Bill Weintraub

Re: holding and being held, rubbing cocks and enjoying male pleasure

6-17-2006

Thank you James.

And thank you for your donation.

You're a true warrior.

Guys this is a very common straight-identified / bi-guy's scenario.

Of course the details are precious and unique to James, but the outline is:

Guy discovers interest in Frot in adolescence.

Is also heavily into girls.

Can't figure out a way to meet guys.

Marries, loves his wife, has kids, is happy.

But still yearns for an M2M FROT connection.

Finally, if he's lucky, he "stumbles" on to this site, and learns that there is the possibility of his childhood dream coming true.

Notice some of the details:

1. The magazine was a bodybuilding or wrestling magazine.

   Guys are normally and naturally attracted to other strong, aggressive MEN.

2. "I was attracted to men, especially fit, healthy men who were proud of their masculinity."

   Same deal -- a completely NATURAL attraction to MASCULINE, MUSCULAR, PROUD MEN.

   Completely NATURAL.

3. "Yet, I knew I was also attracted to girls -- I was never without a girlfriend!"

   Absolutely and also completely natural.

   James is into girls too.

4. "I fantasized about being naked with my male friends, holding and being held, rubbing cocks and enjoying male pleasure."

   Also completely normal and natural.

   His fantasies are MASCULINE, they are of a front to front mutually genital experience which exalts MANHOOD.

   This is what MEN want.

   MEN who are not exposed to that vicious analist subculture, do not develop anal fantasies and don't get into anal.

   Because they don't want to be feminized.

   They want to be MEN and in the company of other MEN.

   That's why I said in a previous post, and Robert Loring agreed:

   FROT is a completely NATURAL MASCULINE behavior.

   It doesn't effeminize.

   Rather, it exalts Masculinity and Manhood.

   What MAN doesn't want that?

   What MAN doesn't want his Masculinity heightened and his Manhood honored?

   ALL MEN seek an increase in Masculinity.

   ALL MEN desire an honoring of Manhood.

   These are UNIVERSALS among MEN.

5. James married, happily, and had two fine sons; "the male attraction, however, did not end."

   Why not?

   Because once again, MEN want to be and need to be in the company of other MEN.

   These are UNIVERSALS among MEN.

Thank you James.

Guys, James is posted on our Alberta board in Frot Club, in Calgary, under Devlin Frot.

I hope that James finds his Warrior brother.

Of course, he'd have a far better chance of finding him if we could do true outreach.

Guys, the buttboyz want to feminize you and make you part of their anal-promiscuity-effeminacy culture.

In which your dream of a NATURALLY MASCULINE relationship with another MAN, another WARRIOR, will be forever destroyed.

We're working to preserve and heighten the NATURAL MASCULINITY of MEN who love MEN.

So that your dreams can come true.

James:

And so one day, while searching the web, I found the Frot website. What an eye opener it was! I immediately recognized that here was a doorway open for me -- that it was possible to have a meaningful sexual relationship with a man who would, hopefully, be a friend and companion.

James has posted.

James has donated.

Have you?

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Redd

Re: holding and being held, rubbing cocks and enjoying male pleasure

6-18-2006

I understand James's sentiments and agree with Bill's assessment. In the USA where the logical fallacy either/or dominates our reasoning (e.g., straight or gay), men feel perplexed about their need and desire for male companionship, for male company when they are lead to believe that such need and desire constitutes gay. "Gay," however, is a misnomer. As Bojneon says in "The Fear Factor," "the word 'GAY' [is] ridiculous, limiting, defining in a negative way and outdated." Bojneon doesn't use the word therefore.

I contend that a man is a man is a man. He's not gay or straight or bi. He just is all man. Perhaps we can leave the term "gay" for the sodomites and effeminates, those who defy our sacred history and our holy existence doing unto the male body what men would not dare do. Men don't admire the male body being raped or turned into a woman. James was attracted to the masculinity he admired in the bodybuilders and wrestlers who flaunted their masculinity. I understand that James; I admired and still admire the male physique. Yet I love women also.

What should we think about ourselves then? We should think that we are homosapiens attracted to our own speices--other homosapiens who happen to come in male and female genders. A speices has to be attracted to its own for survival, for peace, for health, etc. Our bodies are sensitive to the touch of other homosapiens and it matters not if that homosapien is male or female. We are made to connect. Really, we are all "homo"sexuals as we are "homo" sapiens.

