Bill Weintraub

Re: anal action, ugh!

5-25-2008

Thank you Scott.

Guys, Scott lives in NYC, as you can see he's newly single, and, for those who want to know more about him, he has a post up in Frot Club.

Now, let's talk about Scott's story.

It is, unfortunately, one which we've heard and which many of us have lived -- over and over again.

Guys who are into mutually and directly genital sex, sex which is, in Frances' phrase, "natural and organic," and which is also and without question the hottest m2m sex on the planet, nevertheless lose partners and potential partners.

In droves.

Why is that?

Because of a culture.

Specifically a dominant culture, which we call the dominant culture of anal penetration, or analism.

And which teaches that sex between males must be anal -- or nothing.

Guys, let me emphasize that the idea of a dominant culture is in no way radical.

The concept was first put forth by physicist and intellectual historian Tom Kuhn in his ground-breaking and very influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

In which he talked about "dominant paradigms" in the history of science, and coined the phrase "paradigm shift."

Now, the word "paradigm" is originally an ancient Greek word, and it just means "model."

And what Kuhn demonstrated is that at any given moment there is, in science, a dominant paradigm or model -- usually of the universe -- and that over time, that paradigm gives way to a new paradigm -- in what is, a "paradigm shift."

So, at one time, the dominant paradigm or model in science was the geocentric theory of the universe, which taught that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that all celestial objects, including the sun, circled the earth.

That paradigm or model was eventually replaced by the heliocentric theory of the universe, which taught that the earth circled the sun.

That shift, from the geocentric to the heliocentric, was a "paradigm shift" -- a shift in the dominant model, and it had profound implications not just for science, but for virtually all aspects of human life.

Because it changed the way people thought about themselves and their place in the universe.

In the years since Kuhn's book was published, social scientists and historians and various and other assorted thinkers have realized that his model of scientific paradigm shift can be extended into other areas of human life -- into what is more broadly called culture.

And that there are dominant paradigms or cultures in human life.

And that they too shift and change.

So -- it's very, very important that you understand the basic idea of a dominant culture, and the way it behaves.

This came up recently when I happened upon a blog entry somewhere on the net talking about my work.

In the blog, the writer, who very much supports the Alliance, was arguing that the Democrats are the party of analism, or at least more likely to support analist goals.

Is that correct?

No.

I understand why someone might make that assumption, because we often associate analism with secularism, and the Democratic Party, though it's tried hard to shed the secularist label, is still often painted with that brush.

But -- the assumption that analism is the property of one political party or another, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of a dominant paradigm or culture like analism.

Because when we say a culture is dominant, we do mean dominant -- we mean that it dominates the discussion almost everywhere and cuts across the usual divisions of class, race, gender, party, religion, etc. -- in society.

Furthermore, the central tenets of a dominant culture are what intellectual historians call "received ideas" -- that is, they're ideas which are taken on face value by just about everyone, with very little questioning of their core premise or premises.

So, for example, when we look at the idea that the earth was the center of the universe, we find that it was a universal belief:

Popes believed it, kings believed it, knights and nobles believed it, priests and monks and other clergy believed it, guild members believed it, university students believed it, peasants and serfs believed it.

Everyone believed it, and no one much questioned it.

Because after all, you could see it:

The earth stood still, while the sun rose and set.

So -- even though many of the folks I've just described would have disagreed about and even gone to war about many things, they didn't disagree about the geocentric theory.

And it wasn't until people like Galileo and Kepler began questioning it -- that it became an area of contention.

And when it did become an area of contention, the dominant culture of geocentrism reacted by trying to censor and silence those who were questioning its assumptions.

Because that's what dominant cultures do.

Now, to see this in a political and same-sex sex context, we don't need to go back to the end of the Middle Ages -- but only fifty years, to 1958, and to the then-prevailing dominant paradigm about "homosexuality," which was known as "the medical model of homosexuality."

The medical model taught that all human beings were born with an innate predisposition to be exclusively "heterosexual"; and that when individuals became "homosexual," it was because of a defect in their family structure -- specifically, a dominating mother and an absent or emasculated father.

This defective family structure was said to produce what was termed a "block in psychosexual development."

Which meant that "homosexuality," therefore, was a mental illness, and that "homosexuals" were developmentally immature and incomplete, and in need of treatment by psychiatry.

How pervasive was this model?

Very.

In fact, it was all-pervasive: that is, it was found and believed at all levels of society, from upper-crust to working class.

And that includes among politicians.

