That's true so far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.

In reality, what Dr Holsinger did was equate "homosexual" sex with anal "sex," and then characterize *anal* as unnatural and unhealthy.

And the Times, again, simply repeated his very purposeful error in their news story article, not bothering to point out, as a sexologist had in an ABC News article, that "many homosexuals do not engage" in anal.

In doing that -- in going along with Dr Holsinger's conflation of gay with anal -- the Times created a perfect opportunity for us -- if we were able to exploit it.

But we're not able to exploit it -- because we don't have the money to exploit it.

If we had the money, we could buy a half page in the Times which would say:

It's not gay sex.

It's anal sex.

And which would explain that a significant portion of gay-identified men -- and an even larger number of just plain "men who have sex with men" -- NEVER do anal.

And we wouldn't be making that up.

Not only do we know that from our own life experience --

but there's at least one study floating around out there which says that at least three-quarters of all men who ever have sex with men NEVER do anal.

That's 75%.

Minimally.

And we would point out, correctly, that the Times doesn't paint any other community that it covers as monolithic.

It doesn't do that to Jews, it doesn't do it to Blacks, or to Asians or Latinos -- or anybody.

It would never do that.

It would never suggest that all American Jews are ultra-Orthodox;

or ultra-liberal;

or supporters -- or critics -- of Israel.

It would never do that because it knows it isn't true.

Nor would the Times suggest that all African-Americans partake of gangsta culture.

Or that all Asian-Americans excel academically.

It wouldn't do that because it recognizes that those are stereotypes.

So: The Times would never suggest that all members of a given minority are the same.

Yet it does precisely that with gay men.

Whom it consistently depicts as gender-bending, promiscuous, buttboys.

That's what it does.

And if we could say that -- substituting, just for the sake of family values, "men who participate in anal" for buttboys -- the Times would respond because it would have to.

Plus -- we could say what I said in the first Holsinger post:

• That the gay leadership needs to acknowledge that not all gay men do anal.

• That it needs to acknowledge that many gay men don't merely dislike anal, they detest it.

• That the gay leadership and the AIDS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS need to tell the gay male community that it's NEVER right to pressure or otherwise force another man to do anal.

• That the gay leadership needs to acknowledge that HIV is not a gay disease, it's an anal disease.

• And it needs to acknowledge that attempts at containing HIV by distributing and promoting the use of condoms have failed.

  Failed miserably.

• Whereas the Dutch demonstrated from 84 to 91 that they could reduce the number of new cases of HIV infection to ZERO -- by discouraging men from doing anal.

THAT'S ALL TRUE.

EVERY WORD.

And we could point out that although Dr Holsinger's conflation of gay sex with anal sex is incorrect, his description of the health problems related to anal gels with that of openly gay physician and ano-rectal surgeon Dr Stephen Goldstone.

And we could note that former Surgeon General Koop, who's widely respected both in the nation and in the Congress, has warned against the dangers of anal.

We could say all that.

And we could add that the gay male community, which claims to "honor diversity," in reality denigrates and persecutes men who don't do anal --

even though every authority agrees that anal is DANGEROUS, and that non-anal alternatives, most especially FROT and mutual masturbation, are far SAFER.

We could put those facts before the public --

facts which are all true and beyond dispute --

IF WE HAD THE MONEY.

Yet YOU won't do it.

You won't donate even ten or twenty dollars per month towards that end.

What's your fantasy?

That I'm going to take your twenty dollars and run off to Switzerland?

GET REAL.

If my life ambition were to live on Lake Lucerne, I'd be there already.

I'm an activist.

I'm fifty-nine and I've been an activist all my adult life.

Which means I've been thirty-five years in the struggle.

I'm not going to change now.

My passion is social change.

My particular passion is to make this world a better place for Men.

To make it possible for ALL MEN to OPENLY LOVE their fellows.

In a way which is Worthy of them as MEN.

Worthy of them *as MEN*.

That means PHALLICALLY.

As MEN.

That means FAITHFULLY.

As MEN.

That means with the full power of their MASCULINITY and in full exaltation of their mutual MANHOOD.

