Indeed, it's the norm and has been the norm not just for these men to have sex, but for these men to spend most of their time together.

For example, I said to my foreign friend that in the Alliance we believe that traditionally, cross-culturally, and historically, it has been normal and natural for masculine men to love other masculine men.

His response:

I'd say, it's rather been the norm. Even today in societies where same-sex relationships are tolerated as long as men get married and produce children (e.g. parts of Afghanistan) men tend to prefer other men for sexual bonding, while sex with women is treated more for procreation. In Afghanistan there is an old proverb among the macho pathans that "men are for pleasure and women are for procreation". This is exactly what the ancient Greeks believed.

So it seems men become heterosexuals only because of social pressures and conditioning. That would explain the intense pressures in the western societies to be heterosexual.

What does he mean by that?

"Men become heterosexuals"

Does he mean that men are born with no innate sexual desire for women?

NO.

What he means is that masculine-identified men become EXCLUSIVELY heterosexual only because "of social pressures and conditioning."

So, he argues, human beings have undergone a process of forced "heterosexualization."

Which is not normal:

If you look at mammals as a species in the wild, you will find that there is only sex for procreation --- which by itself does not characterise heterosexuality. Most mammalian males if they mate, do it only a few times in their lives. And a big segment does not mate at all.

And there is no bonding with females at all --- well barring a few exceptions (1%).

Male-female mating is extremely short --- sometimes as short as a few seconds. After which the male and female depart abruptly without as much as a 'goodbye' or a parting kiss --- which are characteristic of masculine behaviour in the west. The male and female usually never see each other again. I wouldn't call that heterosexuality.

And then, there is no evidence of a presence of sexual repulsion towards other males --- even in the few males who do develop what can be remotely termed as a bond with females.

On the contrary, latest research (by the likes of Bruce Bagemihl) reveal that male-male sex is a near universal concept amongst mammalian males (from 90% in some species to 100%).

Stallions Nuzzling

In other words there is no heterosexuality in nature. At least not in mammals. There is some heterosexuality in some other species --- like in birds and insects (where it seems to be the norm if we are to believe the fruitfly study!), but humans are mammals not insects.

Again, when he says "there is no heterosexuality in nature," he doesn't mean that there's no heterosexual sex.

Or heterosexual "desire."

He means that among mammals, the sort of exclusive heterosexuality which is the ideal in present-day Western culture is an anomaly.

AS IT HAS BEEN THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY AND CULTURE.

What my correspondent maintains is that over the last 300 years, there has been a progressive heterosexualization, which is unprecedented in human history:

If there is 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.

"An artificial unnatural heterosexual environment."

Is he right?

I think he is.

In the message thread titled THE FALLACY OF THE FEMININE I gave this example of a warrior culture facing the challenges of AIDS in northeast Uganda:

The Karamajong cattle herders traditionally interacted little with communities outside their region. Sexual promiscuity was unheard of: girls remained virgins until marriage; warriors, though polygamous, stayed within the bounds of marriage; HIV/AIDS was kept at bay.

Drought and hunger are recurring features of life on the semi-arid grassland of Karamoja. Competition for water and pasture to feed the herds, regarded as a source of wealth and status, have produced a culture of raiding and warfare in which men are noted for their bravery and social standing.

That's a typical warrior society.

And we need to understand that the people we think of as the Greeks and the Romans -- people like Socrates and Plato and Cicero and Julius Caesar -- were no more than three or four centuries removed from living the way the Karamajong do.

For example, I've talked about the mythic Greek and Roman culture heroes Castor and Pollux -- Spartan fraternal twins whose mutual devotion was legendary.

Castor and Pollux were killed by two other heroes, Idas and Lynceus, during a cattle raid.

Heroes rustling cattle?

Yes.

Here's a picture of the Athenian culture hero Theseus capturing a bull.

Theseus and the Bull of Marathon.
Notice how prominent the genitals are on both Theseus and the Bull.

The Karamajong, according to allafrica dot com, "have produced a culture of raiding and warfare in which men are noted for their bravery and social standing."

Men gain status by stealing cattle.

And of course by warding off thieves.

And that sort of cattle raid is apparently still common among the Karamajong.

Notice that the Karamajong are not promiscuous, and that they have a warrior society in which men and boys spend most of their time together.

How do I know that?

Because the girls are virgins at marriage -- which means they're being kept separate from the adolescent boys.

Who of course are overflowing with testosterone and are spending all their time together learning how to be warriors and sometimes going on raids.

Under such circumstances, these masculine-identified males will naturally form sexual bonds.

Clearly such patterns persisted among the Greeks and the Romans, even as they ceased being pastoralists and became farmers and city-dwellers.

Their societies became, arguably, more sophisticated and more complex than that of people like the Karamajong.

But men still spent most of their time with men.

What's striking about both the Greeks and the Romans is the identification of the homosocial with masculine and the heterosocial with feminine.

That is, both the Greek and the Romans viewed men who spent most of their time with men as masculine and "hard" -- which they meant in a good sense.

Whereas, men who spent too much time with women became "soft."

The Roman word is "mollis," and by that they meant soft and specifically *effeminate*: unmanly, unwarlike, and unfit to rule.

So we can think of Greek and Roman society as having been only very partially "heterosexualized" -- if at all.

That ancient and magnificent world collapsed under the strain of two events:

Repeated invasions of barbarians from what is now eastern Europe and Russia; and

The explosion of Islam out of Arabia.

The northern barbarians conquered Romanized Western Europe.

And then the Arabs cut the Mediterranean world in two.

That was 15 centuries ago.

What happened in the interval?

Sts. Serge and Bacchus, same-sex lovers Click the book cover to learn more about them and these unions.

Well, John Boswell, who was chair of the history department at Yale until his death from AIDS in 1995, argued that for the first thousand years or so of Christianity in Europe, the church still honored and celebrated, as the Greeks and Romans had, "same-sex unions."

He wrote a very erudite book, titled Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, full of citations from Greek and Latin and medieval languages, to back up his claim.

And then he died.

His book was attacked by the gay left, which at the time didn't support gay marriage and which was suspicious of anything connected to Christianity or the church.

But I suspect he was right.

Because significant segments of society would not yet have been "heteroseuxalized."

And the old patterns found among the Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Teutons, etc., and the Arabs, whose society was very homosocial, would have persisted.

Heteroseuxalization came much later.

Because heterosexualization was dependent upon changes wrought by the industrial revolution.

If my correspondent is correct, I and every other Western man born in the 20th century have lived our lives under an enormous lie.