The medical model of homosexuality was not the province of one party or another -- everyone believed it.

So: were you, in 1958, to ask three representative pols -- JFK, Dwight D Eisenhower, and Richard M Nixon -- whether "homosexuality" was a mental illness -- they would have all said -- Yes.

And in public policy terms, they would have agreed on the broad outlines of how to deal with "homosexuality" and "homosexuals" --

By, for example, excluding them from the military.

Indeed, one of President Eisenhower's first acts, upon assuming office in 1953, was to sign an executive order banning "homosexuals" from not just the military and the federal government, but from any employment or agency which received federal funds.

That of course had a tremendously chilling effect upon guys who might otherwise have been open about their attraction to other guys.

Because if they were, they couldn't work.

Did JFK, who ran in opposition to many of DDE's ideas, change that policy?

No.

Neither did RMN.

Because "homosexuals" were "mentally ill."

They were also considered "morally depraved."

But the mental illness bit was the more significant part of the dominant paradigm, and like I say, it was everywhere.

For example, in the late 1960s and early 70s, New York City had a very liberal Republican mayor named John Lindsay.

Like I say, Lindsay was a liberal -- very liberal.

But he was in utter shock when Dr. Howard Brown, a former health commissioner in his administration, came out as "gay."

Because everyone knew that "homosexuals" couldn't be doctors and public health officials -- they were mentally ill.

And if by some fluke they became doctors or public health officials -- they certainly wouldn't admit to same-sex feelings.

Because that would be admitting to mental illness.

Brown, who understood that the medical model or paradigm if you will of "homosexuality" was wrong -- challenged it.

By "coming out."

In so doing, he shocked his former boss, John Lindsay.

But he also helped bring down the medical model.

However, that's getting a bit ahead of our story.

For now, what I want you to understand is that even a liberal mayor in a liberal town like NYC believed in the medical model.

Because that's the way a dominant paradigm works.

Its ideas are pervasive and all-dominating, and they're found in all walks of society and certainly in both of our major American political parties.

So to think that contemporary Republicans are less "analist" than Democrats -- is not realistic.

We've had after all, eight years of George Bush, during six of which the Congress was solidly Republican.

But the dominant paradigm, which is analist, didn't change.

And were you to ask today's big three, John, Hillary, and Barack, about anal and "gay men," in a way which they could answer, they would no doubt all three agree that anal characterizes men who have sex with men.

That's why guys like Scott's ex leave guys like Scott --

because they've been told repeatedly that "if it isn't anal, it isn't gay."

And who wants to be "gay" -- without the "benefit" of "gay sex?"

That's the dominant cultural assumption.

And we're bombarded with it constantly.

Just today, as I was finishing up this post, I received an email from one of our guys who said

When I was growing up, I read that you weren't really gay unless you had anal sex and this left me with a great deal of confusion regarding my sexual identity.

Right.

So that idea -- you're not really "gay" unless you do anal -- is ubiquitous.

It's everywhere.

And that idea is what has to be changed.

This man was someone who, as he was "growing up" -- that means when he was a kid and very vulnerable -- knew and recognized that he wanted to be with another male -- sexually.

He thought that longing meant he was "gay."

Of course, we know that it doesn't -- it just means that he's a Man.

Nevertheless, he was then told that "you weren't really gay unless you had anal [so-called] sex."

Which, since he knew he wasn't interested in anal, left him "with a great deal of confusion regarding my sexual identity."

No kidding.

The truth about him was that he was just a normal guy who wanted to have sex with another guy the way guys have sex with guys -- phallus-to-phallus.

Man to Man.

Manhood to Manhood.

But he wasn't told any of that.

Instead he was told a series of analist lies.

That he was "gay."

That to be "gay" he had to be into "anal."

And that if he didn't do "anal," he wouldn't really be "gay."

Which left him very confused.

Now, I've written back to this guy and asked him if would share with us more of his story.

But what we know is that this sort of "confusion" is extremely destructive in the lives of Men.

Resulting in years -- often lifetimes -- of unhappiness.

Whether the man chooses to be celibate, or do anal, or marry and have sex only with women -- it results in the denial of a basic Male need:

The need of the Male to be affectionally and sexually a Man -- with another Man.

Without which, he is never fully -- a Man.

And then of course there are all those who do anal and end up infected with HIV and other anally-vectored diseases.

Many of whom die.

The dominant culture of anal penetration is incredibly destructive.

Yet it, for the moment, prevails.