Peace

Redd

Greg Milliken

Re: holding and being held, rubbing cocks and enjoying male pleasure

6-19-2006

Redd,

I agree that the term gay has limited meaning.

However.

I also think it's a mistake to leave the term to be used solely by the analists.

Because in the dictionary it says that gay means a man who is attracted to a man.

So if we just give up the term and let the analists have it, then the only "gay" identified people are men into anal.

Which means that, by association, any man into other men is also into anal.

That's how we came into the world as it exists today. Men who can avoid the term and the label have done so, either by claiming that they were drunk, or he sucked MY dick, or whichever denial they want to use.

Whereas the only people taking on the term have been effeminate analists who want to destroy men who have sex with men.

I think a better strategy for the term "gay" would be to reclaim it.

To make it's original meaning the only meaning associated with it again.

And to call the people who want every man who loves men to be into anal what they really are:

Homophobes.

The truth is -- the people of the frot movement are the truly "gay" males.

We are the ones who love men.

We are the ones who have *sex* with men.

What analists do is neither loving nor sex.

But it does destroy the mental health and happiness of men who love men.

As it does their physical bodies and therefore their lives.

Someone who tries to maim and kill gay men, and who tries to destroy their mental health, couldn't be anything other than a homophobe.

Look at the vocabulary.

Analists call each other faggot, pussyboy, mancunt, "gurl", bitch, whore, slut, etc.

You don't use those terms if you have good feelings about your fellow men.

Those are terms of hatred and vitriol.

If you use them occasionally in a certain context, they can be humorous. Most analists use them quite literally and as a regular part of their vocabularies.

So does it still make sense to let these people use the term "gay" for themselves?

Or does it make no sense?

I don't think it makes sense to allow homophobes the exclusive use of a term that describes the rest of us.

I think it's stupid to do so.

So instead of giving up and letting them have it, and by default allowing them to smear the rest of us with the way they misuse it...

Let's do what real men do.

Let's fight back.

Restore the original meaning of the word.

And call these people what they are.

Homophobes.

"Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice." --

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Oscar Moreno-Vallejo

Re: holding and being held, rubbing cocks and enjoying male pleasure

6-20-2006

I couldnīt agree more with you Greg. You are in the right track. Anal penetration promiscuity and effeminacy are deeply homophophic. These 3 self-destructive behaviors provide nothing but trouble physical harm alienation disease and in the end... death. Thank God we have a brave and noble guy like you ready to shout this.

Bill Weintraub

6-24-2006

Re: holding and being held, rubbing cocks and enjoying male pleasure

Thank you Redd and Greg and Oscar

You're all true Warriors.

I want to differentiate somehow between the passing issue of the word "gay" vs "sodomite" vs "whatever" -- and the universal truth which Redd is expressing not just about men but human beings.

First let's look at the semantic question.

The use of the word "gay" is something which has come up before, for example in My GAY Identity Crisis, a message thread started by Warrior Jedi, which looks at that issue in some depth.

And there is disagreement among us about this word -- no question of that.

For myself, I certainly agree with Redd that first and foremost, "a man is a man is a man."

And that the word "gay" is an artificial and ultimately very constraining construct.

However, as someone who's spent his life as a political and gay activist, I, like Greg Milliken, am not willing to just give that word to the analists.

Because anal is NOT what it means.

My definition of "gay" is "having a more-or-less exclusive erotic attraction to people of your own sex."

And that's all.

When the term "gay" was chosen by Gay Liberationists in the very early 70s, it was not connected to one sex act or another, and we should not allow it to be now.

And for me as a practical matter, who's out in the public arena fighting these battles, when someone like Andriote says to me, "You're disparaging gay men," I respond, No, I'm an openly GAY and proud man trying to help my community, as I have done throughout my life.

Similarly, when someone like Walter Odets says, "You're homophobic," I say, No, I'm an openly homosexual man who has spent his lifetime celebrating love between loving men as one of the highest expressions of the human spirit.

So: we need to be clear with these people that there's a huge difference between being critical of anal, or of AIDS policy, or of any other aspect of public life which is commonly attributed to "gay people"; and being anti-gay.

Because the two are not synonomous.

We can be critical of aspects of gay male life while still supporting the right of MEN to love other MEN.

At the same time, and that said, Redd, I agree with you that the whole construct "gay" needs to pass away.