Let me repeat that:

If my correspondent is correct, I and every other Western man born in the 20th century -- not just every "gay" man but every "straight" man too -- have lived our lives under an enormous lie.

The fact of the matter is that 'straight' actually means 'masculine'. It is only that the west has for long propagated 'heterosexuality' as masculine, so that today it is seen as being synonymous with 'straight'.

Again, the real meaning of 'queer' is feminine, although it is used interchangeably for 'gay'.

You should also know that the word 'homosexual' and later 'gay' was originally used for feminine identified males who were believed to be feminine on account of their desire for men.

That's correct.

What does that mean for me -- and a lot of other Masculine-identified Men who Love Men?

Throughout my life I've identified as Masculine.

And as a Warrior.

And throughout my life I've been told that I couldn't be Masculine -- or a Warrior -- because I'm "gay."

Suppose that's a lie.

Not just in the sense that "gay men can't be masculine."

But in the much larger sense which my correspondent has suggested.

That "straight" actually means not heterosexual -- but MASCULINE.

In which case I'm straight.

Not gay.

Because EVERY masculine-identified man is -- straight.

Regardless of his sexual desires.

The divider is not exclusive desire for women or for men -- which probably does not exist -- but masculinity or effeminacy.

And masculine men in general have been cut off from their same-sex needs and desires by an enforced heterosexualization of society, which pressures many of them to say "yes" to a girl when they'd rather say "no"; and "no" to a boy when they'd rather say "yes."

Throughout adolescence, young adulthood, and even as I got older, I had intense friendships with straight-identified guys where I was sure I could feel a sexual longing from them.

I put that down to wishful thinking.

After I met Patrick I knew that wasn't true.

Because he validated for me what virtually no other straight-identified guy would do.

He admitted that all the time he'd been fucking women, he'd also wanted to rub cocks with another guy.

THE WHOLE TIME.

30 years.

And then we put our hard cocks together and rubbed.

And I knew he'd told me the truth.

Patrick's unusual for a "straight-identified" guy, not because he likes to rub cocks, but because he's HONEST about it.

And in so being, he's defied "heterosexualization."

My correspondent tells an interesting story about horses -- specifically stallions.

He says that stallions bond -- naturally.

And that once they're bonded, they become extremely difficult to control.

Wild Stallions

So that the people who use horses in his country as working animals prevent such bonds from forming.

Instead, they pair male and female horses, and in effect force them to become a couple.

I have already mentioned that male-male bonds are considered a menace and the trainers prevent male horses from developing intimacy by not putting them together. Sex between males in horses is a well known fact (a horse breeding site also talks about this). But it is the way they are forced to bond with female horses which is more telling.

When they put the male horses for the first time with a female --- the horses react extremely negatively, even in an hostile manner. In the case I'm describing, the male horse had not eaten for a week when forced with the female. He must have been still young. I don't know if he had a male buddy before that. Then slowly he learned to adjust with the female. He had no other option, plus they trained him through rewards and punishments. And finally, he developed an intimacy with the female so much so that today he is inseparable with the female.

Isn't it how they treat humans? Does it tell us anything about human [exclusive] heterosexuality and how is it made possible? Doesn't the society use various mechanisms to psychologically keep men away from men sexually so as to keep them from forming intimacy?

Doesn't the society punish and reward men in order to train them to bond with women? And then claim that heterosexuality is natural / normal?

Is that what society does?

Remember, my correspondent is not saying that men don't desire women.

He's saying that EXCLUSIVE heterosexuality among masculine-identified males must be culturally constructed.

That left to their own devices, men will form strong sexual and social bonds with other men.

And that such bonds will not interfere with their ability to marry women and have children.

Which we know to be true both historically and from our own experience.

What about the status of men in a heterosexualized society?

And what about the status of "gay men" in such a society?

The heterosexual society cares only for women. It sees men only as a problematic group that comes in the way of what is called women's rights.

Gay men are one of the most ardent supporters of heterosexualisation. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated/ negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

Gay men (when I say gay men I mean feminine identified males who like men) derive immense power from the heterosexual society. In fact they owe the heterosexual society their existence.

Again, my correspondent's analysis makes sense to me.

Women and feminine-identified gay males form a natural alliance -- whose purpose is to contain and indeed injure masculine-identified men and their masculinity.

I originally titled this post "saying no when you want to say yes."

What can we do to help straight-identified men in this heterosexualized culture to stop saying NO to other men when they want to say YES?

And what can we do to stop gay-identified masculine men saying yes to anal when they want to say no?

This is what I told my correspondent:

We can tell our fellow masculine-identified men that they can relate sexually to their fellows without any surrender of their masculinity or manhood.

And we can use these sorts of slogans and arguments:

"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."

How is Masculinity heightened and Manhood honored?

Through Man2Man sex, specifically through Phallus to Phallus sex.

Man + Man = MORE Manliness

Phallus + Phallus = MORE Manhood

In our experience, that explanation is EXTREMELY powerful for men.

They respond to it.

And we emphasize that Man2Man sex honors Man2Man aggression.

We emphasize the combative, though affiliative, aspect of phallus to phallus, expressed through what we call natural male sex aggression.

My correspondent said to me:

"I admire your fighting spirit which is the hallmark of masculinity."

Exactly.

Fighting and Masculinity are intertwined.

Moreover, Men enjoy Fighting.

And they don't have to fight to the death.

There are playful forms of fighting and wrestling among men, as well as the more formal training in combat sports like wrestling, boxing, and martial arts, which satisfy their need for aggression and raise their testosterone and adrenaline levels.

Fighting gives them a rush.

And it excites them erotically as well.

Men like to fight.

Men who've not learned to fight may be fearful of fighting.

But once they've learned -- that fear vanishes.

It's what Naked Wrestler has said:

Finally, and understanding that connection, we work to return to men this word:

And what we have learned, is that Men respond to that one word like nothing else on earth.

In certain respects, Warrior is more important to men than husband or father.

We all know that men bond during war.

We know that very often men who've been through battle will say that they loved their fellow soldiers more than their family.

This is such a universal of male experience that it has to be rooted in biology.

Human males, like chimpanzee males, BOND to ward off and defeat groups of other males.

To kill them if need be and gain resources and reproductive advantage.

That's why that word "Warrior" has such power.

Men want to be WARRIORS because biologically it speaks to their genetic success.

And because sociobiologically it fulfills their NEED to BOND with their fellow MEN.

Their fellow WARRIORS.

12345678910
Spartan Hoplites

And the ULTIMATE expression of that NATURAL MASCULINE WARRIOR BOND is PHALLIC.

PHALLUS TO PHALLUS.