We human beings live in our culture the way fish live in the sea.

Most of the time we don't realize we're doing what the culture wants us to do.

But that is what most of us do -- most of the time.

We all like to think of ourselves as free spirits and independent agents.

But that's not true -- most of the time.

Because we're social animals and very sensitive to peer pressure.

So it's difficult -- very difficult -- to escape the demands of your culture.

How do you change a culture?

Well, here's a clue:

Every dominant culture -- or paradigm -- began its life as an oppositional culture -- or paradigm.

For example, capitalism.

In 1776, when Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, the dominant economic paradigm was something called "mercantilism."

Capitalism was an insurgency.

As was communism, which began life in 1848 as an insurgency against capitalism.

Both capitalism and communism became dominant cultures.

Communism has faded; capitalism's fate isn't clear.

But if I were a betting man, I wouldn't be putting a lot of money, as it were, on capitalism -- because dominant paradigms don't last, and capitalism has been around for a loooong time.

What about "gay?"

"Gay" entered this world as an insurgency too.

It was an insurgency against that very same "medical model of homosexuality" we were talking about, and as such it was liberating.

I was a Gay Liberationist.

And for a reason.

I'm in favor of human freedom.

But over time, what often happens, and what happened with "gay," is that oppositional or insurgent paradigms become dominant paradigms, and establish tyrannies -- cultural tyrannies, as I've called them.

So: "gay," in the form of analism, has become a dominant culture or paradigm.

And as such, it's become toxic.

The enemy of freedom.

Which means that we need to fashion our own oppositional paradigm.

And that's what we're about, in part, in our Man2Man Alliance.

The first step in fashioning such an oppositional paradigm -- is recognizing and understanding the culture you want to change.

Which in this case is analism.

Analism has three components -- anal penetration, promiscuity, and effeminacy -- and we need to be clear that each one of those is a problem.

That it's not just anal, but the promiscuity and effeminacy which accompany and facilitate it, and which are all betrayals of the historic and cross-cultural reality of the Love of Man for Man.

And which represent a heterosexualized and therefore very distorted and degraded version of male-male intimacy.

As my foreign friend says,

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...

That's correct.

Gay males support heterosexualization and heterosexualization in its most radical forms -- including gender feminism and transgenderism -- because they themselves, and the categories of sexual orientation on which they depend, are creations of heterosexualization.

My foreign friend:

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.

And that too is correct.

Heterosexualized environments are UNnatural;

but under heterosexualization, they become pervasive -- all pervasive.

This is from an email from Redd:

Today as I talked with a lesbian, she said she noticed a girl who was girly like her. They were attracted to each other, but her problem was who was going to be the girl's baby's daddy. She adhered to the girly/butch binary--one plays the role of mother, the other the role of man.

She didn't see them as two women, neither being a man or having to play the role of a man. She viewed them through heterosexual lenses.

The heterosexualization of culture soils w2w thinking as it soils m2m.

And there seems a sexual underpining in the gym where concerted efforts to avoid eye contact stares at you through downward gazes, quick glances, and silence. I think people, especially guys, are aware that they, like everyone there, are focused on physical improvement. The body is the object of focus, yet people fear looking at bodies, at people, and looking is natural.

Male/female looking occurs, but not much among guys because I think the gym still has, for men, a masculine connotation in which weight-lifting equals big muscles.

Yet when guys do talk, their speech is lively; they're prone to ask for assistance in lifting; they're enliven.

In fact, Bill, watching this dynamic among guys bespeaks of bygone days when a public masculine space was a comfort zone for men: Men congregated doing what men do--strengthening their bodies--donned in flesh-exposing attire letting other men see their muscles.

I don't know if I've noticed this before. I don't know if I've ever noticed the pleasure men get from interacting with men in the gym. Despite women's presence in the gym, men seem more inclined towards other men. Even when men prance square-shouldered after grunting a set, their prancing is for men.

I don't know if I'm expressing myself clearly, but this subtle interacting among men is sensual if not sexual.

Right.

Redd is making some profound points, and doing so by observing and describing, with great clarity, our heterosexualized sisters and brothers.

He notes that two women, who are attracted to each other -- which is natural, because same-sex attraction between women is natural -- are nevertheless determined to make their relationship resemble a heterosexual relationship -- in which there's a male and a female.

But there isn't.

In their relationship, there's just two women.

And he sees that at the gym, which until recently was a same-gender or homosocial institution and environment, guys are afraid to look openly at other guys.

