So:

If they just have an occasional anonymous male trick here and there, it doesn't appear to create a threat to the marriage, nor do they think of themselves as "gay."

But if they become emotionally involved with another man, and if they're foolish enough to tell their wives, usually there's a push, by the wife, for at least a separation.

Not least because now the men TRULY self-identify as gay.

I must say it's a good thing the Greeks didn't think in those terms, because if they had -- all their marriages would have failed.

And every Greek child would have a been a child of divorce.

In point of fact, what we're seeing here is an effect of heterosexualization, in which only heterosexuality is allowed in the main societal space, and men who express same-sex needs and desires are shunted off to the ghettoized gay space.

Often, it should be noted, they shunt themselves.

And indeed, that ghettoized gay space, with its values of promiscuity and infidelity -- not to mention effeminacy and anal -- is a space which these men complain about -- they're not comfortable in it, which suggests that they're masculine-identified men.

We need also reflect on how the material conditions of life created by the industrial revolution have made this heterosexualization possible.

For example, these men have the option of leaving their family homes -- and wives -- and taking a separate apartment or house somewhere.

With of course a separate car, and furniture -- maybe even a dog or cat.

And, of course, maybe a lover.

A society whose members are able to do that must be enormously, by historical standards, wealthy.

As my foreign friend has said,

If there was no heterosexual society there would be no homosexuals. And no heterosexuals either. Male-male sex is isolated only because in the Western society, its spaces and its customs are completely heterosexualised (i.e. made mixed gender with pressures to be heterosexual). But heterosexual spaces are themselves unnatural --- and it was only through financial and technological power brought by industrialisation that the western society could create such an artificial unnatural heterosexual environment.

Our society boasts of financial and technological powers which to the Greeks would have seemed god-like.

But if a Greek man fell in love with another Greek man -- he didn't have to get a divorce.

He didn't have to do anything -- except court the other guy.

The same is true, according to my foreign friend, of the Pathans -- fierce warriors -- in Afghanistan.

And of men in virtually all traditional cultures.

What we need to understand is that a lot of this is not a matter of raw human emotions -- but of how the culture shapes and defines them.

Perhaps some Greek wives were jealous of their husband's lovers.

Though there's NOTHING in the literary record which says so.

But the wives didn't have to worry about divorce.

That wasn't going to happen.

Yes, the man spent most of his time in all-male spaces.

But his wife and kids were taken care of.

Which leads to our next Times piece, which is titled,

The New Gender Divide: Facing Middle Age With No Degree, and No Wife

In this article, which is part of the Times' ongoing exploration of the "gender gap" created, it says, by the Women's Movement, the men profiled are "straight," but unmarried and have never been married.

They're now approaching middle age with no wife.

Why?

Apparently because they're working class, and/or lack a college degree, and are therefore not regarded as stable enough providers to attract a wife.

The financial issue is, in the article at least, paramount.

There are women quoted who don't want to marry a man who will make less than she does or whom she may have to support during long periods of unemployment.

While the men, though they've usually had at least one long-term dating relationship with a woman, say they fear the financial consequences of divorce.

For men without higher education, though, dwindling prospects in the labor market have made a growing percentage either unwilling to marry or unable to find someone to marry them.

In that sense, the article confirms that for women in the 21st century, marriage is as mercenary an affair as it was 2000 years ago.

But there are other factors which the Times, living in its little gay-straight fantasy world, doesn't care to acknowledge.

Because clearly some of these men found being in relationships with women -- if not oppressive -- not what they wanted.

And they've become used to being single:

Mr. Ryan, who grew up without a father, learned how to be alone. A new girlfriend came along, but he was unwilling to let her move in as much as a toothbrush. They broke up. He went to a community college and got an associate's degree in electronics. He renovated the basement. He built a soundproof recording room. He learned to enjoy the silence and the ability to be as fastidious at home as he pleased.

When he walks in the front door after a weekend trip or a run or a bike ride, he often puts a commemorative baseball cap on his coat rack, and now, about three dozen hats cover the rack, with no apparent space for a purse or a diaper bag.