I know what our guys care about.

And it's not complicated.

They hate effeminacy.

They love Masculinity.

They want to be WARRIORS.

Of course we emphasize that "Peace should be the way of the warrior, for he bears the cost of war."

That's something my husband Patrick teaches his students.

But there can no question of the power of the Warrior archetype.

Men respond to it.

As one of our true Warriors said to me:

"Right now m2m is the 'other' to both the straight and gay cultures. Masculine men, however, can defeat effeminacy. Getting men to remember and to reconnect with the value of the warrior will be their salvation."

He's right.

I have said, echoing Robert Loring, that The Way of the WARRIOR is the Way of SALVATION.

That's the truth.

I thank my correspondent and all the guys who over the years, have helped me see and stay true -- to that TRUTH.

Bill G

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-14-2006

Great post Bill

Absolutely fantastic.

Bill G

Redd

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-16-2006

Great post.

It's got me thinking of so many questions. Here are two:

1. How has men's inclination to protect women and children affected Western heterosexualization?

2. Hence, have masculine-identified men contributed to their own present plight through their objectifying women and creating the cherished woman-as-victim identity?

During the Renaissance, for example, chivalry defined the knight. The damsel in distress awaited her knight to rescue her. The knight possessed qualities of the hero, but unlike Gilgamesh or Odysseus whose adventures were done with other men, the knight was mostly a loner; he had no male to validate him during his exploits. His success depended on rescuing the damsel, thus securing her approval. The damsel defined the knight.

On the other hand, Gilgamesh's reward, at least one reward, was having Enkidu by his side to glory in their victories. Gilgamesh didn't seek a woman's approval. His masculine identity didn't require a damsel in destress. None of the epics I've studied depicts the hero as seeking female approval.

Also, I'm aware of resistance to study and publish information focusing on men's history in academia where political correct ideology prevails. And many men's studies group seem so pro-politically correct that voices not so politically correct are silenced, especially voices critical of feminism and analism.

Redd

Bill Weintraub

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-16-2006

Thank you Bill G and Redd.

Redd, you asked

1. How has men's inclination to protect women and children affected Western heterosexualization?

A normal man acts virtually instinctively to protect women and children.

Because they're the future of the race.

2. Hence, have masculine-identified men contributed to their own present plight through their objectifying women and creating the cherished woman-as-victim identity?

Redd, I'd be reluctant to say that because it ends up blaming the victims -- which in this case are men.

Further, speaking in general terms, women need protection.

They're smaller and frailer than men.

Of course women are capable of fighting and defending themselves to some degree.

But again, speaking in general, men are bigger and more muscular.

And only women can bear children.

So there are real-world reasons that men are protective of women -- and of course children.

During the Renaissance, for example, chivalry defined the knight. The damsel in distress awaited her knight to rescue her. The knight possessed qualities of the hero, but unlike Gilgamesh or Odysseus whose adventures were done with other men, the knight was mostly a loner; he had no male to validate him during his exploits. His success depended on rescuing the damsel, thus securing her approval. The damsel defined the knight.

Yes.

In my view, the code of chilvary was an effort to escape the power of the Church and (re-)secularize the West.

Because, as Joseph Campbell points out, chilvary replaces ROMA with AMOR.

And the damsel remember is very often someone else's wife.

So chilvary also subverts the Church's emphasis on marriage and procreative sex.

I think chilvary was an aristocratic attack on the dominant paradigm of its day -- which was the Church's and specifically the popes' assertions of omnipotence and omniscience.

In that sense, chilvary precedes and enables the Reformation.

On the other hand, Gilgamesh's reward, at least one reward, was having Enkidu by his side to glory in their victories.

Right, Redd, and not just to glory in their victories but to assist him in their victories.

What a man wants is another man who will fight by his side.

And that's exactly what Gilgamesh and Enkidu do.

They subdue monsters and foes TOGETHER.

I have an m2m friend who says he doesn't want to be in an LTR because he tried it once and "it was like being married to a woman with a penis."

That's the wrong model -- that's an analist model.

Two men together are not the same as a man and a woman together.

Two men are two MEN.

What a man is looking for in another man is not a wife -- but a fellow WARRIOR.

I never thought of Brett or Patrick as a wife.

I think of them as MEN and fellow WARRIORS.

Also, I'm aware of resistance to study and publish information focusing on men's history in academia where political correct ideology prevails. And many men's studies group seem so pro-politically correct that voices not so politically correct are silenced, especially voices critical of feminism and analism.

Yeah, tell me about it.

Guys, the point I was trying to make in this message thread is that because of what my foreign friend calls heterosexualization, all MEN, at least in the West over at least the last century, have been living a lie.

In which being masculine means being exclusively heterosexual.

Traditionally, as Robert Loring has said over and over again, that's NOT what masculine has meant.

Masculine has not meant heterosexual, it's meant WARRIOR, and WARRIORS have traditionally and historically and cross-culturally been in the company of other Warriors and been sexually bonded with them.

And that's not just a function of culture.

It's a function of our deepest male sociobiology.

Because men universally bond with other men in order to make war and survive.

That's what men were designed and/or evolved to do.

Men were meant to be homosocial -- in the company of other men; homophilic -- liking other men; and homosexual -- able to bond sexually with other men.

Greek Warriors ca 550 BC

Instead, what's happened in our era is that men who've sought MANLY bonds with other men have been relegated to gay ghettoes which are controlled by feminized males.

The "dustbin" as my friend puts it.

And they are dustbins -- full of promiscuity and disease.

If having to live in those dustbins feels UNnatural to you -- that's because it is.

It's UNnatural.

Just as it's UNnatural for a MAN to live entirely without the company of other MEN.

Left to their own devices, MASCULINE MEN will seek to bond sexually and otherwise with other MASCULINE MEN.

Phallically and Faithfully.

WARRIORS with WARRIORS.

MEN need the FREEDOM to once again say YES to other MEN.

Thank you guys.

Bill Weintraub

Robert Loring

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-17-2006

Great post Bill and sorry I'm coming in late.

You're absolutely right! When men are with other men we DON'T want a wife with a penis. We DON'T want our fellow male warrior to act like a woman! We want him to act like what he really is...a MAN! We want him to be our fellow WARRIOR just as you point out. No top, no bottom, no whatever....just a fellow Warrior, masculine male, and an EQUAL partner.