Even though that's a normal, natural, and indeed necessary male activity.

But that when the guys are able to interact -- by asking someone for a spot -- the male-male interaction envlivens them.

That they prance for each other.

And that "Despite women's presence in the gym, men seem more inclined towards other men."

Because as Redd points out, "watching this dynamic among guys bespeaks of bygone days when a public masculine space was a comfort zone for men: Men congregated doing what men do--strengthening their bodies--donned in flesh-exposing attire letting other men see their muscles."

"Flesh-exposing attire" is right.

The very word "gymnasium" is from a Greek word --"gymnasion" -- which has as its root the Greek word for nude -- "gymnos."

Guys used to work out in the nude.

So that they could see each other's Manly bodies and get the maximum benefit from their shared Masculinity.

Very important for Men.

Same-sex, single-gender, environments are Natural.

While heterosexual environments are UNnatural --

and give rise to an equally UNnatural and forcibly heterosexualized form of sex between males.

Anal penetration.

So -- if we're in opposition to analism, we need to understand its cultural roots.

Understanding.

Understanding is the first part of opposition.

And understanding itself consists of two parts.

The first is understanding the culture which you oppose.

And the second is formulating the cultural elements which you propose to put in its place.

In the case of analism, there's anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy.

What we propose instead is Frot, Fidelity, and Masculinity.

But what we propose is NOT hypothetical.

It's something we live out in our own lives.

Scott, for example -- he's been into Frot since he was a teen, and has stuck with it even though it's cost him partners and relationships.

And I hope that Scott's into Fidelity and Masculinity too.

In his Frot Club post he says that he's looking for a man with whom he can develop a connection; a man who's not into the "bar scene"; and who lives "a healthy life style."

So -- Frot, Fidelity, Masculinity -- aren't just hypotheticals.

They're how our guys want to live.

And in many cases already do live.

And I could see that from the emails and posts I received after I published my first piece, Hyacinthine Love, and then started our first site, Cockrub Warriors.

That what united us was not only cockrub -- as wonderful as cockrub is -- but other elements which I had long thought of as Heroic Homosex, but which are actually just a reflection and expression of the historic reality of the Love of Warrior for Warrior:

And there are many ways to say that.

Such as these:

So: first you have to understand the culture or paradigm you oppose -- and then you need to understand what you propose to put in its place.

And in this case, what we propose, although it's "oppositional" in the sense of being opposed to analism, is also a return to the traditional, pre-heterosexualized reality of Men Loving Men.

Which was, to again use Frances' phrase, "natural and organic."

"Natural and organic."

That's what Frot, Masculinity, and Fidelity were -- and still are among us.

Very important to understand that.

Because what it means is that the Warrior tradition and the Warrior archetype, despite the repeated onslaughts of heterosexualization and the belief systems it's created -- analism, feminism, heterosexism, transgenderism, etc --

Despite the constant barrage of heterosexualized lies -- the Warrior tradition and the Warrior archetype has NOT died.

It's alive, psychically, physically, emotionally, and spiritually -- but hidden from the great mass of Men.

Our task is to bring it back into the Light.

And that too must be part of our understanding.

That we are giving back and returning to Men a Way of Life and of Love which is theirs by right of birth.

The Warrior Way.

So -- the first step is understanding.

After understanding, comes dissent and then agitation.

DISSENT.

Dissent.

You have to dissent publically and by dissenting publically agitate for change.

You can't bring about change by doing nothing.

"Do nothing and nothing will change."

That's not just a Bill Weintraub aphorism;

it's an historical fact.

Change is brought about via Dissent -- and Active Dissent -- Agitation.

Natan Sharansky, who was a dissident in the old Soviet Union and was imprisoned there for many years, and then managed to make it to Israel, where he's now a sort of dissident politician, has his own aphorism:

"The level of dissent is determined by the cost of dissent."

Which means that the higher the price -- the penalities -- which folks pay for dissenting -- the lower the level of dissent.

"Price" -- or penalties -- are not just penal -- as in being put in jail -- or financial -- as in job loss.

They include loss of social standing, loss of family, loss of friends, loss of church, loss of prestige, etc.

And obviously the loss of partners and potential partners -- as Scott and so many others have experienced.

Nevertheless, people do dissent.

But to do so publically is difficult.

In the 1950s and early 60s, for example, those who dissented *publically* from "the medical model of homosexuality" were usually artists or writers who had a lot more freedom than most folks --

people like James Baldwin, Gore Vidal, and Allen Ginsberg.

