and guys seek to be affectionate and sexual with other guys -- they seek body contact through wrestling and rough-housing; they hug; and they get sexual: they get hard with each other, they play with each other's cocks and balls, they jerk each other, and they rub cocks.

That's pure and natural masculinity.

Which we also see in animals like dolphins and whales and manatees and bonobos.

And among humans, as among animals, there's a very strong and very important GROUP component to Natural Masculinity.

My foreign friend:

Masculine male groups and bonds play an extremely important role in the development of physical, mental, emotional and social aspects of natural masculinity. As such they are an important part of the positive environment that all masculine identified boys should have. An otherwise masculine identified man who is deprived of membership in a masculine male group / bond during his growing years will be less than 1/4th naturally masculine than if he had such an opportunity. Masculine identified boys have a natural tendency to seek to join male-only groups, and it's their natural right.

The masculinity of men flows from their group. It's like their natural masculinity combines and gets manifold when masculine identified men unite. The camaraderie, mutual understanding, support, playing together, learning the ways of the world as a male, dealing with roughs and toughs of life together --- they all help to develop the natural masculinity that exists within him.

An intimate sexual relationship between two masculine men is equally helpful for the mutual development of their natural masculinity.

So: Masculinity flows from the male's sense of himself as a Man, and from the Male Group -- the Warrior band.

Pseudo-masculinity, by contrast, is a set of behaviors which are dictated by culture.

Under heterosexualization, the most striking aspect of pseudo-masculinity is the HUGE effort put into suppressing same-sex affection and sex;

coupled with suspicion directed towards *natural* male aggression.

We can see that in the way fight sports, in which skin on skin body contact is common, are marginalized; while team sports, in which body contact is fleeting and usually mitigated by uniforms and "protective" gear, are celebrated.

The marginalization of the fight sports is particularly striking.

True wrestling exists only at the amateur level, and the bare chests of yesteryear have been replaced by singlets.

Pro wrestling is a clownish, pseudo-masculine charade.

Professional boxing is widely perceived to be dishonest and controlled by criminal elements; while most boxers are men from impoverished backgrounds who are trying desperately and literally to fight their way out of the underclass.

UFC / mixed martial arts (MMA) fighting is of course at the moment very popular.

But it's still marginal -- the UFC is not the NFL.

It's my fervent wish and hope that MMA will survive and continue to prosper -- particularly at the amateur level, but professionally too.

Realistically, however, the cultural dynamic is dead-opposed to this sort of fight sport.

Why?

It's too intimate:

And it's too *nakedly* aggressive:

So: one-on-one aggression -- the individual's strenuous physical effort to overcome another man -- which was core to Greek athleticism, is in our heterosexualized, pseudo-masculine culture, a phenomenon of the margins.

While team sports, from which any hint of natural male sex aggression has been neatly excised, flourish.

Again, it's important for you to consider how much energy the culture puts into suppressing ANY expression of same-sex affection;

and of course sex between "normal men."

Sex between males is allowed only so long as it's ghettoized and seen as the exclusive property of a tiny group: gay men -- who, it's now frequently proposed, are genetically or hormonally different from other men.

Again, men are permitted to have sex with men, so long as they're defined as not really being men.

We can see this in the case of Michael Neal, the Australian who's accused of being an HIV predator, and who boasted of arranging conversion parties aimed at underage youths.

Frances had said to me that Neal's infective activities suggested that his masculine aggression was still intact.

As I explained in a previous post, I don't agree.

He's violent.

But he's not aggressive in a normal, naturally masculine way.

Moreoever, one could argue that there's a social or pseudo-masculine aspect to what he's doing.

Anal penetration, remember, is legally protected in the Western countries now.

Which means, de facto, that it's socially sanctioned.

Mr Neal's defense has been that he was on anti-virals, and therefore not really infectious.

But his talk, as reported at the trial, was all about infecting other guys.

So: Mr Neal's expression of "masculinity" is entirely false.

It's pseudo-masculinity, and in crucial respects, socially-sanctioned.

Because after all, his primary expression of his "masculinity" was to be a top: the insertive "partner" in anal penetration.

And while his infection of other males with HIV was not socially-sanctioned by the larger society, it took place in the context of "conversion parties," which are sanctioned by a subculture.

In this case, the subculture of bug-chasing and gift-giving, which is part of analism.

In a series of recent emails, Naked Wrestler has a lot to say on this subject.

In the first email, he's responding with some annoyance to a friend who tends to defend the gay status quo and who'd said to him that the word "gay" derived from "men in French theater who played women's roles."

And that it also meant "cheerful."

Naked Wrestler:

"men in French theater who played women's roles" ?????

LOOK!

"Cheerful" What the fuck is that? Cheerful, like a girl?

THAT is where it all began to go wrong.

It all created feminism in male behavior and confusion as to what Male is. That's my point. It's right under your nose!!! Look.