I agree with you completely about males in the West for at least the past century having lived a lie and still living a lie. That lie being that to be a masculine male you must be exclusively heterosexual. Being heterosexual has nothing to do with male masculinity. Being gay has nothing to do with masculinity. Being bisexual has nothing to do with it either! Masculinity is not exclusive to being heterosexual or any other preference. Rather, real MALE MASCULINITY meant and means WARRIOR! And, as you point out, Warriors have traditionally been in the company of other Warriors and they have been SEXUALLY BONDED with each other. The bonds that are built between two masculine male warriors that are sexually bonded to each other are bonds that are not easily destroyed. Consider the Band of Thebes and what an amazing military force they were! These masculine warriors were sexually bonded with each other and that made them a formidable force to be reckoned with in the ancient world.

You posted, "Instead, what's happened in our era is that men who've sought MANLY bonds with other men have been relegated to gay ghettoes which are controlled by feminized males."

Many, if not the MAJORITY, of males have gone seeking MANLY bonds with other men only to find themselves lost in the muck of the gay ghettoes dominated by feminized males. Mistakenly, they have believed that this is the way but, in fact, it is NOT the way. They believed they found masculine bonds with other men but they found only cheap sex with feminized men. The point of their quest was missed and finally LOST! We cannot only thank the gay ghettoes for this but we can also thank our larger society who is so psychotically BENT on homophobia! We can also thank Christianity and it's FUCKED UP concepts concerning sex on ANY level and with any one.

"Just as it's UNnatural for a MAN to live entirely without the company of other MEN. Left to their own devices, MASCULINE MEN will seek to bond sexually and otherwise with other MASCULINE MEN."

No man can live in a bubble. No male can live and be happy when he has not bonds with other men but only women or psuedo-women (feminized males). Maybe that's one reason for the high alcoholism, drug addiction, and suicide rates among feminized gay men. MEN DO in fact NEED the company of other MASCULINE MEN! And, it is very true that when left to their own devices masculine men will in fact seek to bond with other masculine men sexually in some way. Frot is USUALLY the way that bond is established. Anal is NOT!

"MEN need the FREEDOM to once again say YES to other MEN."

Our SICK and LOST society does NOT value FREEDOM even though it makes claim to. What our fucked up society TRULY values today is ENSLAVEMENT and CONTROL on a psychospiritual level of every MALE today! Modern society is a HYPOCRISY in which we claim to value FREEDOM yet we do everything in our power to ensure that no member of society really has freedom. That's hypocrisy!

To truly be FREE males MUST be allowed to bond with other MALES! They must be able to not simply value and think about the NATURAL brotherhood of man BUT to actually LIVE IT out in their daily lives WITHOUT fear of all the homophobia STIGMA that exists in Western Society today! MALES must be allowed to simply be WHO and WHAT they are as they were created and divinely intended to be. They must be allowed to share emotions with each other, to be tender with each other, to love each other, and YES to sexually bond with each other!

BUT, alas, we live in a society that is so FUCKED UP right now that it has NO IDEA what is up and what is down! And it's becoming WORSE literally with each passing day!! And as society has a whole become more fucked up it loses what small element of SANITY it still has. It's NO real wonder why we have so many people (men and women) today that are SOCIOPATHIC and PSYCHOPATHIC! When the NATURAL is substituted with the UNNATURAL what the hell do we expect to get as a result???

To be MASCULINE is a state of the WARRIOR MIND. You DON'T have to be of the Rambo macho body size and straight! Contrary to the LIES put out by Hollywood most ancient warriors were thin, tall, with natural muscle. Look at the Warriors today in the tribes of Africa. Do you see any Rambo macho's among them? Yet, these slim, tall warriors are fierce and they are a force for modern governments to reckon with. My point being, here, that you do not have to be a body-builder to be MASCULINE! You can be as skinny as a rail and STILL be a MASCULINE MAN! Masculinity is not only a thing of the physical body but it is primarily a STATE OF MIND that is NORMAL to ALL MALES. But, when males are forbidden to live out that natural and normal masculinity then everything goes awry in their lives and in the larger society! THAT is what has happened in the West today. Males have not simply been living a LIE but they have been trying to be something that they were never intended to be.!

Society has filled our heads with images of machoism and feminization and we have been led to believe that we must be one or the other. Warrior Masculinity has been lost in the process. Warrior masculinity is the MIDDLE GROUND and it is in this middle ground where males will ONLY find BALANCE. There is and cannot be any balance at the extremes of machoism and feminization. Only IMBALANCE is found at the extremes so no one should really be surprised by all the imbalance that is found in modern society today.

Homophobia has been a great WEAPON used by the enemies of NATURAL MANHOOD! It has worked like an atomic bomb! It has already destroyed millions of males in our society if not physically then psychologically and spiritually. Males who want to be masculine must bond with other masculine males and screw society's homophobia bullshit!!

Don't be afraid to be a MASCULINE MALE!

Don't be afraid to be a WARRIOR!!

Bill Weintraub

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-17-2006

Thank you Robert.

A great post -- as I often say about Robert's posts, please re-read it.

And to help that process along, I'm putting Robert's words in red:

I agree with you completely about males in the West for at least the past century having lived a lie and still living a lie. That lie being that to be a masculine male you must be exclusively heterosexual. Being heterosexual has nothing to do with male masculinity. Being gay has nothing to do with masculinity. Being bisexual has nothing to do with it either! Masculinity is not exclusive to being heterosexual or any other preference. Rather, real MALE MASCULINITY meant and means WARRIOR!

Right. The Warrior is the naturally masculine male.

Many, if not the MAJORITY, of males have gone seeking MANLY bonds with other men only to find themselves lost in the muck of the gay ghettoes dominated by feminized males. Mistakenly, they have believed that this is the way but, in fact, it is NOT the way. They believed they found masculine bonds with other men but they found only cheap sex with feminized men. The point of their quest was missed and finally LOST!

Right.

Masculine men, left to their own devices, do not choose anal.

But in our era, they have not been left to their own devices.

Instead, they've been forced into "gay" ghettoes in which anal, promiscuity, and effemiancy predominate.

These are the trash heaps of male-male sex.

Which is why they're full of dirt, degradation, and disease.

We cannot only thank the gay ghettoes for this but we can also thank our larger society who is so psychotically BENT on homophobia! We can also thank Christianity and it's FUCKED UP concepts concerning sex on ANY level and with any one.

Right.

So we fight on two fronts:

Against analism and the lie that anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy are normal in the lives of Men who love Men; and

Against heterosexism and heterosexualization, which teaches that real men don't have sex with other men.

That lie either forces men into those ghettoes or -- into the closet.

And in terms of Christianity -- and remembering that both Robert and I are people of Faith -- yes, the emphasis by the churches on exclusively procreative sex has been and remains a great problem.