Worthy of them as MEN.

And worthy of them as WARRIORS.

That means with FIGHTING SPIRIT.

FIGHTING SPIRIT.

MANLY VIRTUE.

VALOUR.

The hallmark of the WARRIOR, the hallmark of MASCULINITY, the hallmark of the MAN.

That's my goal.

That's my passion.

Not money.

And YOU KNOW IT.

Yet you won't part with those ten or twenty dollars.

You're the most self-impeded group I've ever experienced, and you are TERMINALLY self-impeded.

And when I use the word "terminally" I do NOT mean it as a metaphor.

I mean it as real -- your stinginess and stupidity are going to LITERALLY KILL YOU.

I've seen it before.

I saw it in the previous generation of gay and bi men.

Not ancient history.

But a history which is still on-going.

Gay and bi men.

Of whom approximately 550,000 in America alone have died of HIV.

I saw them die.

If I live long enough -- I'll see you die too.

Because all the elements are in place for another huge die-off of gay "men."

Look where we are today:

HIV prevalence is at 25% and rising.

HPV prevalence is at 67% and rising.

In some segments of the gay male community, those figures are far higher.

Why are they so high?

Because of anal.

Because of promiscuity.

And because the males who acquire those diseases believe they deserve to.

Just like they deserve the pain;

the humiliation;

the effeminization.

"Get on your knees --bitch!"

"You're a homo -- get used to it."

Don't say you haven't heard these words -- if not aimed directly at you, then said about others -- because you have.

Those words constitute a powerful inducement not just to low self-esteem but to SELF-DESTRUCTION.

Which means that if you're sexually active, sooner or later -- and most likely sooner -- you'll be exposed to pathogens like HIV and HPV and LGV.

I GUARANTEE IT.

And then there's the IMMENSE psychological and spiritual cost to yourself of having to spend your ENTIRE LIFE in hiding.

If you're "gay" you hide from the analists.

If you're "straight" you hide from everybody.

The cost of doing that is so huge it can't be put into dollars and cents.

But consider:

A man in ancient Greece didn't have to conceal that he was attracted to other Men.

Nor did he have to pretend that he did anal.

He didn't have to do either.

He could just be himself.

A MAN.

Warrior found at Riace
This confident, proud, MAN is of the Warrior generation which defeated Persia

This MAN, heir to a Warrior Society which exalted Masculinity and Manhood, and which celebrated the Love of Men, was FREE to be himself.

You aren't.

And when a MAN can't be a MAN -- he's in trouble.

You're in trouble.

Moreover, since, long after the trouble has been explained to you, you still refuse to address that trouble -- it's become trouble of your own making.

Interestingly, while I was working on this post, I came across a news story article which presents a sharp contrast to the way you've behaved and continue to behave.

The article is about a very young man -- and though he was young he was a Man -- who was killed while serving as an American solider in Iraq:

Troops mourn teenaged comrade who insisted: 'I ain't no baby'

7-10-2007

Army Spc. Christopher D. Kube was memorialized by comrades

He enlisted at age 17 and volunteered to be a gunner on Humvee

The newlywed soldier was killed after eight months in Iraq

"You were like a little brother to us all," wrote one soldier

FORWARD OPERATING BASE LOYALTY, Iraq (AP) -- Army Spc. Christopher D. Kube was memorialized Thursday in a packed theater at this outpost in east Baghdad. Another fallen soldier. Another reminder, far from the public spotlight, of the grief that hits not only families of this war's casualties but also their comrades in arms.

Army Spc. Christopher Kube needed his parents' permission when he enlisted at age 17.

He was a newlywed.

He was killed on July 14, eight months after he arrived in Iraq on a deployment that made him nervous from the start, as one fellow soldier remembered. Back at his home station, Fort Carson, Colorado, he drew attention for being so young, so short, so slight and so cheerful.

"When I saw him I asked, `How old are you, 10?"' recalled his platoon sergeant, Staff Sgt. Eugenie Byron-Griffin. "`What are you doing here? You're a baby.' He looked me straight in my eye, with his chest poked out like he does, and he said, `I'm 17, and I ain't no baby. I'm a man."'

