That's a very interesting idea.

It is basically the Greek idea.

Men for passionate friendship.

Wives for procreation; slaves, prostitutes, and concubines for (promiscuous) sex.

One has to wonder how widespread that pattern was pre-heterosexualization.

I think it was the norm.

And so does my foreign friend.

For example, Tobias Schneebaum, an artist and anthropologist who died not too long ago, told me and Brett that there was a similar pattern among certain New Guinean peoples whom he'd lived with:

Guys spent most of their time with other guys.

They paired with one guy for life.

They also had wives of course.

And they also had some sex with women outside of marriage.

But not with men.

They were de facto monogamous with men.

That's why guys, I put forward the byword "PHALLUS FIDELITY MASCULINITY" as a natural expression of the bonds between MEN.

Because historically and cross-culturally, it has been.

Let's go back to my foreign friend:

Even amongst the masculine-identified men --- who form a separate biological group, some are likely to be extremely masculine --- macho if you please (not in the cultural but natural sense) ----

just like in the feminine-identified males some are likely to be the extreme (transsexuals).

These extra-masculine men, to my mind, are more likely to be interested in other men. Their percentage may also be from 5% to 10%.

What does he mean here?

Well, for starters, that some men are NATURALLY macho.

NOT culturally.

But NATURALLY.

That's why I'm careful not to condemn macho men out of hand.

And that percentage-wise those extremely masculine men may correspond to those extremely feminine men who choose castration.

Now look at what he says:

"These extra masculine men, to my mind, are more likely to be interested in other men."

That corresponds to something I've seen in my own life, in the early days of Gay Lib -- that is to say, pre- analism.

There were certain guys you sometimes encountered in "same-sex" circles.

These guys were very masculine/macho, often former military, and often voiced a disdain for women which even then was politically incorrect.

They were found most often in the weight-lifting rooms of Ys and such.

It needs to be understood in that regard that in those days, weight-lifting was NOT a mainstream activity.

It was considered suspect because of its association with "athletic" mags and guys in posing straps.

And there's no question that the leader of the early weight-training movement, Bob Hoffman, was an exemplar of homoerotic athleticism.

Of course he had to conceal the homoerotic part, but it nevertheless shines through his work as head of the "Strength & Health Publishing Co." -- which was headquarted in York, Pennsylvania, home of the early body-building movement.

As a matter of fact, as a boy there was a book in my room.

I don't know how it got there.

It must have belonged either to my father or his brothers or perhaps to my mother's brother who was in the merchant marine.

It was called "BIG ARMS," it was written by Bob Hoffman, it was published in 1939, and it was nothing more than 238 pages of advice on how to get big bi's and tri's -- with a bunch of pix of champion bodybuilders like Sandow and John Grimek thrown in.

I still have the book, and here's one of the pix:

John Grimek

You get the idea.

Anyway, these macho guys who hung out in the weight rooms and such tended to disappear as the gay movement took off.

They should not be confused with that very artificial gay hypermasculinity, such as one sees among gay males, say, into leather.

They were macho, and they were into other masculine men, but they weren't "gay."

I have to say too that they weren't much liked.

Their machoism was out of tune with the counterculture of the time, which tended to favor a more relaxed sort of masculinity.

Nevertheless, I have no question that such men still exist.

Indeed, being in the position that I am, I sometimes hear rumors of such men.

Macho guys in sports, in professional athletics.

Guys you see on TV.

Guys who would be destroyed if they were thought to be "gay."

And in point of fact, they're not gay.

They're masculine men, naturally macho men, who are into other masculine men.

Anyways, I never pass on those rumors.

But I certainly wouldn't object if some of the people who whisper those sorts of things in my ear would show this post to some of those guys.

Because it might actually help them.

Guys:

Remember that almost everything you've ever been told about men, masculinity, and love between masculine men and indeed macho men, is a lie.

Remember that.

Think of all the lies you've been told.

Think of how destructive they've been in your life.

And FIGHT BACK.

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

Robert Loring

Re: Are some men naturally macho?

7-28-2006

I know some of these men so in answer to your speculation, Bill, yes such men are still around. As you say, they are naturally macho and many, if not most, are former military. They do tend to bond with other naturally masculine males and those bonds tend to be deeper than their bonds with women. Most that I know are NOT gay. Some are bisexual. Others are straight BUT their bonds with other males are very strong and solid. I would NOT find it surprising if they had frot encounters with other males but they never talk about such encounters. With some I have noticed that they will quickly form bonds with males who are somewhat on the feminine side also. They will take the physically weak and usually younger male under their wings, so to speak, and help them become physically strong. The bonds are sometimes obviously even erotic even though they try to play it all down. They tend to be loyal and supportive to the weaker male "friend" and they also tend to be rather protective of their physically weaker buddy.