To be MASCULINE is a state of the WARRIOR MIND. You DON'T have to be of the Rambo macho body size and straight! Contrary to the LIES put out by Hollywood most ancient warriors were thin, tall, with natural muscle. Look at the Warriors today in the tribes of Africa. Do you see any Rambo macho's among them? Yet, these slim, tall warriors are fierce and they are a force for modern governments to reckon with. My point being, here, that you do not have to be a body-builder to be MASCULINE! You can be as skinny as a rail and STILL be a MASCULINE MAN! Masculinity is not only a thing of the physical body but it is primarily a STATE OF MIND that is NORMAL to ALL MALES. But, when males are forbidden to live out that natural and normal masculinity then everything goes awry in their lives and in the larger society! THAT is what has happened in the West today. Males have not simply been living a LIE but they have been trying to be something that they were never intended to be.

Very important points:

To be MASCULINE is a state of the WARRIOR MIND.

Masculinity is not only a thing of the physical body but it is primarily a STATE OF MIND that is NORMAL to ALL MALES.

Also very important:

But, when males are forbidden to live out that natural and normal masculinity then everything goes awry in their lives and in the larger society! THAT is what has happened in the West today. Males have not simply been living a LIE but they have been trying to be something that they were never intended to be.

The abandonment of that which is normal and natural to males destroys them.

Society has filled our heads with images of machoism and feminization and we have been led to believe that we must be one or the other. Warrior Masculinity has been lost in the process. Warrior masculinity is the MIDDLE GROUND and it is in this middle ground where males will ONLY find BALANCE. There is and cannot be any balance at the extremes of machoism and feminization. Only IMBALANCE is found at the extremes so no one should really be surprised by all the imbalance that is found in modern society today.

Another key point: We're offered a false choice between machoism and feminization.

My foreign correspondent speaks of the difference between "cultural masculinity" and "natural masculinity."

And he says that many of the behaviors that men think of as "masculine" are actually behaviors which have been forced upon them by the culture of heterosexualization.

So men need to look beyond what the society calls "masculine" to what is truly masculine.

The clearest example of course is sex.

"Cultural masculinity" says that only heterosex is truly masculine.

That's a lie.

The naturally masculine man seeks to bond with and have sex with a fellow warrior.

To him, that's a completely natural and spontaneous act.

So: Cultural masculinity enforces heterosex and "homophobia."

NATURAL MASCULINITY supports sex both with women and with men.

Now -- an important question:

Does the naturally masculine man have a "feminine" side to his nature?

NO.

For two reasons:

1. The idea of the feminine side has no basis in biological reality.

2. In our culture, the idea of the feminine side is used by the feminists and analists to feminize and effeminize men.

So the idea itself is destructive of natural masculinity.

MEN who are in touch with and living their own NATURAL MASCULINITY can have attributes -- such as "being sensitive" or "being able to cry" -- which our homophobic and heterosexist society says are "feminine."

Those are not "feminine" traits.

They are NATURAL to men.

And we don't have to make reference to an alleged feminine side of the man's personality to justify his expression of those traits.

So: "cultural masculinity" will tell men:

A real man never feels pain.

A real man never cries.

A real man doesn't bake cookies.

Or have an interest in art.

Or whatever.

Most people nowadays however can recognize that those are false -- that men do feel pain, can cry, may be artistic, etc.

BUT -- these three still confuse people:

A real man only has sex with women.

A real man never thinks about sex with men.

A real man doesn't have sex with men.

They don't understand that those are attributes of "cultural masculinity," not TRUE MASCULINITY.

Which is WARRIOR MASCULINITY.

Robert:

Warrior Masculinity has been lost in the process. Warrior masculinity is the MIDDLE GROUND and it is in this middle ground where males will ONLY find BALANCE. There is and cannot be any balance at the extremes of machoism and feminization. Only IMBALANCE is found at the extremes so no one should really be surprised by all the imbalance that is found in modern society today.

Right.

Warrior masculinity teaches the male to be a man.

Which includes knowing how to fight.

And *when* to fight.

I know most of you still don't understand this.

But aggression is a natural part of masculinity.

I've discussed this with Patrick, who's a martial arts sensei.

There are "straight guys" out there who are timid and passive.

That's because no one has shown them how to fight.

Once they're shown, they lose that timidity and passivity.

Masculine men understand and are at home with their aggression.

Feminized males aren't.

That aspect of their masculinity has been stolen from them.

Please understand also that the culture has the ability to distort key masculine concepts.

For example, honor.

Honor is an important part of male-bonding.

Men want to behave "honorably" so as to be accepted by other men.

But -- cultural forces can define the honorable man as "one who sleeps with women only."

In which case it becomes dishonorable to have sex with a man.

The culture can also define anal as honorable.

Which is what analism does.

But that doesn't mean it's honorable.

If it effeminizes and degrades, it cannot be honorable.

Honor exalts masculinity.

It does not betray it.

And that's the crucial question.

Does the act celebrate MEN and MASCULINITY?

Or does it betray it?

My foreign correspondent argues that a heterosexualized society betrays natural masculinity.

Whether that masculinity belongs to a straight-identified man or a gay-identified man is immaterial.

It's been betrayed.

Homophobia has been a great WEAPON used by the enemies of NATURAL MANHOOD! It has worked like an atomic bomb! It has already destroyed millions of males in our society if not physically then psychologically and spiritually. Males who want to be masculine must bond with other masculine males and screw society's homophobia bullshit!!

Don't be afraid to be a MASCULINE MALE!

Don't be afraid to be a WARRIOR!!

Thank you Robert.

Robert's a true Warrior.

Are you?

Don't be afraid to be a WARRIOR!!

© All material Copyright 2006 - 2018 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Redd

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-18-2006

Bill,

About the passivity among straight men, might their learning to fight not only flush away passivity, but incline them to be brave enough to cultivate male companionship that would strengthen their masculine mentality, their warrior mentality?

Passivity fears the confidence of masculinity, doesn't it? A masculine man, then, wouldn't likely fear cultivating social bonds with men.

Bill Weintraub

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-18-2006

Hey Redd,

About the passivity among straight men, might their learning to fight not only flush away passivity, but incline them to be brave enough to cultivate male companionship that would strengthen their masculine mentality, their warrior mentality?

YES!

No question of that.

That's why training in a martial art or other combat sport is part of our program and strongly recommended.

However, the definitions of masculinity -- cultural vs natural -- and the context still matter.

EXAMPLE:

I have a friend who trains in fight sports in a big city in a liberal state.

His fight school is co-ed.

He finds that the presence of women disrupts the male-bonding process.