The Times didn't emphasize that -- it emphasized the income disparity between the women and the men who were working class or didn't have a college degree.

But while it's true that cross-culturally women tend to choose mates who are good providers, and while it's also true that women who work are clearly less dependent on a man's income, some women make choices based on other values.

So this is not all coming from the women.

It's coming from the men as well.

Beyond the questions of finances and health, there is the issue of how content these men are. All the men interviewed for this article looked younger than their age. All said they were happy with their lives...

The article said nothing about male friends or other companionship for these guys.

Basically, it seemed to be a wife or -- nothing.

You have to wonder.

Still, there's a sense in both articles of women calling the shots.

In the "beard" article, the wives are forcing divorce upon the husbands.

In the "unmarried" article, the women don't want to be lumbered with a man who doesn't bring home the bacon.

Now -- should a woman have to remain married to a man she doesn't love?

No.

Nor should she be forced to marry just any man.

Nevertheless, in looking at these men, what we need to be clear about is that neither group -- neither the "gay" divorced men nor the "straight" single men -- are living lives that would have been considered even remotely normal for most of the history of the race.

They're not living with extended families and they're not living in all-male spaces, like a longhouse.

They're just out there, knocking around in an anomic universe.

How long can society sustain that, how stable can it be?

Traditionally men have had the company of other men, Warriors the company of Warriors.

And they had wives and children too.

Of course there were men who didn't marry, but they were members of extended families and lived in homosocial societies.

The contemporary men in these articles, by contrast, seem to have nothing.

The "gay" men, exiled from their families by their outraged wives, find themselves adrift in promiscuous analist ghettoes, full of drug abuse and disease.

While the "straight" guys, who are guilty only of being blue collar, are not only unmarried, but in our heterosexualized society, denied the potential comfort of their fellow men as well.

Not good.

We need to reach these men.

Both groups of men need to understand that sexual orientation -- and its labels of gay, bi, and straight -- are cultural constructs devised by the forces of heterosexualization in order to medicalize and *isolate* normal and natural same-sex needs, desires, and acts.

So that "sexual orientation" construct -- which is so destructive -- needs to be tossed out.

And Men need to look once again to their Masculinity.

Their Natural Masculinity.

And to Natural Masculinity's most basic and natural social expression:

The Way of the Warrior.

For, as Robert Loring has said, The Way of the Warrior is the Way of Salvation.

Bill Weintraub

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

Robert Loring

Re: men without marriage

8-11-2006

I think one of the misleading things in our society is that we tend to either forget or not realize that we as individuals do NOT live in isolated bubbles. We tend to focus on our own lives forgetting that we are influenced by the larger society we live in. Yet, the fact remains that we as individuals are influenced by society and the culture we live in and, in turn, we also influence the society/culture. It's a two-way street. We cannot live in a society and not be influenced by it. In turn, we cannot live in a society and not influence that society to some decree even if to small degrees.

Western society attempts to paint things as black or white. It attempts to convince us that things are "either....or." Yet, life is full of gray! Life is NOT so clear cut! Seldom is anything in life black or white! Life is, in fact, most often gray.

Modern society not only has created what is being called the "gay ghetto" but it also has created the "Male Ghetto." Masculine males, especially, are being thrown into the Male Ghetto no matter if they are straight, gay, or bisexual because there is a growing perception in our society that natural masculinity is somehow the "enemy" of society. Men, especially masculine men, are being blamed for anything and everything that is wrong in Western society today. Somehow the masculine male is almost automatically deemed as being "bad." And, masculinity is something that should be suppressed according to the dictates and perceptions of modern Western society. It is something that should be replaced with a softer, gentler maleness....a feminized maleness. Society today seems to have forgotten that when you feminize a male you destroy that male because you strip him of his natural masculinity and this creates a host of psychological, spiritual, and emotional "demons." It also creates a host of "demons" within and for the society as well. No one of us lives in a bubble. We each are effected by the society we live in and we each, in turn, effect the society and culture.

The Male Ghetto of Western society is growing. It's composed of males of all sexual preferences. It is an ugly ghetto to dwell in. It is a ghetto of the male mind and male soul. It really should come as no surprise then that there are so many males today that are unhappy. It should come as no surprise that many males today have turned to alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. in a futile effort to "cope" with living in the Male Ghetto.

