Bill Weintraub

Re: straight, but...

8-12-09

Hey John

Thank you for this terrific post.

Let's take a look:

My girlfriend introduced me to your site.

That's great -- I'm glad she did.

A little about myself first: I'm a med student, of Lakota Sioux ancestry. Growing up, I didn't actually have much in the way of same-sex feelings that I can remember. I had other fantasies with homoerotic elements, though. More of the group sex variety, e.g. me and a friend in the same girl.

Okay John -- those are same-sex feelings and fantasies.

All guys have them in one form or another.

Not a big deal.

Because guys have sex with guys --

Always have.

Always will.

And guys have fantasies about sex with guys --

Always have.

Always will.

It's part of the human condition.

It's part of being a MAN.

And I'm putting "MAN" in all caps because I want straight-identified guys to understand that.

Guys having fantasies about sex with other guys -- or just plain having sex with other guys -- is not un-Manly or un-Masculine.

To the contrary.

It's an integral part of being a MAN.

Another big fantasy of mine was a sleeping with a woman in her 20s, and her husband came home and wasn't so much angry as jealous of my technique.

And that too is a same-sex fantasy.

This was in addition to my hetero, lesbian, and mff group sex fantasies of course.

For me, homoeroticism was somewhat more subtle. I remember this river all the kids used to go to in the summer. It was on the way home from McDonald's where I worked. We'd all go swimming there. And of course this meant stripping off the clothes. We'd swim there, sometimes wrestle. And yes, we'd get erections. I don't think anyone saw it as erotic;

Yes, but it was erotic.

As we'll discuss, it wasn't "gay."

But if two -- or more -- guys wrestle and get hard, that's an expression of erotic arousal.

Which again, is a normal and natural part of being a Man.

Again: wrestling with a bud, and getting hard, is part of being a Man.

It doesn't mean you're "gay."

It means you're a MAN.

none of us ejaculated, and we didn't grind against each other or anything. I suppose in the days BC (Before Columbus) we would've. In those days, men would have sex with each other and with men who lived as women, with no special label for it. They were MEN.

Right -- and a very important observation:

That previous cultures didn't label these typically male activities.

They were simply something MEN did.

Even today, straight Indian men are more open to the possibility of being with a guy than white men.

Right.

But:

If a "straight Indian" man is "with a guy" -- is he truly "straight?"

And the homosexuals in my family...most of them have children.

Okay -- look John -- if they have children, can they truly be said to be "homosexuals"?

Of course not.

There's no such thing as "a homosexual."

Or "homosexuality."

Or "heterosexuality."

Or "straight."

Or "gay."

To understand why, you have to understand the difference between sex between men as an activity -- and as a condition.

So we're going to discuss this for a bit.

Regular site visitors will have seen some of this discussion before.

But I'm repeating it here because every day new guys, like John, come to the Alliance, and it's important that they hear it.

So, John:

What's very important for you to understand is that "homosexuality" -- and with it "heterosexuality" -- are very recent concepts among human beings.

In the past, sex between men was an activity -- something guys did.

Since 1869 -- that's just 140 years -- and to varying degree -- sex between men -- has been considered a condition -- "homosexuality."

That idea is wrong.

In reality, people in the past had it right: sex between men is an activity -- something guys normally and naturally do.

John, the idea of male-male affection, intimacy, sex, and love as a condition -- first called "homosexuality" and then called "sexual orientation" -- is a function of an historical process we call heterosexualization.

And we need to talk about that a bit more.

So, and like I said, the terms "homosexuality" and "homosexual" were coined 140 years ago in an effort -- a successful effort -- to turn what had been an activity -- sex between men -- into a disease -- "homosexuality."

What that meant was that just as, in the 19th century, there were people who were "tubercular," and who suffered from the disease called "tuberculosis"; so now there were to be males who were said to be "homosexual," and who would be said to suffer from the disease called "homosexuality."

That was a tremendous shift in the way human beings thought about sex.

Again, it turned what had been an activity -- sex between guys -- into a condition, a medical condition, an illness, a disease, for which doctors would then seek a cure.

And this shift, which was a "paradigm shift," a significant change in cultural norms, coincided with the historical process we call heterosexualization:

the destruction of same-gender spaces and relationships, and their conversion to almost exclusively mixed-gender spaces and relationships.