Why is the school co-ed?

It may be mandated by state law.

But more likely, the owner is just trying to maximize his profits.

I have another friend who trains in fight sports in a smaller city in a less liberal state.

His school is all-male.

Advantages:

1. The guys get to train with their shirts off.

2. The guys don't have to watch their language.

3. The guys can be guys:

There are limits, but the guys can be guys -- crude, rude, and lewd -- like I say, to a point.

If a guy is too crude, the other guys will exert pressure on him to conform to the group standard.

But it's all in a "guy" context.

On UFC fight nights, the guys gather at the school to watch the fights on TV, then grapple shirtless during the long intermissions and advertisements.

They watch fights, they fight, they watch fights, they fight, etc.

This develops huge esprit-de-corps -- literally.

So in that school you have an all-male, non-heterosexualized space in which the guys can be guys.

Obviously the creation of an all-male space like that helps defeat the heterosexualization process.

Passivity fears the confidence of masculinity, doesn't it? A masculine man, then, wouldn't likely fear cultivating social bonds with men.

Yes, absolutely.

But -- in terms of sex, those guys will still have to have someone explain to them that it's natural for a guy to make it with another guy.

That's it not a gay thing.

It's a guy thing.

That can be done subtly.

It can be done by a coach, or by an older guy, just joking around.

But in some way the guys need to get the message that it's okay to say YES to another guy.

Nevertheless, Redd, you're right that the cultivation of male-male bonds -- "homosocial bonds" -- in a combat sport setting will make it far easier for guys to get to that point -- if that's where they want and need to be.

© All material Copyright 2006 - 2018 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved

Boomer

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-20-2006

"Society has filled our heads with images of machoism and feminization and we have been led to believe that we must be one or the other. Warrior Masculinity has been lost in the process. Warrior masculinity is the MIDDLE GROUND and it is in this middle ground where males will ONLY find BALANCE. There is and cannot be any balance at the extremes of machoism and feminization. Only IMBALANCE is found at the extremes so no one should really be surprised by all the imbalance that is found in modern society today.

Another key point: We're offered a false choice between machoism and feminization."

That’s a very rich statement.

I wish I would have thought of that before I made my first post under a box that fits. It would have saved me a good 5 or 6 paragraphs worth of words trying to make a point.

Bill Weintraub

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-22-2006

I thank everyone who's posted in this thread -- Boomer, Redd, Bill G, Robert.

Great posts all of you.

Now:

Why am I so certain when it comes to issues of culture and effeminacy?

Part of the reason is rooted in my life experience.

In 1970, I was staying in a dorm at the University of London -- in Russell Square.

And in that dorm there were also staying a bunch of Israeli guys -- about the same age as me -- early 20s.

The difference between those guys, and the American Jewish guys I had grown up with, was immense.

That difference was not genetic or biological.

My father was an immigrant to America -- he was brought here as a babe-in-arms from Russian Poland.

The Israeli guys' fathers were also immigrants -- except they went to Palestine instead of America.

Our grandparents and parents all came from the same part of the world -- Eastern Europe.

Where they'd been persecuted for being Jews.

The difference between us was that the Israeli guys had grown up in the Jewish state.

Where they were the majority culture.

Whereas I and my American Jewish friends were still what our ancestors had been -- a religious minority in an often hostile culture.

Of course Jews in America, particularly after World War II, were treated a lot better than their ancestors had been in Russia.

But we were still a tiny minority.

And very much aware that we existed at the sufferance of the majority.

That was not true of the Israelis.

They were masters of their fate.

And you could see it in their demeanor.

They were brash, confident, very masculine, perhaps even a little macho -- not in a bad way, but as a Frenchman or Italian might be.

Someone who was completely at home in his native culture.

Now, let me be clear that I had American Jewish friends who were athletes, who were certainly masculine and successful guys.

But they did not have the confidence and swagger of those Israeli guys.

I had never seen that in a Jew before.

And it really opened my eyes.

Because I saw for the first time and very clearly in my life the power of culture.

Culture shapes us in a myriad of ways, many very subtle.

Here's an email from a guy about life in another Middle Eastern country, and the homosocial nature of everday life there:

Bill, I lived in the Middle East (Egypt) where men walk hand-in-hand or arm-in-arm. Women walk with women similarly. These gestures were not haphazardly done with anyone. The locked arms/hands signified friendship, that the persons were dear to one another as friends, that they were connected. It also signified acceptance. I often saw soliders and policemen hand-in-hand donned in their uniform, walking proudly, upright, and confident.

One of my goals when I travel abroad is to respect people's cultures so that they are comfortable being themselves around me. I don't want them to treat me like a tourist. I realized that I had succeeded in this goal when a host would hold my hand as we walked or if he slid his arm in the opening of my pocketed hand. Those gestures meant a lot to me because they told me that I was liked and accepted and considered a friend.

Men were just naturally with men in everyday living. And since men didn't touch women in a platonic sense, men were free to interact with men. Men danced with each other; in crowded places were seats were limited, men sat on a friend's knee; men congregated in the juice/coffee cafes; at the university, women sat shoulder to shoulder in one roll, men shoulder to shoulder in the other roll (desks were like pews). In fact, Bill, I've never been touched (non-sexual) as much as I was in Egypt.

I felt validated. The touching facilitated the looking. Looking is a very socially interactive behavior that affirms one's humanity. Where I lived in Egypt people were not afraid to look at me, in my face, nothing askance. The look said that they wanted to know who I was. Nobody tried to give me the eye; nobody diverted his gaze when I looked in his direction; nobody watched me. Even my neighbor would sit at her window that faced my flat and look. In America, I am watched, hence suspected of some ill. Watching is surveillance. Looking shows interests; it touches.

Once while traveling to Luxor and Aswan, I was sitting in a restaurant located on the river Nile in Aswan. While the waiter was talking to me and my friends, he put his hand on my shoulder, looked at me, and asked if I were a fighter because of my muscular shoulder. What a compliment. Too bad I had to tell him the truth.

On another occasion, I was visiting the Sinai with my friend from England who was hosting his friends. We four were riding in the back of a truck when suddenly one of the friends said to me, "You are a mesomorph." The point is, of course, that both times my masculinity was recognized and complimented by other men. The recognition wasn't forced; it wasn't objectifying; it had no hidden agenda; it was simply man appreciating man, m2m.

In America, however, I'm often objectified. Objectification makes one feel dirty.

I say all that to say that touching/looking man to man was normal. But I rarely experience that normalcy in America as I have in other countries.