"Homosexual" as a word did not exist until the mid 1800's. And it was clinicalized as some deviation from the norm. (We can probably thank the English Language for that.) The fact is that man to man attraction is NOT a deviation from the norm. It IS normal.

WHY DO FIGHTERS HUG AFTER A SUBMISSION FIGHT? BECAUSE THEY ARE SHOWING AFFECTION (AND RESPECT)/MAN TO MAN ATTRACTION AFTER MAN/MAN AGGRESSION. THESE ARE NORMAL GUYS.

They don't act or treat each other like girls or women. They act and treat each other like Men. Men are warriors by nature. The nature of the warrior is to also be attracted to his fellow warrior.

NW is right, and he's making a crucial point:

The word "homosexual," and other words like "gay," strongly suggest that man to man attraction is a deviation from the norm.

That's wrong.

NW:

The fact is that man to man attraction is NOT a deviation from the norm. It IS normal.

WHY DO FIGHTERS HUG AFTER A SUBMISSION FIGHT? BECAUSE THEY ARE SHOWING AFFECTION (AND RESPECT)/MAN TO MAN ATTRACTION AFTER MAN/MAN AGGRESSION. THESE ARE NORMAL GUYS.

They don't act or treat each other like girls or women. They act and treat each other like Men. Men are warriors by nature. The nature of the warrior is to also be attracted to his fellow warrior.

That's correct:

"The nature of the warrior is to be attracted to his fellow warrior."

The Warrior is the NATURALLY MASCULINE MAN.

"The nature of the Warrior is to be attracted to his fellow Warrior."

Just as the nature of the dolphin is to be attracted to the dolphin and the whale to the whale and so on.

And among Men, that attraction, far from being the property of a minority group, is normal and universal.

My foreign friend:

My experiences of working with young men for the past 10 years plus my experiences of living in a traditional society show that male sexual desire for men cannot be tied down to a minority group. Rather it is a universal male phenomenon, especially strong amongst masculine gendered men --- unlike what the west propagates. It also seems that the male phobia against such bonds in America is mostly socially engineered and partly a media hype.

I think male sexual bonds are an important part of masculinity that must be made available to all men (and not just a specific group) --- especially in their youth --- and with suiting masculine pride. Depriving men of this amounts to robbing them of their true natural masculinity.

So: male sexual desire for men is a *universal* male phenomenon, especially strong among masculine men.

The phobia against male-male bonds is "socially engineered" and manipulated, a function of pseudo-masculinity.

Pseudo-masculinity treats male-male attraction as deviant and abnormal.

Natural masculinity recognizes that male-male attraction is normal and natural and that male sexual bonds are important and necessary.

"Male sexual bonds are an important part of masculinity that must be made available to ALL men -- and with suiting MASCULINE pride."

Our society doesn't do that.

In this next email, Naked Wrestler responds to a friend's use of the word "metrosexual":

WHAT THE FUCK IS METROSEXUAL?

Just another idiotic confusing word with no real definition.

Get back to basics:

There are Men and there are Women. There is Masculinity and there is Femininity.

There has ALWAYS been man to man sexual/social attraction.

Hiding it behind politically correct "queer" behavior and butt fucking is Psychological and Biological insanity. Why DO so many "gay guys" have to see a shrink on a regular basis? Not to mention poppers, drugs, drinking/gay bars.

Do the math.

If "gay guys" could just go to a fight school/grappling club on a Friday night instead of some cigarette/alcohol bar they might turn into real men again.

Some of the best times I've had were 2 hour sessions of kick boxing and pankration practice at the fight school on a Friday night, with other dudes who didn't have dates that night.

NW says,

"If 'gay guys' could just go to a fight school/grappling club on a Friday night instead of some cigarette/alcohol bar they might turn into real men again."

Is he right?

Yes.

Because fighting is core to being a man.

Third NW email:

As for homosexuality in the ancient world:

It was common practice--as it is still in parts of the the Middle East world. It's common for Turks and Arabs for instance to practice Frot sex with each other--constantly, all their lives. Did you ever notice how Arab men almost always, only hang around other men. They don't, however, walk around in public acting like queens, in some dumb form of feminine defensive mannerism.

Arabs and Turks don't dress in drag, have gay pride (whatever that is) parades, and get all into acting femmy--the way our (anglo-heritage) faggots do. What's up with that?

Arabs and Turks act like men--as Greeks (especially Spartans) did. The real difference in their homosexuality--ancient world and now--is they found butt fucking repulsive--as I do now...

In ancient warfare, it was common to put a defeated army to death by impaling all the men in an act of emasculation and total humiliation. To turn them into quasi-women in death.

THAT is the difference between ancient man2man (Spartan) love and our perverted/unnatural sex acts of today that have become politically correct some how.

(Re 300: This all would have been difficult to show and unacceptable in a modern film--so far.)