And this too was a tremendous shift in the way people lived.

And the practical effect of the combination of heterosexualization and the development of the concept of "homosexuality" was to isolate and ghettoize Men who engaged in any sort of same-sex affection, intimacy, and love.

Now -- the American Psychiatric Association removed "homosexuality" from its list of mental disorders in 1973.

Which meant that "homosexuality" was no longer a mental illness.

But the concept -- that there was something fundamentally different about "men who had sex with men" -- persisted.

And the result was the categories of sexual orientation --

which I refer to as homosexuality's evil twin.

Because, in their effects, those categories are EVIL, and they're DIRECTLY related to the previous categories of "homosexual" and "homosexuality."

So -- "homosexuality" as a cultural concept was originally a condition -- a sickness -- a diseased way of being;

while "gay" is a "sexual orientation" and also a condition, the idea of which emerged out of "homosexuality," and, which, like the condition known as "homosexuality," is predicated upon the notion that any affection, intimacy, sex, and/or love between Men is a "deviation" from an alleged "heterosexual" norm.

As I said, the concept of "homosexuality" appears as society is beginning to heterosexualize.

While the concept of "sexual orientation" appears as heterosexualization triumphs -- and forces traditional understandings of Masculinity and Femininity underground.

The two poles of "sexual orientation" -- "gay" and "straight" -- work then to drive the male away from his Natural Masculinity:

to divorce Masculinity not only from same-sex love and affection; but also from Aggression -- Fighting Spirit -- Courage -- Virtue -- which is how Masculinity has traditionally been defined and demarcated.

Under heterosexualization, and the categories of sexual orientation, Masculinity is no longer to be defined by Fighting Spirit -- by Courage and Virtue --

but by a single sexual act:

penile-vaginal penetration.

This radical re-definition of "masculinity" is hideously destructive, and many of our modern ills, both male and female, derive directly from it.

So: historically, John, Masculinity has not been about "sexual orientation" --

but about Fighting Spirit.

And it needs to be again.

As, John, you said, when speaking of your Lakota Sioux ancestors:

In those days, men would have sex with each other and with men who lived as women, with no special label for it. They were MEN.

Right.

Because Man was defined as Warrior and defined by Fighting Spirit.

Not by penile-vaginal.

And guys, we discuss the Sioux, to some extent, in Frances' Their world was completely imbued with Spirit: Warriors and Warrior Amulets;

and in The Comradeship of Wounds.

Let's get back to John's letter:

Anyway, my girlfriend recently admitted she has a guy-on-guy fetish.

That's not a fetish.

It's just a fantasy.

But no anal.

Good.

That speaks well of her.

No, she more liked guys masturbating together, possibly wrestling naked. And then she found the man2man alliance. And frot. She told me about it, and I must admit, I liked the idea.

Most guys - and that's putting it mildly -- like the idea.

It's a very very very very very very common male fantasy.

So we got a mutual friend who was bi to join us. We knew we were all clean, so condoms weren't an issue.

Okay.

But as SF AIDS used to ask, "How do you know what you know?"

You have to know your partner very very very very very well if you're going to do things which put someone at risk for HIV --

and ejaculating in your gf puts her at risk.

We went to my girlfriend's place for this. After a meal and some music, we cleared a space for our threesome. New to group sex and sex with men, I felt like a virgin. Ironic that I, the only non-blonde, felt like such a blonde.

Both of us were already aroused. He was smaller than me, not necessarily small but then again I'm longer than average.

Right.

I just want to comment on this because I find that many straight-identified guys -- not you John, but many -- worry about dick size --

particularly if they're thinking of having a same-sex experience.

So:

When it comes to dick size --

most guys are average.

That's why it's called "average."

If you look on gay hook-up sites, almost all the guys describe themselves as XL or XXL.

Not statistically probable, is it?

Most guys have average dicks.

If you're straight-identified -- or gay-identified for that matter -- and you think your dick is average -- Hey, that's what it's supposed to be.

And the thing is that in Frot -- size is not important.

He was also circumcised, whereas I was not. I stroked mine at first and he stroked his. Then we switched; despite our differences, his dick didn't feel alien at all.

Of course not.