Why? Well, one reason I believe is because of space. Egypt is a small country with millions of people. Life exists along the Nile so space is limited. Unlike the USA where space is plentiful, Egyptians don't have the luxury of not touching. They are crowded and often packed closely. Huge, spacious areas allow Americans to cultivate paranoia about touch and make suspicious all touch.

Another reason, I believe, is Islam seems to be homosocial, the way Arab culture was before Islam. The husband/wife relationship didn't impede the man's social relationships with men. The wife was not her husband's company; she was his wife, equipped to care for a limited amount of his emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs. He found his energy and creativity amongst men. He admired those who reflected him. He didn't admire women; he loved women for the role they served. He could not, however, imitate a woman. He admired who he could imitate in body and spirit, men.

Also, while studying the history of Korea in SK, I visited a replicated Korean village of ages past. The house was designed where the husband and wife had separate rooms, connected by a long hallway. When the husband wanted intimacy, he'd take the hall to his wife's room, make love to her, and return to his room. Similarly, in Egypt, the wives are often not in the room when male guests visit.

Another reason, I think, is colonialism. European colonists depicted countries they colonized as feminine. The colonists, hence, became the binary opposite, hyper-machismo. Hyper-machismo had to deny natural masculinity that it witnessed in colonized countries to validate colonists' self-imposed superiority.

How did they do this?

By defining men, the masculine as possessors of their body, and the feminine as being their body. If the colonists' masculine were to be distinguished from the colonized, the colonists had to avoid the masculine interaction they witnessed amongst the colonized men. Colonists, then, stressed reason and the spiritual, qualities that didn't need the body for validity. In fact, expressions of emotions were deemed fleshly. During our Great Awakening for example, the emotionalsim was mostly that of women and youth. Men, especially aristocratic, educated men, prided in their lack of emotion and in their propensity to reason and to the spiritual.

In the 1980s, for instance, I attended a non-denominational church of a mixed congregation here in the South. Many of the black members came from black churches where they were free to express praise emotionally, called shouting. A shout occurred when a person felt the spirit and reacted however his or her body decided. Outsiders don't understand how liberating shouting is for releaving woes. Shouting often signified that God was having His way, that the congregants were not quenching the spirit by not allowing God to move. If God's movement meant going contrary to the agenda, then so be it. Particpating in that atmosphere is energizing.

Well, when I began attending the non-denominational "word" churches, whites said that shouting was being in the flesh. Blacks had to restrain their joy in the one communal place where they should have been able to "let go and let God."

Having the colonists' history, whites in the churches had the possess-the-body mentality, which they thought would tame the black other's being-a-body. A possessor of his body wouldn't let his body shout because he possesses his body; he is not his body. The black other was/is considered his body.

Today, those same type of churches have, if you will, gotten the spirit. They shout. What caused the change?

The upward mobility of black influence on pop culture is perhaps a contributor. In other words, the other's effect on the dominant culture is no longer a detriment to the dominant culture. The change really occurred in the 1990s.

So M2M has hope, Bill, to have an quick impact. Right now m2m is the 'other' to both the straight and gay cultures. Masculine men, however, can defeat effeminacy. Getting men to remember and to reconnect with the value of the warrior will be their salvation.

Thank you guy.

"Men danced with each other; in crowded places where seats were limited, men sat on a friend's knee; men congregated in the juice/coffee cafes."

"I often saw soliders and policemen hand-in-hand donned in their uniform, walking proudly, upright, and confident."

Can you imagine two Marines walking down the street in America hand-in-hand?

If you can't, or if the only way you can imagine that is in a gay porn flick, you might begin to understand how impoverished your life as a MAN is in America.

"Proud, upright, and confident."

That's what I saw in those Israeli guys that I didn't see in my fellow American Jews.

So it's all culture.

And there's a huge difference in the lives of MEN depending upon whether they live in a homosocial culture, or a hyper-heterosexualized culture like our own.

If you live in a culture in which your Masculinity is always under attack, it will, inevitably, warp you.

That's the reality.

"Getting men to remember and to reconnect with the value of the warrior will be their salvation."

Right.

Robert:

The WARRIOR ETHOS is the PERFECT route for many things MALE. The Warrior Ethos is a perfect pattern by which a boy can become a masculine man. A man of HONOR and a man of INTEGRITY! The Warrior Ethos is a perfect pathway by which a male can learn to control his innate aggressiveness and channel it into something PRODUCTIVE instead of destructive. The Warrior Ethos does NOT feminize a male nor does it seek to take a male along the hellish road of self rejection. Rather, it promotes masculinity, honor, and integrity. It promotes self respect and SELF CONTROL. It promotes self male PRIDE! It honors CREATION by males instead of destruction and self destruction as femininity does. The Warrior Ethos promotes and enhances NATURAL MALE MASCULINITY not only for young males but throughout the lives of mature masculine males. The Warrior Ethos is a road that never ends because it is a road of male HONOR of self and of others!

© All material Copyright 2006 - 2018 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Joe

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-22-2006

"The Power of the Masculine" verbalizes what I've often thought but didn't know how to articulate. Why do I enjoy the company of guys and prefer their company to women? Why do guys like touching other guys? This last question about touching, Bill, is really telling.

I hate the don't-touch-me, don't-look-at-me fearful attitude guys project. That's exactly what gender feminists demand--don't touch, don't look--and cry sexual harassment at any glance. Why can't men see that the way men in the West are discouraged to interact with men is feminizing them? As was noted in the post, gay and heterosexism are one in the same. Both oppress masculinity.

Heterosexism promotes fear of the masculine by telling men that being with women is the ultimate _expression of masculinity and that suspicion of male to male contact is manly. Bill, that shit never made sense to me.

Even Jesus chose twelve men to be his followers. He never married. Instead, he sought intimate rapport with twelve men, twelve warriors, to whom he showed love and whom he touched often. I wouldn't be surprised if they walked arm-in-arm as many men in that area of the world do today. Jesus was their brother; they left their lives to follow him. Women followed Jesus as well, but Jesus chose his disciples.

How homosocial is Jesus's relationship with his disciples? Very. Why then in our religious society do we ignore Jesus's homosocialism by forcing men through fear to deny their biological proclivity to homosocialize? Jesus, the very man at the core of Christians' belief, was a man. Women were in his life, but they weren't his primary company.

Robert Loring

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-23-2006

"Even Jesus chose twelve men to be his followers. He never married. Instead, he sought intimate rapport with twelve men, twelve warriors, to whom he showed love and whom he touched often. I wouldn't be surprised if they walked arm-in-arm as many men in that area of the world do today. Jesus was their brother; they left their lives to follow him. Women followed Jesus as well, but Jesus chose his disciples.