The Spartans and other Greeks interconnected 3 things: male aggression (fighting/wrestling/pankration), man to man MASCULINE attraction (sexual and social), and Freedom itself. Those things, they believed, could not be separated; I still believe that they cannot.

Men are happiest when they are around each other, competing, fighting and socializing--even if they won't admit it. Men who've been in Iraq (an almost totally unpopular war) admit openly that they can't wait to get back to their unit to "be with their men." NO, it's not just their sense of duty; they are expressing their urge to be with other men.

NW:

"The Spartans and other Greeks interconnected 3 things: male aggression (fighting/wrestling/pankration), man to man MASCULINE attraction (sexual and social), and Freedom itself. Those things, they believed, could not be separated; I still believe that they cannot."

I agree.

Male aggression

Male attraction

Freedom

They go together.

And that's the subliminal message of the movie 300.

The subliminal part is unfortunate.

Because teenaged males -- and other guys -- seeing that movie get the message about male aggression and freedom being related.

But the male attraction in the movie is limited to cheerful banter among the Warriors.

It's interesting that the one piece of the Thermopylae legend which was excised by the film's writers and director was the bit about the Spartans combing -- that is dressing -- their hair.

Given that their hair was braided, they would have done that for each other.

And apparently the movie-makers were afraid to show men grooming each other.

That fear comes out of and reinforces PSEUDO-masculinity.

Real men -- men who are NATURALLY MASCULINE -- aren't afraid to touch each other.

Men need to be told the truth.

That Freedom flows from Natural Masculinity.

And that Natural Masculinity is a combination of Man2Man Aggression -- and Man2Man Affection.

Bill Weintraub

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

Michael

Re: Pseudo-Masculinity or Natural Masculinity?

4-3-2007

Excellent post, Mr. Weintraub. Making the distinction between what is naturally masculine and what is culturally masculine is something that every warrior, especially the younger ones, should understand. You're right that our society, and others like ours, has created an UNnatural form of masculinity which has replaced the natural masculinity that the ancient world revered so highly.

While understanding the difference between what is naturaly masculin and what is culturaly masculin another distinction that warriors, especially the young ones, should see is the difference between aggresion and violence. Many people, including those who aren't warriors, always seem to have the mistaken idea that aggresion and violence are synanomus, but they are not! Look at those fighters in the pictures above, are they behaving violently? To the ignorant, they would appear so, but they are meerily just being aggresive. aggresion has it's uses and is essential for a man for without it a man would not be able to hold onto his land, his belongings, or his family; he'd be eaten alive. Aggresion drives one to fight for what they believe in and to defend themselves from oppresors. Now, look at the image of the buttfuckers, are those images violent? Yes, yes they are, why, because buttfuckers, like mr. neal (I refuse to capitalize his name since I feel he doesn't deserve it) mean to intentionally harm or kill the other person. Violence is sensless and seeks to do nothing more than harm or kill the other person. Violence may have its purpose in a life-or-death battle, but is unacceptable in any other context, especially love making.

Guys have got to understand that being naked with, and having sex with, another guy is naturally masculine and that the naked male body is pure. I believe this conversation between Mi Heng and Cao Cao can relate to this.

Mi Heng turned to them, slipped off his frayed and torn robe and stood there in full view, naked as he was born. The assembled guests covered their faces. Then the drummer composedly drew on his nether garments.

"Why do you behave so rudely at court?" said Cao Cao.

"To flout one's prince and insult one's superiors is the real rudeness," cried Mi Heng. "I bare my natural body as an emblem of my purity."

(chapter 23, paragraph 45-47)

An emblem of his purity, and that is exactlly how we should view our own bodies, we should never view our body as "sinful" or "evil" despite what the religious nuts say. Of course Mi Heng doesn't stop there as seen by what happens next.

"So you are pure! And who is foul?" (said Cao Cao)

"You do not distinguish between the wise and the foolish, which is to have foul vision. You have never read the Odes or the Histories, which is to have foul speech. You are deaf to honest words, which is to have foul ears. You are unable to reconcile antiquity with today, which is to be foul without. You cannot tolerate the vassals, which is to be foul within. You harbor thoughts of rebellion, which is to have a foul heart. I am one of the most famous scholars in the empire, and you make me a drummer boy, that is as Yang Huo belittling Confucius or Zang Cang vilifying Mencius. You desire to be chief and arbitrator of the great nobles, yet you treat me thus!" (said Mi Heng)

(Chapter 23, 48-49)

Look at that discription by Mi Heng, I believe that accuratly descibes many of the analists, heterosexists, and religious right wingers. Mi Heng didn't hold anything back on his description of Cao Cao even though it could've cost him his life. This guy had balls, and all of you should realize that you have balls too. However, you are never going to discover what it is really like to have balls unless you start fighting back against the analists, the heterosexists, and the religious right.

YOU MUST NOT SURRENDER, YOU MUST HAVE COURAGE, YOU MUST FIGHT!!!

Michael

Bill Weintraub