Look John -- you and your buddy are both Men -- which means you're hard-wired to understand -- and ENJOY -- each other sexually.

My girlfriend was getting a good view of it. I saw her playing with herself the whole time. I'm ashamed to say I shot first...by about half a second!

Good.

Being in our twenties and trying something new, we continued. We started wrestling, her next fantasy. This led to frot. So we started grinding. I was painfully hard, but I wasn't going to let him win. He came first, but then I came a bit after that.

Right and okay.

John, I really like the aggressive element in what you guys were doing.

I think it's a necessary element.

The core idea is that Phallic Battle leads to Phallic Bond.

And in that sense -- it really doesn't matter who comes first.

So -- Why not rub and hump and grind as long as you want to -- and enjoy it?

Enjoy the Fight.

We agreed that we would do this again, and she encourages me to explore this side of me, even when she's not there.

Good!

We did eventually all have sex together. We even both came in her pussy. That was the ultimate to me, and I never wanted to leave.

I believe you.

Again, that's a very common male fantasy, John, and I'm very glad you got to live it out.

Bill Weintraub

John

Re: straight, but...

8-12-09

Thanks, Bill.

I came to realize some time ago that "gay" and "straight" were just colonialist labels. No different than how Indians wear clothes like everyone else now. Funny, we initially saw white clothes as unmanly. Shirts reminded us of women's dresses, and loincloths were a symbol of virility. Virility that a man could direct properly. These days, even the most traditional Indians might simply have long hair, earrings, and a few tribe-specific markers. Otherwise, the only difference is that every Indian man I've seen naked was uncut. I imagine it gives Mormons heart attacks. ;)

Colonialism brings disease with it. You could actually predict the rate of syphilis in a tribe by how much white contact they'd had. Somewhat because Europeans brought disease. But more because Indian women were forced into prostitution.

I've been reading your comments on pseudo-women; in Lakota, the word for anal is winktepi.

winyan=woman

kte=future tense, or unreal

Some gay intellectuals in the 80s decided the winkte, a type of transvestite, was gay. They then went into nutty territory and decided all Indian men slept with the winkte. And that it was always anal. No doubt they were just making a gay counterpart to another traditional plains practice: Sharing wives. White explorers made much of this. But all it was was usually between friends. It was also a way to introduce new blood. We're very anti-incest, even between members of the same sex. Sharing wives provided extra insurance against many "white" diseases like cystic fibrosis.

Anyway, we still have sex together, all three of is. None of us like anal, so it makes things interesting with all the other possibilities. But both of us in her pussy is still my favorite. Just being close to my two lovers. Yes, I said lovers. There's definitely more than just the physical going on.

Two final thoughts: Typing about this made me hard again, and one thing I love in particular about frot is that I don't have to worry about injuring him with my size.

Bill Weintraub

Re: straight, but...

8-12-09

Thank you John.

I just want to comment on this:

Some gay intellectuals in the 80s decided the winkte, a type of transvestite, was gay. They then went into nutty territory and decided all Indian men slept with the winkte. And that it was always anal.

Yes, there's a long and dispiriting intellectual history to the "gay" attempt to re-write Indian history and culture.

In general, and as I talk about in my work, because analism is a dominant culture, it seeks to see and present ALL cultures in its terms.

Thus winkte's become drag queens and Lakota Warriors become tops.

That of course is wrong and it's yet another form of cultural imperialism.

Perpetrated, in this instance, by people who claim to be "multi-culturalists."

Thank you again John.

Bill Weintraub

John

Re: straight, but...

8-12-09

Thanks, Bill.

It's just the "only anal" thing that always offended me. Like they interviewed every winkte and none of them ever lied. That an anthropologist told similar lies about heterosex in the 60s should leave us less than comfortable talking about sex with white people in general. I will say that an old Lakota custom was to bond two men as kola. You and your kola must be willing to die for each other. A pair of kola share everything. On hunting trips, they would share a blanket. They'd even share wives. Some customs shouldn't be abandoned.

Anyway, I think I'll give more details about my own threesome next time. We're getting together again this weekend. I'm dripping precum just thinking about it.

John

Bill Weintraub

Re: straight, but...

8-12-09

Hey John

That's really interesting about the kola.

Thank you for that.