But those early dissenters were very important -- because they empowered other folks --

like Jack Nichols, who, in the 1960s, helped persuade the Mattachine Society to reject the medical model of homosexuality -- and who, many years later, was my editor at Gay Today.

Jack published me in part because he understood that cultures shift and change, and he understood the vital importance of dissent in that process.

Now, I've talked about the price of dissent -- and that's real.

Sharansky was locked up for years.

And that's what a dominant paradigm will do.

If it can, it will jail and thus cause to disappear -- those who dissent.

Indeed, in our own dispute of Frot v anal, it's been suggested that I be put in jail.

While others have demanded that I be "shut up."

Again, that's what the dominant paradigm wants.

It wants to silence.

We can't let that happen.

One of the reasons I started our first site, all those years ago, was so that MEN into FROT would have a platform from which to speak.

MEN like Scott -- who in just a few sentences has told the plain truth of his life.

I have been into frot since a teenager. I have yet again broke up with a partner of 3 yrs as part of the problem was he became bored with J/O and frot. This has happened also with guys I date. The gay community and so many guys I meet are only into anal action, ugh! Your site is so valuable for guys like us.

And in speaking that plain truth, Scott has DISSENTED.

He says, "anal action, ugh!"

Right.

That's a simple expression of dissent -- but it's really important.

Because it occurs within a universe in which "anal action" is constantly celebrated and romanticized.

Scott instead says the plain truth about anal -- "ugh!"

And that's really all you need.

EXCEPT -- that you have to say it a lot.

And be uncompromising in the way you say it.

Chuck Tarver, who's a college professor and communications expert, talks about that in an important post titled Blacks Against Anal Penetration.

In which Chuck sets out the

Tactics for winning a cultural debate.

1. Use buzzwords and phrases. He who controls the language controls the debate.

2. Attack, attack, attack. Be relentless in your approach. Make your point over and over again in as many different ways and as many different forums as possible.

3. Never acknowledge your opponent's point. Don't concede anything.

4. Never answer your opponent's question. Use your response as a chance to rephrase your point or respond with a buzz question.

5. Ask your opponent buzz guestions, e.g. "So this means you support death? So this means you want to see more people infected? How many people have to die before you get a clue?"

6. Associate your case with good.

7. Associate your opponent's case with evil.

8. Go after new minds. There are a lot of people out there who have not yet made up their minds. Phrase your arguments in a way that makes it easy for them to understand your points.

9. Never allow your opponent a foothold in your space.

10. Stay focused at all times. If you find yourself drifting use these points to get back on track.

It is important to know your opponent's strong points and arguments. However in a debate designed to change culture or politics the most important thing is to make your point over and over.

Chuck is absolutely right.

Scott says, "anal action, ugh!"

That's effective.

I talk about

shit sex
pain sex
disease sex
death sex

And I don't let that go either.

For example, a few days back, 365gay.com had an article about a report from the "National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs" -- and for those of you who don't know me, I was a founding board member of the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project back in 1983 -- so this is something I know something about --

and this National Coalition claimed there had been 21 murders -- presumably of gay-identified people -- in 2007.

Of course they don't say who's murdering whom or why.

One "gay murder" that's been in the news, for example, was of a gay male porn producer who was murdered by two other GAY male porn producers -- who were in competition with him.

Talk about a cut-throat business -- his body was found almost beheaded.

Beheaded.

Not by anti-gay bigots.

He was gay, and he was savagely attacked and murdered by two other gay males.

Whose motive was the thoroughly old-fashioned one of -- gain.

I have to wonder if that attack was considered an instance of anti-gay violence by the Coalition.

Because groups like the Coalition always want to make it appear that there are "epidemics" of violence against gay people being perpetrated by non-gay people.

Yet, the FACT is that by the most conservative estimate, fully 73 gay-identified males are infected with HIV by getting fucked up the butt -- by other gay identified males -- EACH and EVERY DAY.

In America alone.

That's 26,000 per year.

That's more than a thousand times the rate of what the "Coalition" calls anti-gay violence.

But, make no mistake, it's violence nevertheless.

Violence against gay males.

Perpetrated by other gay males.

In huge numbers.

And 26,0000 is the conservative estimate, an estimate which has been going up as better reporting methods are adopted by the individual states.

My educated guess is that 40,000 gay-identified males per year -- that comes out to almost 110 per DAY -- are infected by other gay males.

And, even in the age of HAART -- some of those males die.