You are right, Bill. We MUST reach out to these males! Somehow society MUST be corrected. Somehow we MUST return to the historical and traditional societal NORMS. Men MUST be once again allowed to be close with other men, form male bonds, and have male space WITHOUT fear of being punished, shunned to the Male Ghetto, and without fear of being labeled.

All of this, as reflected in the articles mentioned above, is part of the ongoing psychospiritual ATTACK on ALL MALES. It is part of an ongoing attack on the innate brotherhood that NATURALLY exists between MEN. This natural sense of brotherhood is a part of male masculinity. It is a part of the Warrior Way! It is a part of the Way to Salvation!

Males, ALL males, today can no longer afford to abandon other males and leave them to their own devices. That is only serving to increase the size of the Male Ghetto! Males MUST once again reach out to other males just as the ancient Warriors did long ago. Males MUST see themselves again as BROTHERS! To continue to abandon our male brethren is to only increase the ills of modern Western society and expand the growing Male Ghetto!!

Alcoholism, drugs, sex are not the answers. Compassion, Brotherhood, and Honor are. Masculinity must once again be honored and esteemed and valued in our society. Males MUST be their brother's guardian, teacher, and lover.

Jim

Re: men without marriage

8-12-2006

I read both of these articles, and I've been trying to wrap my brain around the "Beard" article in an attempt to comment on it. I've been trying to write this since last week. Thanks, guys, for giving me a focus to start.

I found the article deeply disturbing because in its automatic acceptance of these guys' self-identification; in its implied assumption that they always "knew" they were "gay", had deliberately deceived their wives and families and were using the marriage to hide their "true" natures; and in the references to the contempt shown to those men trying to keep the marriage together; it made it obvious that there are things deeply wrong in our culture and our society but then didn't make attempt to raise any questions, much less address them.

But I guess I'm foolish to even hope for any thinking outside the box or questioning of the social status quo in any mainstream medium today.

Then I logged onto the blog referenced in the article, "Coming Out at 48", and the sense of unease grew to outright cognitive dissonance. As the article states, its written by a guy who "came out" as gay at 48 and is now writing about his experiences as he discovers and develops his "gay identity" (That last part is my own phrasing - I didn't come across anything where he actually writes that). What I found disturbing was this man presented the changes in his life as if there was a complete change in this guy's being: that he looked the same, talked the same, had the same memories, but wasn't the same inside, which made me think of the pod people in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". What was truly chilling - and proves Robert's point - was his description of learning about anal. He says quite clearly that it never entered into his thoughts or fantasies, until he began exploring the web and viewing gay porn.

He apparently accepted it as "what gay men do" (again, my phrase) and looked forward to the experience. After that he seems to have dived head first into stereotypical gay culture, going to bars, getting picked up, etc. I don't have the words to describe how disturbing this was, because of the sense of unreality attached to it.

There were links to other blogs on his site. I came across one by a somewhat younger guy (in his 30's, I think), who just told his wife he was gay earlier this year. This guy, at least at his last posting, hadn't acted on anything, but seemed to feel he had no choice but to go the stereotypical (i.e., anal) route. I feel I need to e-mail him and at least try to (gently) make him aware of other alternatives (i.e., this site). I don't know the reaction I'll get, but I want to give it a try. The last post on the site (it's called Drew's Next Step) mentions that he's away for a couple of weeks, so there's some time.

My question: what's the best way to approach it?

It's probably too late to reach out to the other guy, unless he has some sort of epiphany about what he's doing to himself.

Bill Weintraub

Re: men without marriage

8-18-2006

Thank you guys.

Both excellent posts.

Jim:

What was truly chilling - and proves Robert's point - was his description of learning about anal. He says quite clearly that it never entered into his thoughts or fantasies, until he began exploring the web and viewing gay porn.

Right.

Anal is an UNnatural activity.

A totally UNnatural act.

Guys have to learn it -- they have to be taught.

Prior to the internet, "gay" kids did not fantasize about anal.