"They'd even share wives."

According to Plutarch, among the Spartans, if an older man had a younger buddy of good character and good physique, he might invite him to sleep with his wife so as to impregnate her.

The child of that union would then become, so far as I can tell, part of the older man's family.

Of course this practice was part of the Spartan system of eugenics, which was meant to breed superior Warriors.

And which the other Greeks admired.

Xenophon claimed that the system did indeed produce healthier and heartier males -- and women too.

Was that true?

Who knows?

I guess you'd have to attend the annual Spartan Festival of the Naked Youths and catch "the boys of fighting age dancing naked to Apollo" -- to be sure.

Why were they dancing naked to Apollo?

Because the Festival of the Naked Youths was a *religious* festival -- dedicated to Apollo.

John, you talk about the kola.

And you say, "Some customs shouldn't be abandoned."

In her post, Their world was completely imbued with spirit, Frances discusses a guy named Eastman, who was raised as a Sioux warrior, and then adopted the ways of the European-Americans and became a physician.

Eastman, beyond writing of the great warrior-chiefs like Rain In The Face who fought at the Little Bighorn, also wrote of his traditional Sioux boyhood at quite extensive length (I've only started reading it at gutenberg.org).

His boyhood sounds rather agogé-like. Their world was completely imbued with spirit. It was everywhere, just as meaninglessness is everywhere in ours. Musn't all warrior cultures depend on spirituality? Mustn't all sexual relations be seen as purposeful to group survival in order to be seen as "sacred" rather than profane.

Frances:

Musn't all warrior cultures depend on spirituality? Mustn't all sexual relations be seen as purposeful to group survival in order to be seen as "sacred" rather than profane.

That's such an important point.

It's one I've tried to get across time and time again in talking about the Greeks.

To the Greeks, "heterosexual" relations were about procreation.

Same-sex relations were about Virtue.

And Virtue was sacred -- it was the one attribute of Divinity in which mortal men could actually share.

That's why a male lover was said to be "inspired by God."

And "inspired" is the most common English translation.

In Greek, it's more like God-filled or in-God-ed.

Thank you again John.

Great posts from a true Warrior.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2009 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

John

Re: straight, but...

8-14-09

I want to add that my buddy is a mutual friend who also hates anal. He'd been on the rebound for months, so it was good for him too. Like I said, we're all still together.

You mentioned Charles Eastman. First Sioux MD. (Traditional medicine takes 15 years to learn!) Founded the first YMCA on a reservation, IIRC.

I liked the link about the righteous among the nations. Did you know the Nazis declared the Sioux were Aryans? Tempting, eh? Being the master race instead of migrant workers? We joined the military in record numbers, some men lying about their age. Every single L/Dakota in Europe killed as many Nazis as possible! And THAT is how a warrior reacts when given evil temptations!

Anyway, there was some of that voluntary eugenics in Lakota culture. We're very anti-incest, hetero or homo. Men couldn't marry until they'd been in one battle, even manning the supply lines. Men weren't allowed to have sex with a woman who knew she was pregnant, or who was nursing or on her period; lactation lasted three to five years. I think all cultures have a eugenic system. Most don't go all Nazi about it, thank God. Also, if a man was infertile, he could request another man impregnate his wife; refusal was an insult. Most wifesharing was between close friends though.

I like the talk about self-defense. I encourage every man, woman, and child to learn how to fight.

I think more straight guys would try m2m if they knew m2m isn't anal, bi isn't anything that moves, and a LOT of ladies like watching.

I would've loved some hot illustrations of my ramblings, but I guess there aren't that many Indians in porn. (We tend to dislike inequality, and anal's just the tip of the iceberg. The festering sore on a herpes-infected dick, if you will.)

Bill Weintraub

Re: straight, but...

8-14-09

Hey John

I want to add that my buddy is a mutual friend who also hates anal.

Good.

He'd been on the rebound for months, so it was good for him too. Like I said, we're all still together.

That's great!

You mentioned Charles Eastman. First Sioux MD. (Traditional medicine takes 15 years to learn!) Founded the first YMCA on a reservation, IIRC.

Yes, Frances turned me on to him.

He sounds like a polymath.

I liked the link about the righteous among the nations.

Yes -- that's from my having been mentored by Holocaust survivors.