Tears flowing, she added: "Everyone in the unit used to mess with him because he was so small. And almost always he would fight hard to prove his manhood. Like when he purchased his first vehicle and bragged about how little he paid for it."

He was determined, Byron-Griffin said: "Even when he was afraid, he would face his fear straight-up. And that was what he did when he enlisted in the Army. He said he was afraid he would deploy to Iraq. But he wanted to make a better life for himself and his family."

Born on September 7, 1988, in Sterling Heights, Michigan, Kube enlisted on October 25, 2005, just making the minimum legal age of 17 for joining the military.

Last November he and his unit said their goodbyes and headed for war.

Last Saturday, as he stood in the gun turret of an armored Humvee that was ferrying a team of soldiers to a meeting to promote reconciliation among rival Iraqi religious rivals, a roadside bomb -- the leading killer of American soldiers -- struck him, killing him instantly.

Kube was with G Company, 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. Originally assigned to supply duty, he volunteered to be a gunner and a driver in convoys that ferry commanders and, in some cases, visiting VIPs. He chose danger.

His memorial was, in some ways, like those held almost every evening across Baghdad and beyond. A chaplain gave an invocation. The soldier's commander gave a heartfelt tribute. Fellow soldiers recalled their time together, their sense of loss, their grief and pain.

It was commonplace and yet so extraordinary, knowing that this youngster's death was another loss for an America torn by four years of war, divided over how to end it, weary of the cost in blood and treasure.

In their remembrances, no soldiers questioned the war. Instead they honored a life. They sat in silence as a series of photos of Kube were projected on a large screen. Words of tribute flashed on the screen.

"You were like a little brother to us all," wrote one.

"I feel sorry for the rest of the world," wrote another.

Music played in the background.

At the foot of a stage a helmet with Kube's nameband around it sat atop an upright rifle, his dog tags dangling, a pair of desert combat boots neatly in front.

"To my fellow soldiers I say, Kube is gone but never forgotten," said Capt. Steve Poe, his company commander. "I ask you to pick it up and drive on. That's what I believe Kube would do. He's just that kind of guy."

"I ain't no baby -- I'm a man."

This guy was young, short, and slight.

So was the mythic Greek hero Tydeus.

Do I dare to make such a comparison?

YES!

And so would have the ancients.

They would have seen in Spc Kube a Tydeus figure.

It's called mythic identification.

And it was common in the ancient world.

People identified with and modeled their lives on figures out of myth.

And that's why an archetype like Tydeus existed:

To provide a role-model for guys who were small.

Oh yeah.

Here's what Statius says when we first meet Tydeus:

Proud in his prime, but soul and strength no less
Supported Tydeus; in his tiny frame
Through every limb a greater valour reigned.

"in his tiny frame through every limb a greater valour reigned"

That was Spc Kube.

This guy was young, short, and slight.

Yet he didn't take any guff.

"He would fight hard to prove his manhood."

"He faced his fear straight-up."

"He volunteered."

If this kid could do this at 17 -- and in such a dangerous place -- and no doubt never having heard of Tydeus -- why can't you do it?

Why won't you do it?

Why won't you fight?

Why won't you face your fears?

Why won't you volunteer?

These are the same questions I've asked you over and over again.

And I've quoted from one of our Jewish sages, who said:

If I'm not for myself, who will be for me?

If I'm not for others, what am I?

And if not now, when?

Spc Kube fought for himself.

He fought for his friends.

And he did it NOW.

He made no excuses, he didn't wait, he did it NOW.

Some of you may question where Army Spc Kube chose to fight.

Some of you may say -- he should have chosen a less dangerous place.

Yet ONLY Kube knew which place was right for him.

I know, nevertheless, that some of you will question where he went.

But what cannot be questioned is that he did choose to fight; he did volunteer.

What would have become of him, if instead of fighting to prove his manhood -- he put it on hold and let it be suppressed?

If instead of facing his fears, he ran from them?

If instead of volunteering, he hid in the crowd?