Now -- any kid who suspects he might be gay will go on the net at age 11 or 12 and see anal.

That's a huge part of the problem.

This man is simply having a late pubescence in that regard.

But one that's typical nowadays.

He apparently accepted it as "what gay men do" (again, my phrase) and looked forward to the experience. After that he seems to have dived head first into stereotypical gay culture, going to bars, getting picked up, etc. I don't have the words to describe how disturbing this was, because of the sense of unreality attached to it.

Yes -- he's being acculturated.

It's like any other conversion.

The analists and the evangelicals mirror each other.

And no doubt the Islamists too.

Guys, later last week, in another email, Jim said that in further reading this guy's blog, it turns out he knew he was into boys when he was in puberty, and he just hid his feelings and dated girls.

So in a sense the acculturation process has been going on for this guy for more than 30 years.

In any case, the question of how to reach these two specific guys is difficult, because they are being or have been acculturated and the culture -- analism -- is pervasive, entrenched, and supported by big liberal institutions like the NY Times and the AIDS establishment.

The Times just had another piece praising a drag act.

So the culture on both sides is really difficult.

But you can certainly send either an email.

And let them know there's a third force and a middle way.

Now, I want to spend some more time on this thread, particularly because I've had to spend so much time this week on the Toronto AIDS Conference, which in a sense is irrelevant to us.

I put up posts about HIV and the continuing rises in HIV infection rates and continuing madness in HIV prevention programs as examples of analism in action; and also because I know there are guys visiting this board who still do anal and are promiscuous and need to hear the truth about anal and risk.

However, in my view, issues around Masculinity are far more important to us.

Because when we look at analism -- and the HIV epidemic is a product of analism -- we have to understand that analism is the result of certain processes and forces -- heterosexualization, feminism, and the ongoing denigration of males -- which are all ultimately attacks on masculinity and most importantly NATURAL MASCULINITY.

So let's talk about Natural Masculinity.

I've been emailing with Jim, and in his last letter he said,

It was the bizarre, not quite parallel similarities between the "Coming Out" guy's journey and mine that rattled me. I had had "feelings" and had been aware of my attraction to men for along time too.

Right.

When I email with Jim, I keep referring back to Jim's first post, which was originally an email:

A little bit about myself: I'm 49, single and I've always identified myself as straight. And yet I've always known, deep down, that I needed and wanted a close relationship with another man - and this is the first time I am telling ANYONE about this. Until I found this site, I didn't even have a clear idea of what I was seeking. All I had was an inchoate longing for something both physical and deeply, transcendently spiritual and the sense that it deepened, not weakened, my masculinity. I found the Alliance through a reference in a posting on a male bonding site. When I got to the site, it blew me away. Everything spoke to what I've been feeling and wanting for years without the words. I can say now that this is truly me and I finally feel like I have brothers and comrades to share this with.

So: in his post, Jim said that he was searching for a relationship that deepened, not weakened, his masculinity.

And that's why we titled the post to deepen, not weaken, masculinity.

It's a very important post.

Masculinity.

We are masculine-identified men.

It's what we care about.

And to us the point of being "homo" - sexual, homo-social, homo-phile -- is to deepen or heighten our masculinity.

We as MEN are seeking contact with another MAN for reasons that are completely Masculine.

Does that makes sense?

That was always -- from childhood on -- my conception of "homosexuality."

That it was about Men and Masculinity.

It wasn't about women or being a woman.

It was about being a man, and being a man with another man.

Now, my foreign friend would say that guys like Jim and me are "masculine-gendered" men.

He means by that -- that we are BIOLOGICALLY different from "feminine-gendered" men.

But to do that, he has to assume that there is such a thing as "feminine-gendered" men and that they exist as about 50% of the male population.

That's what my foreign friend believes.

I don't.

NOTHING in my experience agrees with that.

Sure, there's a tiny population of "transgendered" and cross-dressing ("transvestite") heterosexual men.

But they are anomalies.

What my friend is doing is what the Freudians did.

He's basing his social theory on the exception -- not on the rule.

That will never work.

Men are Masculine as a function of biology.

They're not feminine.

I've known heterosexual transvestites.