Did you know the Nazis declared the Sioux were Aryans? Tempting, eh? Being the master race instead of migrant workers? We joined the military in record numbers, some men lying about their age. Every single L/Dakota in Europe killed as many Nazis as possible! And THAT is how a warrior reacts when given evil temptations!

Right!

A Warrior isn't defined just by Fighting Spirit and Courage.

He's also defined by Virtue -- which includes Justice.

Which is why the Greeks said that Justice was the most important of the four Divine Virtues of Justice, Courage, Self-Control, and Piety / Wisdom.

Without Justice, they said, no Man is truly Noble.

As the 6th-century BC poet Theognis put it in these famous verses addressed to his boyfriend or beloved, Cyrnus:

Prefer to live righteously with a few possessions than to become rich by the unjust acquisition of money.

For in justice there is the sum total of every excellence; and every man who is just, Cyrnus, is noble.

~ Theognis, 145-48, translated by Douglas Gerber.

"For in justice there is the sum total of every excellence;

and every man who is just, Cyrnus, is noble."

Theognis was from the city-state of Megara.

What about the Spartans?

There were those who claimed, like Plato, that the Spartans valued only Courage and ignored the other Divine Virtues.

But the Spartan king Agesilaus, who was a contemporary of Plato's, said otherwise:

...Agesilaus often declared the justice is the first of all the virtues, for courage is of no use unless it is accompanied by justice, and if all men would only act justly, then there would be no need for courage. Whenever he was told, 'Such and such is the pleasure of the Great King [of Persia],' Agesilaus would ask, 'How can he be greater than I am, unless he is also more just?' Here he was rightly and nobly expressing the view the justice constitutes as it were a regal standard, which serves to measure the superiority of one ruler to another.

~ Plutarch

The problem is, as Agesilaus well knew, that all men don't act justly -- that like Xerxes and the other Great Kings, they too often covet, they "lust after," says Leonidas, what is not theirs, what belongs to others, and will try to take it by force.

So Justice must be enabled by Courage.

Which is what the Lakota did in World War II.

Anyway, there was some of that voluntary eugenics in Lakota culture. We're very anti-incest, hetero or homo. Men couldn't marry until they'd been in one battle, even manning the supply lines. Men weren't allowed to have sex with a woman who knew she was pregnant, or who was nursing or on her period; lactation lasted three to five years. I think all cultures have a eugenic system. Most don't go all Nazi about it, thank God. Also, if a man was infertile, he could request another man impregnate his wife; refusal was an insult. Most wifesharing was between close friends though.

Yes, John, that's all very interesting and informative.

So there are similarities between the Spartans, for example, and other Warrior cultures, such as the Lakota.

And that comparison has been made before.

For example, classicist W. G. Forrest, who wrote a history of Sparta, and who disliked the Spartans, was critical of the austerity mandated by Lycurgus and compares the agogé to "primitive" practices.

And when he says "primitive" -- he doesn't mean it as a word of praise.

Here he is writing in the year of our Lord 1968:

...almost every aspect of the full Spartan practice can be paralleled among backward warrior tribes today. The age-groups, the communal life, the initiation ceremonies, all had been handed down through generations as have similar institutions among the Masai in Kenya, the Zulus, or the Red Indians.

~ Forrest, A History of Sparta 950 - 192 BC

You can hear Forrest's racism and contempt in terms like "backward" and "Red Indians."

But when he says, "almost every aspect of the full Spartan practice can be paralleled among backward [sic] warrior tribes today. The age-groups, the communal life, the initiation ceremonies, all had been handed down through generations..."

-- my reply is -- Indeed.

That's why it appealed -- and appeals.

That's why it was so effective.

And will be today too.

As you said earlier John, "Some customs shouldn't be abandoned."

To which I would add -- if they have been -- let's bring them back.