How homosocial is Jesus's relationship with his disciples? Very. Why then in our religious society do we ignore Jesus's homosocialism by forcing men through fear to deny their biological proclivity to homosocialize? Jesus, the very man at the core of Christians' belief, was a man. Women were in his life, but they weren't his primary company."

Very correct Joe. Jesus did not marry and he chose intimate rapport with twelve other men, 12 fellow Warriors. And he was UNAFRAID to show his fellow warriors, brothers, love and he was UNAFRAID to touch them or to be touched by them. Should Jesus and his 12 brother warriors walk the earth today they would all be accused of being gay in our homophobic society! Yet, there was nothing gay about their relationship for they were just being masculine males together.

We don't have a religious society, IMHO. We have a society pretending to be religious but really dwelling in HYPOCRISY especially when it comes to religion. Jesus and his homosocial relationships are ignored because modern society wishes to ignore the truth about masculinity and NORMAL manhood. Instead of portraying Jesus the way he was society wishes to portray him as some sort of long-haired hippie type with a guru's message of peace and love. Society does not want to see him as a WARRIOR or even as a leader of a MOVEMENT (which is what Christianity was under Jesus and it was NOT a religion!!). And, society sure as hell does not want to look at the facts behind Jesus' homosocial interactions and relationships with the 12 Warrior Apostles either because that would blow their little fantasy apart. We have created Jesus in OUR own image and missed the TRUTH about him!

We forget that life is a battleground. We ignore the BIBLICAL FACT that under Jesus and the Apostles the Christian Movement was a WARRIOR RELIGION and MOVEMENT. The Bible is overflowing with WARRIOR SYMBOLISM. Eagles, soldiers, armies, banners, weapons, shields, swords, armor, war horses....all of these are WARRIOR symbolism. Those of the faith are encouraged to be "good SOLDIERS for Christ." We are encouraged to even "put on the full ARMOR of God"! Yet, society turns a blind eye to all this WARRIOR SYMBOLISM today choosing instead to emasculate Jesus and his followers and replace him with a kinder, gentler, WEAK and compromised male who is basically a coward.

The image of Jesus we have today was not the image of Jesus during his lifetime or for the first few centuries after his Crucifixion. Jesus was a strong, masculine, charismatic leader and founder of the Christian MOVEMENT. This Movement was intended to be a STRONG and COURAGEOUS Movement. It was intended to be a MASCULINE Movement of WARRIORS not hand-wringers and whiners! The message of Jesus was meant to embolden we the Warriors NOT to de-nutt us! We are to LOVE our BROTHERS not be homophobic about them! We are to take Jesus the Warrior on as our personal "pattern and example" to be emulated in our OWN lives!! We are to be WARRIORS just as Jesus and his 12 Male Apostles were WARRIORS! And we are warned NOT to be DECEIVED by the WORLD. And one of the greatest DECEPTIONS of this world is that MEN must NOT LOVE other men! Should we discover this deception then that is what institutionalized Christianity fears to most for it would require looking at the truth of Jesus and the 12. And that would spell an end to the Church institution and it's money and power over the masses. For you see, the image of Jesus changed in the 4th Century C.E. when the Christian Movement was HIJACKED and turned into an institutional religion bent on money (greed), submission to human authority (the clergy), and power. Jesus was transformed from a Warrior to being a wimp. He was forcibly and intentionally taken and removed from the masculine and towards the feminine. Now he is so far removed from what he truly was in the 1st Century C.E. that hardly any really even know him today and even more would NEVER recognize him should he walk the earth again!

Read your Bibles folks! It's NOT hard to see Jesus the Warrior and his homosocial relationships with his followers.

Bill Weintraub

Re: THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-27-2006

I want to support Robert in what he's said.

Because he's right.

Jesus and his homosocial relationships are ignored because modern society wishes to ignore the truth about masculinity and NORMAL manhood.

Right -- that couldn't be more clear.

Jesus was a strong, masculine, charismatic leader and founder of the Christian MOVEMENT. This Movement was intended to be a STRONG and COURAGEOUS Movement. It was intended to be a MASCULINE Movement of WARRIORS not hand-wringers and whiners! The message of Jesus was meant to embolden we the Warriors NOT to de-nutt us! We are to LOVE our BROTHERS not be homophobic about them! We are to take Jesus the Warrior on as our personal "pattern and example" to be emulated in our OWN lives!! We are to be WARRIORS just as Jesus and his 12 Male Apostles were WARRIORS! And we are warned NOT to be DECEIVED by the WORLD. And one of the greatest DECEPTIONS of this world is that MEN must NOT LOVE other men! Should we discover this deception then that is what institutionalized Christianity fears the most for it would require looking at the truth of Jesus and the 12.

Right.

Remember what my foreign friend said about the stallions.

That in his country, those who use horses for work animals seek to prevent two stallions from bonding, because they then become too independent and intractable.

So instead the trainers use a system of rewards and punishments to get the stallion to bond with a mare.

Isn't it how they treat humans? Does it tell us anything about human [exclusive] heterosexuality and how is it made possible? Doesn't the society use various mechanisms to psychologically keep men away from men sexually so as to keep them from forming intimacy?

Doesn't the society punish and reward men in order to train them to bond with women? And then claim that heterosexuality is natural / normal?

Robert:

The message of Jesus was meant to embolden we the Warriors NOT to de-nutt us! We are to LOVE our BROTHERS not be homophobic about them!

A message the church finds very dangerous.

Remember that the Sacred Band of Thebes broke the Spartan line.

The Spartans used "homoerotic" bonds too.

But the point to the Sacred Band was that it was 150 erotically bonded warrior pairs fighting as a unit.

Like having 150 bonded pairs of stallions furiously coming at you all at once.

You'll notice that Plutarch uses stallion imagery to describe them:

Pelopidas, having sufficiently tried their bravery at Tegyrae, where they had fought alone and around his own person, never afterward divided them, but, keeping them entire, and as one man, gave them the first duty in the greatest battles.

For as horses run brisker in a chariot than singly, not that their joint force divides the air with greater ease, but because being matched one against the other emulation kindles and inflames their courage; thus he thought brave men, provoking one another to noble actions, would prove most serviceable, and most resolute, where all were united together.

"Brave men, provoking one another to noble actions, would prove most serviceable, and most resolute, where all were united together."

Think about it guys.

There's a reason male sexuality is kept under such tight control, and male-male bonds relegated to an effeminate trash heap.

Society fears the united male and martial might of Masculine Men.

© All material Copyright 2006 - 2018 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.