Those men are not expressing some inner woman.

What I've seen with them is a fetishistic fascination with women's clothing and things like earrings, bracelets, necklaces etc.

But -- let us allow, for the sake of argument, that married men who cross-dress have a "gender disorder."

How common is that?

How many hetero men are into cross-dressing?

Very, very few.

So -- are Jim and I "masculine-gendered" males?

No, not in my opinion.

I think we're just Men.

Masculine-identified Men, to be sure.

But ultimately, just MEN.

What my foreign friend says, and with which I fully agree, is that the more masculine the man, the more likely he is to seek a sexual bond with another man.

And that makes sense.

Historically, that's what warriors did.

They sought what I call the Warrior Bond.

Which was both sexual and extremely masculine.

So:

Given that the more masculine the man, the more likely he is to seek a sexual bond with another man;

and given that we're living in a society that denies those bonds to masculine men;

clearly, the society is fucked-up and MEN are getting fucked over.

Jim:

I had just as much exposure to the anal culture and, being single, a hell of a lot more opportunity to explore things than he did. So why was I at first hesitant about, then repulsed, by that culture (even before I found this site), and he seems to have, as I wrote last night, dived in headfirst.

I really believe a lot of it is a question of ideology and feminism.

Masculinity has always been important to me.

But after I came out, I absorbed a fair amount of the feminist critique of men and masculinity.

Because for one thing, at that time straight-identified men were very hostile to gay men.

So that worked for me for a while.

Until I ran up against
1. what the women were actually about; and
2. what the implications of that anti-masculine stance were in the gay community: anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy.

Which had nothing to do with my life.

Jim:

Of course, we only have his words to go by, but still, I don't get it. Is it subtle differences in background? Is it because some personalities have a greater need to melt into the herd? I know there's no answer, but that question keeps coming up.

Again, I think that masculinity, and questions of masculinity and femininity, really matter.

Because there's no question that guys who strongly identify as masculine -- find that analist culture repulsive.

So that's a big part of it.

See, if on some level he's known of his attraction for years, and has viewed himself therefore as "less-than-masculine," it'll be far easier for him to move into analist culture.

Because the surrender of masculinity is paramount.

That's the truth.

And Robert Loring understands that.

That's one of the reasons his writing is so effective.

In addition, I think we can hypothesize that just as a certain percentage of any population (about 5%) will be immune to a new pathogen, such as HIV or SARS, it's also likely that a certain percentage of folks exposed to a subculture or culture will resist acculturation.

So -- as a rule, most human beings are very susceptible to peer pressure.

Without that, human society could not function.

But you also need people who are resistant to peer pressure.

Because absent that, the culture would never change.

It would become brittle and would fail -- catastrophically.

So long as you have people who dissent, the culture can change and evolve.

DISSENT.

DISSENT IS KEY.

That's why I always end my posts with the words FIGHT BACK.

You can't just forever go along to get along.

If you do that, nothing changes.

Robert:

We MUST reach out to these males! Somehow society MUST be corrected. Somehow we MUST return to the historical and traditional societal NORMS. Men MUST be once again allowed to be close with other men, form male bonds, and have male space WITHOUT fear of being punished, shunned to the Male Ghetto, and without fear of being labeled.

All of this, as reflected in the articles mentioned above, is part of the ongoing psychospiritual ATTACK on ALL MALES. It is part of an ongoing attack on the innate brotherhood that NATURALLY exists between MEN. This natural sense of brotherhood is a part of male masculinity. It is a part of the Warrior Way! It is a part of the Way to Salvation!

Males, ALL males, today can no longer afford to abandon other males and leave them to their own devices. That is only serving to increase the size of the Male Ghetto! Males MUST once again reach out to other males just as the ancient Warriors did long ago. Males MUST see themselves again as BROTHERS! To continue to abandon our male brethren is to only increase the ills of modern Western society and expand the growing Male Ghetto!!

Alcoholism, drugs, sex are not the answers. Compassion, Brotherhood, and Honor are. Masculinity must once again be honored and esteemed and valued in our society. Males MUST be their brother's guardian, teacher, and lover.

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