He would have been diminished as a man and as a human being.

He would have had an excuse, because he was indeed in a dangerous place.

But he still would have been diminished.

Spc Kube was in a dangerous place.

But YOU are not.

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR FAILURE TO FIGHT.

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR FAILURE TO FACE YOUR FEAR.

AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR HIDING AND COWERING -- YOUR FAILURE TO VOLUNTEER.

Your behavior is cowardly.

Your behavior is inexcusable.

You need to do something about it and you need to do it NOW.

As I said in to suffer and be strong -- life is fleeting.

I also said that all that a MAN can do in the face of that fact -- is SUFFER AND BE STRONG.

You don't want to suffer.

And you don't know how to be strong.

The one thing you know how to do -- is do nothing.

To be weak.

To be dilatory.

To waste time.

You've wasted a LOT of time already.

Wasted.

Don't waste any more.

Over the last eight years I've seen far too many of these opportunities come -- and go.

Because you won't part with a few dollars.

One day this site will be gone.

And then what will you do?

Remember what this post is about:

The New York Times, which has an immense power to shape public opinion, is, for the sake of its anti-masculine agenda, lying about your life.

YOUR ONE SWEET PRECIOUS LIFE.

The Times is lying.

About YOU.

Doesn't that bother you???

The Times is saying that if you're "gay" -- which is the word the public understands to mean "a man who has sex with men" -- you do anal.

That's what it's saying.

And it will not, even though ABC News did, say plainly and simply that not all "gay" men do anal.

It won't do that because it doesn't want to countenance even the least and tiniest attack upon anal.

Because it understands that anal effeminizes, and it thinks that effeminization is a good thing.

Don't believe me?

Here are just a few of the articles from the Times we've reported on in which Times writers make clear that effeminacy and gender-bending -- are social goods -- and that Masculinity and Manliness -- are bad:

• NY Times attacks "Manly" movie and its "Warrior Ethic"; this movie review attacks the Warrior ethos in the movie 300, which is about the Spartan defeat of the Persians at Thermopylae -- and which was by and large true to the historical facts and to the way the Spartans both fought and thought.

  The reviewer specifically and repeatedly mocks and attacks the movie's presentation of the Spartans as "free, manly men."

• The fruits of heterosexualization: "Christian" website pushes anal and fisting; Slate warns of big increase in HETERO anal; this post includes excerpts from a Times article heartily extolling "intersexed" activism -- even though the activism it turns out is by one person.

• NY Times goes gaga for the girl within, endorses prison buttfucking; this one lavishes praise on the transgendered.

• NY Times creams its jeans for drag; Harvard honors "Transgender Leader"; Frat boys fined for mocking Brokeback; this one salutes a cable TV show out of the Bronx which features drag, and laments the "macho" attitudes of "ordinary" guys in the Bronx, who, because masculine, must be "straight."

• Channeling Judy; more and very fervent praise of drag.

• Prisoners of Love; pushes condoms for prisons so that inmates can be penetrated "safely" -- I'll have more to say about this one below.

And those are just a few.

Fact is, the Times has a consistent editorial stance in favor of drag, camp, effeminacy, transgenderism, and what it refers to as "gender-bending."

All of which it equates with "gay."

And the Times has a consistent and clear editorial mistrust of masculinity.

Which it equates with aggression, crime, oppression, racism, homophobia, brutality, violence, and war.

You can see that in the Times' treatment of UFC, which the Times consistently likens to "human cockfighting":

Alive and Thriving in the Midwest: Brawling in Cages, July 28, 2005:

Opponents have called it "human cockfighting," a brutish pseudo-sport.

Few Rules, but to the Fighters, Pure Sport, July 8, 2007:

[these fights] belong to a class of sport sometimes called mixed martial arts, ultimate fighting, extreme fighting or cage fighting. But many New York lawmakers likened them to human cockfights, and in 1997, banned them from the state.

As someone who lives rurally, I suspect that the Times' reporters who so glibly repeat these comparisons to cockfighting are urbanites who've never seen a cockfight, and who exist in a sort of PETA-like innocence of what animals actually do to each other.