Now, I've offered guys the identity of Frot men for those who want it.

Ultimately, however, we're ALL just guys.

MEN.

Guys are guys.

MEN are MEN.

MEN have sex with WOMEN.

MEN have sex with MEN.

And the fewer labels the better.

Redd:

Men don't admire the male body being raped or turned into a woman. James was attracted to the masculinity he admired in the bodybuilders and wrestlers who flaunted their masculinity. I understand that James; I admired and still admire the male physique. Yet I love women also.

What should we think about ourselves then? We should think that we are homosapiens attracted to our own speices--other homosapiens who happen to come in male and female genders. A species has to be attracted to its own for survival, for peace, for health, etc. Our bodies are sensitive to the touch of other homosapiens and it matters not if that homosapien is male or female. We are made to connect. Really, we are all "homo"sexuals as we are "homo" sapiens.

Beautifully said.

"A species has to be attracted to its own for survival, for peace, for health, etc."

"Survival, peace, health."

That's correct.

We know that on a very basic biological level, men are often attracted to those physical traits in women which indicate an ability to bear strong and healthy children.

What then are men attracted to in other men?

Muscularity, masculinity, and aggression.

The attributes which indicate a strong MAN who would able if called upon to FIGHT by one's side.

Men need Women for child-bearing.

Men need Men for allies.

For WARRIORS.

NakedWrestler has said, and he's hardly the first human being to observe this, that men commonly size each other up.

There are two questions being raised:

Can I take you in a fight?

What would you be like as my buddy fighting beside me?

That's why I've often said that frequently -- not always but frequently -- true male bonding is a passage through rage to love.

That after all is the theme of virtually every male "buddy movie" ever made.

And it's in Greek mythology.

In the great Greek epic, Seven Against Thebes, two warriors -- Polyneices, whose name means "Much Strife"; and Tydeus, whose name means "Thumper" -- meet in an argument which comes to blows.

They're separated by the King, who gives each of them one of his daughters in marriage.

Afterwards, they become inseparable allies, leading the war against Thebes.

And what are their chief athletic skills?

Tydeus is a boxer.

Polyneices a wrestler.

These are WARRIOR archetypes which occur over and over and over again in human culture.

Redd:

A species has to be attracted to its own for survival, for peace, for health, etc. Our bodies are sensitive to the touch of other homosapiens and it matters not if that homosapien is male or female. We are made to connect. Really, we are all "homo"sexuals as we are "homo" sapiens.

Again, beautifully said.

Thank you again Redd and Greg and Oscar.

True Warriors all.

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Redd

Re: holding and being held, rubbing cocks and enjoying male pleasure

6-25-2006

Gentlemen,

Sometimes I feel my contributions to this forum is an invasion, but Bill has broached an issue that's important to men., hence important to me. Although I'm unfamiliar with the gay community saved the stereotypes in the media perpetuated by analists (is "analist" a coined termed?), I am connected to men and to the human race. To me, Bill, as an advocate for monogamy and commitment, is concerned for the welfare of humanity.

In his essay "Male Sexuality and the Fragile Planet: A Theological Reflection," Dr. James B. Nelson names three types of violence that threaten humanity and he dubbs these "sexually transmitted diseases." Basically, Dr. Nelson argues that men's, particularly Western men, repression and "alienation and distortions in our sexual existence have direct and deep connections with . . . social ills" (274). "Social violence," he claims, "is a sexually transmitted disease" (274).

The spread of AIDS by analists, especially when they know sodomy causes infection that causes AIDS, is an act of violence, social violence. Indeed, analists have declared war on humanity. The numbers of persons dying and who have died because of contracting AIDS via anal intercourse are no less than casualities.

I agree with some others on this site that sodomy is rape, and "rape is not an act of sexual lust but a violent act of domination" (Nelson 275). Rape, for instances, defines the spread colonialism. Colonists depicted the countries they colonized as effeminate, soft, and weak. The sex factor so imbued colonial aspirations that we forget how sex plays a role in racism, sexism, homophobia, envirnomental abuse, etc.

Why do analists resist Bill's call for safer sex through frot? Because analists have support from mainstream media/society who likewise have distorted sex, who've distorted human interaction and human need for emotional and physical connection with members of the human speices to develop spiritual connection.

