clean, safe and healthy oh, yes... ;)

FROT IS LIFE

MASCULINITY IS HOT

FIDELITY IS BLISS

Joel

...the important point in Larry Kramer's article is the idea of de-eroticizing anal sex in order to save the lives of thousands of gay men...the gay community ought to make this its primary goal if it intends to stem the tide of the AIDS epidemic and its latest form...the so-called supervirus...if we live in an age of enlightenment...as many of us hope that we do...then it behooves us to focus on educating young gay men to respect themselves...respect their bodies...and respect their lives by guiding them away from promiscuous anal sex...this is a critical change in the current gay paradigm...Bill Weintraub is trying to change the behaviors of gay men...and that means changing the way gay men think...and changing their understanding of the definition of sex...this is the purpose of the Man2Man Alliance...it is a noble purpose...and it is highly recommended that the subscribers to Gay.com check out the website at http://www.heroichomosex.org...peace and love

joel

mijopa -- name hidden by request

While I agree that anal sex is more dangerous than any other kind of sex, arguing that it shouldn’t be practiced that sex itself is an inherently risky proposal. One only needs to look at the sheer variety of STDs out to see that sex in any form has become a very efficient vector. To use a metaphor sex is like crossing a street, it can be done in many different, some more safe than others. Frot is crossing the street with the light, you most likely wont get hit by a car unless the driver is speeding or drunk and doesn’t stop; you mostly likely wont get HIV unless your having sex with someone who is positive and you are heavily abrading the skin. Protected anal sex is like crossing a empty street against the light, if the driver doesn’t see you in the crosswalk and stop (if the condom breaks) you could get hit (get HIV). Finally promiscuous barebacking is like playing chicken with a car and trying to beat it across the street before it crosses the sidewalk, you will get hit (contract HIV) sooner or later. That having been said, while frot would be what the law-abiding citizen would do in this hypothetical world, there is still a risk, albeit astronomically small, to crossing the street no matter the circumstance. Would it be wise not to cross the street ever because you could die?

Yes, I know jay walking is a misdemeanor offense, but ( moving back into the real world now), it is a very public behavior with very public consequence and therefore rightfully regulated by public law. Anal sex (protected or unprotected) is a relatively more private action. Unless you really want to reconsider the right to have sex with men in general, it is hard to distinguish between it and other forms sex, because if it truly is only a matter of the degree of danger rather than a substantive difference, it becomes a matter of someone deciding what type of risk is appropriate to take. Judgment calls like that tend to be highly subject to community acceptability. Do you really want you neighbor to determine what goes on between your sheets?

In other words, since all types of sex are inherently risky (that’s why its called safer sex and no long just safe sex), arguing that anal sex is bad or should be outlawed is itself a risky proposition, because it seems that it is based on an argument of degree rather an argument of substance. I am not necessarily making an slippery slope argument that if anal sex is declared illegal the same-sex sex will be. If both are consensual, however, is there any substantive difference between the two?

Bill Weintraub

bill@man2manalliance.org

First of all, Frot men are not in the woodwork.

We're out and we're proud.

Proud to be men who *love* men, proud to be men who are faithful, and proud of our masculinity too.

Furthermore, we've heard mijopa's tired and failed argument before:

since all sex is risky, it doesn't matter what you do.

That's NONSENSE.

There are vast differences in both pleasure and risk in the sex acts available to gay and bi men.

Anal is highest risk, and puts you at risk for the most dangerous STD: HIV, hepatitis B and C, herpes, anal cancer, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and LGV.

Fact is, the anatomy and the physiology of the anus are such that it will always be extraordinarily vulnerable to disease.

The mucosal lining of the anus is only one-cell thick; damage that lining, which penetration inevitably does, and you're up against vascular tissue: blood.

So that anything on the penis, ejaculated by the penis, or on a finger, fist, or sex toy, gains immediate entrance to the blood supply of the receptive partner.

And, because one of the functions of the anus and rectum is to absorb water, the anus is extraordinarily effective at trapping STDs.

In short, the ano-rectal tissues are flimsy and easily traumatized; during anal penetration they are bathed in a mix of blood, fecal and other pathogens, and semen, which they do their best to absorb.

Those facts are not open to debate, nor can they be changed.

An anus is not a vagina, it's not genital tissue, it has no erectile tissue, and it's extraordinarily vulnerable to pathogens.

Defeat one STD, and another will find a way to be anally-transmitted.

Whereas the penis is genital tissue, built to give men extraordinary pleasure.

And when circumcised, the skin of the penis, though still exquisitely sensitive, becomes armor-like: almost impossible to injure or infect.

Which is why Frot is lowest risk and highest in mutual genital pleasure.

That's the truth, and nothing mijopa says can change it.

All safer sex educators agree that were gay and bi men to choose Frot over anal, STD prevalence in our community would plummet.

Why is that such a bad idea?

Truth: switching from anal to Frot would heighten gay male pleasure and dramatically improve gay male health.

Why fight that?

What's the point?

No one's talking about banning anal.

But truth is that it's not possible to keep anal at the center of gay male practice and keep the community healthy -- neither physically, nor psychologically, nor spiritually.

It's time that guys like mijopa stopped blocking the road and allowed a free and vigorous debate among gay men about what sex is and what it can be.

Bill Weintraub

http://man2manalliance.org

Please participate in this debate by going to

http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package.html?sernum=1069&navpath=/channels/health/

Bill Weintraub

Re: The FROT debate on gay dot com heats up

2-23-2005

Here's more of the debate:

Greg M.:

mijopa says, "Do you really want you neighbor to determine what goes on between your sheets?"

My answer is: he already does.

Hypothetically, if I bring someone home from a bar or club that I've never met before who has an STD, such as HIV, then I certainly didn't give him the disease.

And the sexual act he'll likely want to perform is anal penetration.

So who is it that decided how this night went? Let's do a point-by-point analysis:

1. I (hypothetically) decided to go home with a guy 2. Someone else in the community already infected him with HIV 3. If he knows his HIV status, he is living by the community's ideology that it's ok to hide that since it's no one else's business (tell that to the guy who's about to get infected). 4. The sexual act he'll want to perform will put me at high risk for contracting the illness myself, and this sexual act is propped up and glorified by, that's right, the community.

So not only is your argument a straw-man diversion (no one in the frot movement wants to ban anal penetration, no one in the frot movement says sex is risk free) but it's wrong.

You say that you don't think people's neighbors should rule their lives, well, live by your own words. I don't appreciate the DEGREE to which your community is in my bedroom, so get out of the way of me spreading the truth about frot. It's hotter than anal, and it's safer than anal.

These are the reasons it's the preferred method of sex for men who have sex with men, even if it's denigrated in the gay community.

These and more. So if you want to take the time to learn what we're about, please do so. If you just want to make arguments about the immorality of morality, do it at your local starbucks. Half-baked existentialist arguments about the evils of value judgements haven't helped stop AIDS for the past 25 years, they aren't going to start now.

zephyr- (2/23/2005)

What a meandering and pointless discussion. I thought Larry Kramer was dead a long time ago. Maybe AIDS isn't fatal after all?

["zephyr" is the barebacker who ran away when I pushed the point about zombies.

Guess he is afraid of dying.]

http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package.html?sernum=1069&navpath=/channels/health/