And -- I want to add -- take a look at the post titled Frot Among the Animals and look at the way bottlenose dolphins live, as described by Bruce Bagemihl:

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Male Bottlenose Dolphins often form lifelong pair-bonds with each other. Adolescent and younger males typically live in all-male groups in which homosexual activity is common; within these groups, a male begins to develop a strong bond with a particular partner (usually of the same age) with whom he will spend the rest of his life. The two Dolphins become constant companions, often traveling widely; although sexual activity probably declines as they get older, it may continue to be a regular feature of such partnerships. Paired males sometimes take turns guarding or remaining vigilant while their partner rests. They also defend their mates against predators such as sharks and protect them while they are healing from wounds inflicted during predators' attacks. Sometimes three males form a tightly bonded trio. On the death of his partner, a male may spend a long time searching for a new male companion -- usually unsuccessfully, since most other males in the community are already paired and will not break their bonds. If, however, he can find another "widower" whose male partner has died, the two may become a couple...

The lives of male Bottlenose Dolphins are characterized by extensive bisexuality, combined with periods of exclusive homosexuality. As adolescents and young males, they have regular homosexual interactions in all-male groups, sometimes alternating with heterosexual activity. From age 10 onward, most male Dolphins form pair-bonds with another male, and because they do not usually father calves until they are 20-25 years old, this can be an extended period -- 10-15 years -- of principally same-sex interaction. Later, when they begin mating heterosexually, they still retain their primary male pair-bonds, and in some populations male pairs and trios cooperate in herding females or in interacting homosexually with Spotted Dolphins.

To me, this is a striking case of parallel cultural evolution -- between dolphins -- and human societies such as the Lakota and the Spartan.

Let's get back to John's comments:

I like the talk about self-defense.

Yes -- that comes out of my anti-violence work.

I was a founding board member of the NYC Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project back in 1983.

And my primary interest was self-defense.

Which was not a popular position in the gay community back then.

I encourage every man, woman, and child to learn how to fight.

Yes -- it's very important.

I think more straight guys would try m2m if they knew m2m isn't anal, bi isn't anything that moves, and a LOT of ladies like watching.

Oh yeah.

Word is getting out, but it's taking a long time because the two cultures -- "gay" and "straight" -- are so entrenched, and are so heavily invested in the idea of two discrete sexual orientations.

Gore Vidal warned, way back at the beginning of Gay Lib, that constructing an identity out of "homosexuality" was a bad idea --

he was always clear that human beings are essentially bisexual.

Of course he grew up in a relatively wealthy and privileged milieu, and then the great love of his life was a guy named Jimmy Trimble, who was killed in WW II

And like me, Vidal's a big fan of the Greeks.

You can read about all that in Logan McClintock's excellent essay The Anal Sex Myth: A Frottage Manifesto.

Like I say, it's an excellent article.

I would've loved some hot illustrations of my ramblings, but I guess there aren't that many Indians in porn.

John, I didn't look for illustrations.

I felt that what you wrote was better left to the imagination.

(We tend to dislike inequality, and anal's just the tip of the iceberg. The festering sore on a herpes-infected dick, if you will.)

Great comments John!

Bill Weintraub

John

Re: straight, but...

8-14-09

I think the identity politricks are the worst part of it. Like with self-defense, I know the early (late 60s-70s) GLBT movement mentioned Indians as an example of societies where m2m was allowed or even encouraged. In the 70s, if you were an Indian, the cops were part of the problem. What do you do in those cases? Protect yourself.

I agree with Vidal's sentiment that 'gays' as an identity was a mistake. The GLBT support groups Indians go to are interesting just because of the number of heterosexual couples and even children there. Male/female couples typically outnumber male/male couples and female/female couples three or four to one. Because these are friends and family. The result is that we identify by tribe and gender before sexuality. Same-sex couples are more accepted, people are more willing to indulge with a friend, and same-sex couples are truly seen as in love. The last one also explains why, despite losing our virginity earlier (on average, 13.6 for boys and 14.2 for girls) and having a higher rate of meth abuse, and a bunch of other statistics saying we SHOULD have more AIDS, including government-run health care to ensure all Indians are counted, when you compare Indians with AIDS to the general population, we have a lower rate of infection. I'll post statistics later, but I actually did the math once.

And it makes sense. If people see your relationship as valid, you're more likely to view it as valid. Sort of like how the Indians I know who drink peyote aren't on any other mind-altering substances. If they do drink, it's one or two drinks a day.

Speaking of valid relationships, here's a question to other bi and straight-identified guys, and guys in relationships with them: How does the Missus feel about it? It was my girlfriend's idea, so she approves. But I know not all women understand.