Straight people have distorted men's relationships with men. Fear of sex and homophobia, which Dr. Bob Minor defines as fear of closeness with someone of the same sex, have forced men to separate from other men emotionall and physically. So many men rely on women for their every need. And we men know that a woman can't meet our every need nor can a man meet our every need. We need men and women (and I used "straight" and "gay" because they common in our linear thinking society; I deem them misnomers, however).

Bill, thanks so much for your efforts. You have my support. I wish more men, no matter how they identify, participate in this forum, this movement. This movement is a movement of peace. Men fight, yes, but fighting isn't violence. Boxers, marital artists, wrestlers are not enacting violence; theirs is a practiced, skilled discipline. Violence isn't. Violence is promiscuity, and violence kills unnecessarily, and violence is lke a mindless person who is out of control. The violent never embraces his victim at the end of a bout.

Peace

Redd

Bill Weintraub

Re: holding and being held, rubbing cocks and enjoying male pleasure

6-27-2006

Hey Redd

You're always welcome here.

You're a true Warrior and your posts are terrific.

Sometimes I feel my contributions to this forum is an invasion, but Bill has broached an issue that's important to men., hence important to me. Although I'm unfamiliar with the gay community saved the stereotypes in the media perpetuated by analists (is "analist" a coined termed?),

Yes.

I coined the term analist, as I did the term Frot.

An analist is simply a proponent of the dominant culture of anal penetration -- analism.

The idea of a dominant culture or dominant paradigm was developed by an historian of science named Tom Kuhn -- in a very influential book published in 1962 titled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Kuhn coined the terms "dominant paradigm" and "paradigm shift," which he used to describe how one model of the universe succeeded another.

Although he was writing about the history of science, other social scientists started using these terms, and now they're actually commonplace.

All I've done is apply the idea of a dominant paradigm to first the medical model of homosexuality (which was actually part of a dominant culture of heterosexuality), and then to the anal penetration model of homosexuality, which succeeded it.

Now, the problem with dominant paradigms or dominant cultures -- and I tend to use the terms interchangeably -- is that they ossify.

And then they do a lot of damage.

The medical model of homosexuality was tremendously destructive.

It was never valid -- there was no science behind it -- but it claimed that only heterosexuality was normal and that all homosexuals were mentally ill.

And clearly if you take someone who's sane and tell him repeatedly that he's mentally ill -- you've created a problem.

So what I learned -- and I first wrote about this in my letters to POZ in 1999 -- is that "the only way to survive is to constantly challenge the dominant paradigm, be it heterosexuality or anal intercourse."

And that's what you have to do.

Because if you, as I did, bought into the dominant culture of heterosexuality, it destroyed your life.

And if, having survived that dominant culture, you then bought into the dominant culture of anal penetration -- that destroyed your life.

So what's tragic about my generation of gay men is that those of us who survived psychiatry were then killed by anal.

And those were both dominant paradigms.

I managed to survive both of them -- but it was by the skin of my teeth.

A few days ago there was an interview with Larry Kramer in the NY Times.

Larry's now 71.

According to the article, Larry saw his first psychiatrist in 1953 -- the first of many.

Then he did anal.

Larry today has HIV, hepatitis, and has had to have a liver transplant.

He's alive, but ...

Under a different cultural model, none of those things would have happened to him.

So a dominant culture is not just some intellectual construct.

It has real world consequences.

Very serious consequences.

I have a long disquisition about dominant cultures in a message thread in Warriors Speak started by Greg Milliken and called Reflexive Thinking.

Guys -- I know some people don't like all the links I put in these posts.

But they're only here to help.

You needn't click on them.

And if you do click on them, they open in a new browser window so you don't lose this page.

Reflexive Thinking is a long post, but it spells out as clearly as I can the idea and workings of a dominant culture.

And you really need to understand that.

Otherwise you can't understand your situation.

I am connected to men and to the human race. To me, Bill, as an advocate for monogamy and commitment, is concerned for the welfare of humanity.

I am.

I wish more people understood that.

In his essay "Male Sexuality and the Fragile Planet: A Theological Reflection," Dr. James B. Nelson names three types of violence that threaten humanity and he dubbs these "sexually transmitted diseases." Basically, Dr. Nelson argues that men's, particularly Western men, repression and "alienation and distortions in our sexual existence have direct and deep connections with . . . social ills" (274). "Social violence," he claims, "is a sexually transmitted disease" (274).