What's the reality?

Are UFC and other mixed martial arts the equivalent of cockfighting, in which two roosters wearing deadly spurs are forced to fight to the death?

No.

This is a sport in which two carefully matched men voluntarily compete.

Is it true that there are "few rules?"

No.

It's true that unlike in wrestling, you can punch; and that unlike in boxing, you can kick and grapple.

But the truth is that submission fighting is a highly-technical sport, and that the guys who compete are on the whole men who've trained intensively in the various martial arts -- all their lives.

So the notion of "few rules" is actually misleading.

These are competitive fights between men who are very skilled in their art and who to be successful must follow MANY rules.

Is the sport, given that it's full-contact, safe?

Yes.

As Naked Wrestler has explained, mixed martial arts has a built-in safety valve which is KEY to the sport:

the Tap Out:

Yes there ARE injuries in this sport (there are injuries in ALL sports) -- which are always attended to and there are LOTS of safeguards. Submission fighting, as brutal as it might appear to the untrained observer, has a significant safety valve which keeps it one of the safest sports around: the Tap Out.

read my abs
TAP OUT

The Tap Out stops the danger in an instant. Fighters always respect each other in spite of losing a fight; the fight is more important than winning the fight. So there is NO shame in tapping out.

But the only thing to be feared and enjoyed at the same time is the overcoming of your own society-imposed fear of aggression. In fight sports, a young man is able to experience the ultimate in manhood: The Warrior Male.

NW says:

"the fight is more important than winning the fight"

"there is NO shame in tapping out"

"In fight sports, a young man is able to experience the ultimate in manhood: The Warrior Male."

So: these are not cockfights.

These are Manfights.

And there's a huge difference.

Does that look like cockfighting to you?

At the end of a cockfight, one of the roosters is usually dead.

How bout these pics?

Do these guys look like they're violent and/or that they intend to kill each each other?

The Times NEVER talks about this sort of Masculine and Manly camaraderie in the fight sports.

Instead, it denigrates Masculinity and Male Brotherhood while lavishing praise on effeminacy, camp, gender-bending, and drag.

The Times is a tad ambivalent about promiscuity -- at least if it's hetero.

It winks at "homosexual" promiscuity -- which is to be expected in an agent of heterosexualization, since promiscuity destroys the bonds between Men.

And, as its editorials make clear, the Times is gung-ho for anal.

And it's protective of anal.

Because it thinks that to attack anal is to weaken the sexual revolution, and, in some mysterious way, to harm women.

And thus empower what the Times thinks of as the forces of darkest reaction.

The Times is wrong.

To critique anal -- is simply to critique anal.

But the Times has a huge investment now in not critiquing anal.

For example -- on July 18 the Times ran yet another editorial endorsing the forced distribution of condoms in prison.

That's its editorial stance -- that condoms MUST be offered to ALL prisoners.

In fact, that's been its editorial stance for more than two years.

You can read an earlier post I made about that -- called Prisoners of Love.

You may think you're a prisoner of love.

But you're not.

That's a romantic notion and you'd best get rid of it.

You're a prisoner of lust.

Your own of course.

And the lust of certain groups -- in this case analists aka the gay establishment and their gender feminist allies -- for power.

In advocating the forced distribution of condoms in prison, the Times understands fully and completely that those condoms are going to be used for anal penetration.

Which is why the Times doesn't want anyone talking about the true and actual dangers of anal penetration.

Nor does it want to talk about disinhibition -- which many studies -- including these --

Richens, J., Imrie, J., & Weiss, H. Sex and death: why does HIV continue to spread when so many people know about the risks? J. of R. Statist Soc A 2003;166, 207-215.

Kajubi P, Kamya M, Kamya S, Chen S, McFarlandW, Hearst N. Increasing condom use without reducing HIV risk: results of a controlled community trial in Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005;40:77-82

-- have demonstrated are an irreversible concomitant of condom promotion.

Translation: you distribute condoms, you have more anal, and more HIV and hep C -- the very diseases the Times claims it's worried about.

But that's not its true concern.