How many?

According to avert.org, in 2006 there were 14,627 DEATHS from HIV / AIDS in the US of A -- again, alone.

14,627.

That's why, back in 2004, Larry Kramer spoke of "murderous" behavior on the part of gay males.

Yet, 365gay and the "Coalition" want us to get excited about 21 murders which were acts, presumably, of anti-gay violence.

Well, as I always say, I'm opposed to anti-gay violence, and unlike 99.99999% of those who say they're opposed to that and other violence, I've actually done something about it.

BUT WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE ABOUT THE 110 DAILY ACTS OF ANTI-GAY VIOLENCE KNOWN AS HIV INFECTION?

WHERE'S THE CONCERN ABOUT THE MORE THAN 14,000 DEAD FROM THAT VIOLENCE IN 2006?

AND WHY ISN'T THE COALITION CONDEMNING THE VEHICLE FOR THAT VIOLENCE:

ANAL PENETRATION?

Why is the Coalition not concerned?

Because guys, as I well know, death is death.

21 gay people murdered per year is 21 too many.

But guess what?

14,627 Americans dead of a COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE DISEASE is 14,627 too many.

Less than two gay people per month get murdered.

Yet 110 gay males get infected with HIV every day.

How many will die?

No one knows for sure.

But in 2006, at least 7,000 of those deaths were of gay and bi males.

At least.

Probably many more.

Probably closer to 12,000.

Those males were MURDERED by other gay males using ANAL PENETRATION as the weapon.

They were forced, either emotionally or physically or both, to their knees, they were forcibly entered, and the perps shot semen laden with HIV DIRECTLY into their bloodsteams.

That's what happened.

Now, we consider all anal penetration to be rape.

That's our position.

But even studies from folks who are far more anal-friendly have documented that fully one-third of gay-identified males experience analist date rape:

Gay men as victims of nonconsensual sex

Abstract

Incidents of nonconsensual sexual activity among 930 homosexually active men living in England and Wales are analyzed. Of these men, 27.6% said they had been sexually assaulted or had sex against their will at some point in their lives; one third had been forced into sexual activity (usually anal intercourse) by men with whom they had previously had, or were currently having, consensual sexual activity. The contention that male rape is usually committed by heterosexually identified men, primarily as an expression of power and control, is not supported. Recognition that gay men rape other gay men is needed, both by the gay community and support services for victims.

Key words sexual assault - male rape - gay men - sexual behavior

"The contention that male rape is usually committed by heterosexually identified men, primarily as an expression of power and control, is not supported. Recognition that gay men rape other gay men is needed, both by the gay community and support services for victims."

"gay men rape other gay men"

No kidding.

The Coalition didn't say anything about that in its report.

Presumably because it doesn't want to admit to gay-on-gay violence.

Yet the males who are raped, and the males who are infected -- are victims.

Victims of

shit sex

pain sex

disease sex

DEATH sex.

That's what anal is.

And what's required of you is to say that.

AND TO KEEP SAYING IT.

NEVER STOP.

Do it enough --

do it long enough and loud enough --

and the culture, the model, the paradigm -- will SHIFT.

And the world will be a lot better for Men like Scott.

And YOURSELF.

Here are three simple steps you can take to both dissent and agitate:

1. Come out to as many people as you can as a MAN -- who Loves Men -- and does NOT do anal.

   "Anal action -- ugh!

   "I don't like it -- it's shit sex -- and I don't do it."

   You don't have to say more than that.

   Just "anal action -- ugh!" -- is enough to say how you feel.

2. Donate.

   Donate.

   Donate so that our sites are HERE for MEN like Scott.

   Who finds them -- and then becomes -- your ALLY.

   You need ALLIES.

   This is a Fight, and you need the help of your Warrior Brothers.

3. Regional Chapters.

   Regional Chapters.

   Start meeting regularly with like-minded Men.

   For support.

   And for betterment.

None of these steps are difficult.

A little bit of money, a few hours of your time.

Yet the changes they'll produce in your lives -- can not be overstated.

FIGHT BACK.

You have just one sweet precious life.

What are you doing with it?

Scott's in his forties.

And he's once again single.

He deserves better than that.

YOU deserve better than that.

FIGHT BACK.

I thank Scott again for his post.

It's a simple post --

but it says a lot, and speaks the truth of his life.

Again, that's really all you have to do.

SPEAK the TRUTH of YOUR LIFE.

Thank you Scott.

You're a true Warrior.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2008 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.