The spread of AIDS by analists, especially when they know sodomy causes infection that causes AIDS, is an act of violence, social violence. Indeed, analists have declared war on humanity. The numbers of persons dying and who have died because of contracting AIDS via anal intercourse are no less than casualities.

Yes, that's absolutely correct.

That to me is the next or at least part of the next message to get out:

That condom campaigns don't work because anal is so dangerous and so rough on the condom.

And because condom use is so often inconsistent and / or incorrect.

So that every gay and bi man infected through anal is in effect collateral damage from this insane effort to preserve an unnatural and inherently dangerous act -- anal penetration -- and an inhuman and violent deathstyle -- promiscuity.

I agree with some others on this site that sodomy is rape, and "rape is not an act of sexual lust but a violent act of domination" (Nelson 275).

Yes.

Recently one of my critics claimed that I was labeling males who do anal "evil rapists."

But how then are we supposed to regard this act?

As an expression of love?

As Warrior Gene says: "There's no male connection, no bond, just raw lust. It's not sex or love, it's violence and power. The problem is implied in the politically-coerced masculine/feminine roles."

If the roles are coerced -- then it's not consensual.

Which begs the question: Can a man give true consent to his degradation?

And what happens once he's been penetrated and is helpless?

The answer is that the delicate tissues of his anus and rectum are torn and damaged in a violent assault.

Which for about a million American gay men has led to HIV and HPV infection.

Half of those guys are dead and the other half will be dependent on toxic meds for the rest of their lives.

Thank you anal penetration.

Rape, for instances, defines the spread colonialism. Colonists depicted the countries they colonized as effeminate, soft, and weak. The sex factor so imbued colonial aspirations that we forget how sex plays a role in racism, sexism, homophobia, envirnomental abuse, etc.

Yes.

As Robert Loring has pointed out, rape and specifically anal rape is used to demoralize and dis-spirit conquered soldiers.

Why do analists resist Bill's call for safer sex through frot? Because analists have support from mainstream media/society who likewise have distorted sex, who've distorted human interaction and human need for emotional and physical connection with members of the human species to develop spiritual connection.

Straight people have distorted men's relationships with men. Fear of sex and homophobia, which Dr. Bob Minor defines as fear of closeness with someone of the same sex, have forced men to separate from other men emotionally and physically.

Yes.

This is a great tragedy.

So many men rely on women for their every need. And we men know that a woman can't meet our every need nor can a man meet our every need. We need men and women (and I used "straight" and "gay" because they common in our linear thinking society; I deem them misnomers, however).

Yes.

We need both men and women.

And we need to respect both.

Gay male culture respects neither.

This is something I said in a previous post titled Patrick and Bill:

Gay male culture mocks femininity and uses the bawdy burlesques of drag to deride women.

And, as Patrick has said, gay male butt-fuckers steal the very masculinity from their lover they say they want him to have -- turning him into a pseudo-woman.

Yet a man is not fit or equipped to mimic a woman.

And to men who love women, seeing gay men try to do so is an insult at a very visceral level.

For women are not less than men, they are our counterparts intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.

That's why a man can be a warrior; and a woman can be a warrior; but a man who's been made into a pseudo-woman through being penetrated cannot be a warrior.

And that is the crux of the problem between us and the gay male establishment.

We respect masculinity, and femininity, and aggression. The gay establishment respects none of these, rathers it mocks them all, and in so doing turns life in the gay male subculture into a hell of anal promiscuity, STDs, drag, attitude, and bitchiness.

Bill, thanks so much for your efforts. You have my support. I wish more men, no matter how they identify, participate in this forum, this movement. This movement is a movement of peace. Men fight, yes, but fighting isn't violence. Boxers, martial artists, wrestlers are not enacting violence; theirs is a practiced, skilled discipline. Violence isn't. Violence is promiscuity, and violence kills unnecessarily, and violence is like a mindless person who is out of control. The violent never embraces his victim at the end of a bout.

Yes.

You can see for yourself.

Here are two pix.

One of bashers -- mindlessly violent killers;

and one of some UFC-style mixed martial artists.

There's an enormous difference.

Redd, thank you again for posting.

I hope you'll continue to post because yours is an important voice -- very important.

As I've said, our sites and the Alliance are a collaboration and an evolution.

When new guys join the Alliance they bring a new perspective and contribute to our ongoing growth and understanding of the issues facing Men who Love Men.

Which have implications not just for men, but for all humanity.

Redd, thank you again.

You're a true Warrior.

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.