Some of these men, if not most, are full of bravado and machoism mostly learned while in the military and much of it is an act. A mask worn to hide perhaps their own insecurity, at least by some. BUT, others I think, are naturally macho and it's no mask at all. In these macho-men machoism is not an attempt to hide a sense of self inadequacy. For these macho-men being macho is natural and is just the way they are, no hiding, no mask wearing, no attempt to cover up feelings of self inadequacy. They are just themselves. They are just naturally macho.

I have a friend who works in a prison who has often seen something similar. She says that she has observed numerous times a macho male taking a physically weaker male under his wings. She is quick to point out that what she is talking about is NOT the stereotypical prison butch-fem relationship in which the relationship is simply a matter of sexual convenience between two male inmates. She has observed that a macho male will take a physically weaker male under his wing and try to help the weaker male become physically strong and mentally strong as well. The macho inmate is most often very protective of his buddy within the prison population. She's also observed that the other inmates do NOT refer to the weaker male as the macho inmates "bitch." There is, she observes, a natural male bonding between the macho and weaker male. They are buddies in a close relationship but neither was is the "man or woman." Rather, she observes that they are both EQUALS. She points out that these relationships are NOT your typical homosexual prison relationships. "There is something different about them," she has said more than once.

"Of course we all who work at the facility know that the two men are most likely having sexual contact with each other," she has said. "But, I don't think it's your typical anal sexual relationship in which one inmate plays the role of the woman while the other plays the role of the man or husband." Most likely these two such men engage in frot with each other. Their relationships tend to be monogamous with each other. Their relationship tends to be that of equals in which there is no top/bottom. The macho male will take his weaker male buddy and train him in weightlifting to strengthen his body and he will also help his buddy inmate strengthen his mind so that he can better endure his own prison experience.

"These relationships are not the typical homosexual relationships you would expect to find in a correctional facility," my friend has often said. "There is something different about such relationships. Both inmates are pridefully males! But, in these relationships both inmates tend to honor each others masculinity and mutually respect each others masculinity. It's not what would typically be found in prison homosexual relationships at all. In fact, it is rather surprising!" She has told me that she and other prison authorities suspect there is a sexual relationship between two such men such as frot but they do not suspect their is an anal sexual relationship between the two. This lack of anal sex, she says, is one thing that makes these macho-fem relationships different. She has often said that to meet two such men outside prison walls and on the street one would NOT suspect any kind of homosexual relationship between the two as "they appear to be totally normal males."

Of course they are totally NORMAL males! They are men into FROT and doing what comes NATURALLY to them! They are not analists but simply being what they are which is NATURALLY MASCULINE. What my friend is calling "feminine" I think in her mind is a male who tends to be skinny, physically weak, and somewhat unsure of himself in his own mind. I would not call that feminine but apparently she and her correctional colleagues do call it that. I have, in fact, heard her say that these weaker "feminine" males are "not sissified." I think in her mind any male who is not physically strong is deemed to be feminine EVEN though this is certainly NOT SO. I know many physically weak males who are NOT feminized at all but tend to simply be naturally masculine which is what they are, NATURALLY masculine MALES.

So, are some males NATURALLY MACHO? I think there are some who in fact are. I don't think they wear a mask of machoism and I don't think they have a sense of self inadequacy or insecurity. They are, simply, naturally macho. It is just who and what they are as men. They deeply bond with other males and the bonds go beyond mere friendship. Some are married to women and/or have relationships with women but I would say that the primary relationship is their relationship with another male. It is that relationship that tends to endure and last. It is that relationship, M2M, that seems most valued by the naturally macho man.

In past posts I have said, regarding machoism, that it is "often a mask worn by some men in a futile effort to hide their own sense of insecurity." The keyword is "SOME" (not all). SOME men do, in fact, wear a mask of machoism in a futile effort to cover-up their own self uncertainty BUT NOT all macho men! Some me, I think, are NATURALLY MACHO and their machoism is no mask at all.

Such men are the TITANS amid the Warrior Brotherhood!!

So, I think there is in fact two kinds of machoism. One is culturally and socially learned machoism. This form of machoism IS a MASK worn by some men who feel inadequate and uncomfortable with their natural masculinity and homoerotic feelings for other males. BUT, there is another form of machoism and it is Natural Machoism which is NOT socially or culturally learned and which is NOT a mask at all. It is simply NATURAL and completely NORMAL for the naturally macho-man.