As I pointed out in the Zimbabwe post, evidence-based modes of HIV / AIDS prevention don't interest "AIDS advocacy" groups like the Times.

Rather, the Times has an ideological agenda.

What the Times wants to do is extend a certain version of the sexual revolution -- a version endorsed by its analist budz -- to jails.

That's what the Times wants to do.

It wants to further the emasculation of men in prison.

It wants fewer Men -- and more males.

And it wants society to give its imprimatur to that emasculation by paying for the acquisition and distribution of condoms to prisoners.

It wants society, through its prisons and elsewhere, to endorse males anally penetrating other males.

Yet we know that just in terms of health, that's a really bad idea.

A hideously bad idea.

For years, society has de facto endorsed anal penetration among gay men, by heartily funding condom campaigns aimed at those men.

The result has been a new and intensified HIV epidemic, and epidemics of other STD, all brought about by barebacking and the ever-increasing identification of gay with anal.

Now: What about male-male sex in prison?

What we've said about male-male sex in prison, and the effort to control disease, is that you might be able to distribute condoms in prison if you did so in conjunction with a STRONG campaign to legitimize and popularize Frot and other mutually phallic forms of male-male sex -- including of course Mutual JO.

And if you SEVERELY PUNISHED ANAL RAPE.

Punish rape, reward Frot and JO, and tell the guys that if they're determined to do anal -- use a condom.

But that the anal had better be consensual.

That's fair and balanced.

Forcing wardens, warders, and other prison personnel to distribute condoms -- is NOT.

But -- the Times doesn't want to talk about any of that.

Because that will undercut its condoms for prisoners campaign.

Which again, is ultimately not a public health measure, but an attempt to further extend the analist, pansexualist, and gender feminist version of the sexual revolution, which regards the EFFEMINZATION and EMASCULATION of MEN as a social good.

Do you think the emasculation of men is a social good?

If not, why aren't you protesting?

Here's what we say:

That anal penetration is a social evil and that analism is the enemy of humanity.

And we say that a Man who's Naturally Masculine will not do anal, will not be promiscuous, and will not endanger his partners -- male or female.

Our message is positive;

our message is true;

our message deserves to be heard.

So: you need to FIGHT BACK.

Because for the sake of advancing what it believes is a progressive and liberal agenda, the Times is destroying your life --

by allowing the most intimate aspect of your life to be characterized by a truly pernicious lie.

A lie which impacts ALL MEN.

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

OR ADMIT ONCE, FOR ALL, AND FOR EVER -- THAT YOU'RE NOT A MAN.

And YOU do NOT DESERVE the RIGHTS of a MAN.

Army Spc Kube fought for his rights as a Man.

That he was killed is terrible.

But at least he LIVED as a MAN.

He fought hard for his Manhood.

He faced his fear straight-up.

He volunteered.

In doing those things he succeeded in living a Warrior model of Manhood.

That's what Tydeus did.

He fought for his Manhood.

He faced his fears.

And was stronger for doing so:

Never in frame so slight
Has nature dared enfold such fiery might.

Tydeus

Tydeus volunteered to go, all alone, to demand that a tyrant resign his throne.

For his pains, he was set upon by 50 armed men, the usurper's henchmen.

Tydeus killed them all, and returned home, wounded, and not just unbowed, but PROUD:

And now Tydeus well on his homeward way
Was passing wearily across the land
Of Argos, down Prosymna's green hillsides --
A ghastly sight. His hair stood stiff with dust,
And from his shoulders dripped a filthy sweat
Into deep wounds. His sleepless bloodshot eyes
Bulged red; his lips were strained wide back
In gasping thirst; and, flushed with his fine feats,
His soul breathed a deep pride.

"his soul breathed a deep pride"

When was the last time your soul breathed a deep pride?

Spc Kube fought for his manhood.

He fought for his right to be a Man.

And he said so:

I ain't no baby. I'm a Man.

Can you say the same?

Will you?

The World -- and your MANHOOD -- are yours --

for the winning;

or for the losing.

FIGHT BACK

DONATE.

Bill Weintraub

July 27, 2007

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.