Young boys will buddy with other boys. They become "best buds" and they tend to not want much to do with girls. Boys will often engage in frot with each other especially during puberty. It seems that this "best buds" relationship is completely natural and their frot behavior with each other is also completely NATURAL and NORMAL. It is only when they get older that boys begin to allow girls into their lives and form relationships with them. Sometimes, if not often, one of the boys is macho while the other is not so macho. It is completely normal and natural. It is our wayward and unnatural society that teaches boys that it is not natural and normal. Just as it is our lost society that teaches men that frot and M2M relationships are not natural or normal. Right has been turned into wrong, and wrong into right, sadly.

Bill Weintraub

Re: Are some men naturally macho?

7-29-2006

Thank you Robert.

A wonderful and very illuminating reply.

You see, my foreign friend believes that men and women have a "masculine side" and "feminine side."

I think that when you start hypothesizing and conceptualizing in that way you get into trouble.

Of course there are physical and intellectual and emotional differences among men.

But should we say, to use the examples Robert's presented, that guys in prison who are physically and perhaps mentally weaker than others have more "femininity?"

That makes no sense to me.

They're men.

Suppose one of those men has less outer and / or inner strength due to his life experience.

What can happen is, as Robert said, a stronger man takes the weaker man under his wing and helps him grow and mature.

Clearly the "weaker" men isn't feminine or effeminate because, as the corrections official said, "they appear to be totally normal males."

And that's what they are.

My foreign correspondent uses the example of two masculine-identified men who start a sexual relationship.

He says that when that happens, one of the men may feel his "latent femininity" coming forward, and that scares him, so he pulls back.

I think that's nonsense.

What scares guys in those situations is the homosexuality itself, which is forbidden to all but a tiny ghettoized minority; and which is presented to the majority as an either / or situation:

Either you're gay or you're straight.

Since under heterosexualization, most of the societal rewards are reserved for "straight people," these guys don't want to be "gay."

And of course they're not anyway.

That's what scares them -- not some imagined femininity, but the homophobia they've been taught all their lives.

And that's why one guy may pull back.

It's not his "latent femininity."

It's his fear of the very real social consequences.

If you tell him, as the Greeks did, don't sweat it dude, it's normal and natural and your family and priests and teachers and fellow warriors all think it's great -- there's no problem.

In Beatific, Luke Shelton's telling of his boyhood romance with another high school athlete whom he calls Phillip, there's NO mention of either boy feeling feminine at any time.

These are two young guys, two football players, who are completely masculine and completely at home with each other as masculine men.

And their relationship is pure Frot.

What comes between them isn't femininity, but Phillip's father, who discovers them in bed, and beats the shit out of Phillip and then moves him away to another city.

Phillip's father also tells Luke's father, creating a permanent breach between them.

So it comes back to what NakedWrestler has said:

GUYS CAN WORK IT OUT -- IF YOU LET THEM BE GUYS.

Luke and Phillip didn't have any problems with each other or anyone else.

There was no question of who's the man and who's the girl.

They were just two guys who loved each other.

When Phillip's father and then Luke's father intervened and ripped them apart, their lives were destroyed.

Luke became profoundly depressed and eventually physically ill.

Phillip developed problems with substance abuse.

All totally unnecessary.

Both of these guys eventually married, which they would have anyway.

But they could have simultaneously maintained their love for each other, a monogamous male love, for the rest of their lives.

Instead they were ripped apart, and their lives were ripped apart.

As Robert says,

It is our wayward and unnatural society that teaches boys that it is not natural and normal. Just as it is our lost society that teaches men that frot and M2M relationships are not natural or normal. Right has been turned into wrong, and wrong into right, sadly.

That's true.

But we have it in our power to change the situation.

Because buried and hidden beneath the cultural masculinity and the heterosexualization is the Natural Masculinity of males, which is in EVERY MAN as a function of biology.

That Natural Masculinity NATURALLY moves him to seek to bond with other men and to bond sexually with at least one other special MAN.

A WARRIOR.

A Warrior who will be there for him and who will fight by his side.

That's what MEN want.

Not as a function of culture, but as a function of their deepest biology.

If you're reading this page, you're already to some extent in touch with your own normal and natural Masculine need for a Warrior Brother.

Now you need to help other men give voice and shape to those feelings which for far too many are inchoate.

Help them.

They're your Warrior brothers.

Help them.

And help your Warrior self.

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