Yes, she did put a finger directly on the issue.

Which was Sandy's suppression of his Manhood.

And the woman's understandable irritation with what he was doing:

" 'I have to tell you, I much preferred the person who got out of the car.' And with that she reached under my dress and groped me. She said, 'It's a shame to have all that locked up in there.' "

Yes it is.

Notice also that this man, who claims he had such a compulsion to cross-dress in his youth, "hasn't cross-dressed for decades."

If his behavior was biologically rooted, which is what we're told, would it have gone away like that?

The Times also, no doubt inadvertently, managed to touch on something else that I've seen among hetero cross-dressers -- and that is, the stilted and artificial nature of their behavior:

It was the dawn of the 1960's, yet they wore their late 50's fashions with awkward pride: the white gloves, the demure dresses and low heels, the stiff wigs.

In the '80s, my late lover and I had dinner with a couple of hetero crossdressers and their wives, and another gay journalist.

The wives were typical suburban housewives, wearing ordinary, practical, clothes, the way women who have a house full of kids to manage will do.

But their husbands were dressed -- to the nines is one way of putting up.

Their dresses were fancy, expensive, they wore bracelets and necklaces and earrings.

And of course elaborate wigs.

One of the guys, named Len, took the name "Linda" when he was in drag.

I asked his wife how she felt about Linda.

She said, "I hate it when she appears."

Len aka Linda kept fingering and touching his clothes.

His behavior seemed fetishistic to me -- as though he were getting a sexual thrill from the clothes themselves.

Now, that said, and referring back to the Times, there's nothing wrong with an article like this except the context of the Times' reporting on these "LGBT" issues.

In which there's never any discussion of MASCULINE MEN who love MEN.

Instead, it's always gender-bending.

channeling judy

drag queens in the Bronx

After a while -- not a long while -- it becomes oppressive.

As do the constant attacks on masculinity.

Some weeks back the Times ran an op-ed critical of a popular dog trainer and TV personality named Millan who calls himself the "Dog Whisperer."

This guy, who emigrated to the States from Mexico, was accused of "sexism" for saying that dogs respond to a strong / dominant leader, and because:

In one of the outtakes included in the four-DVD set of the first season of "Dog Whisperer," Mr. Millan explains that a woman is "the only species that is wired different from the rest." And a "woman always applies affection before discipline," he says. "Man applies discipline then affection, so we're more psychological than emotional. All animals follow dominant leaders; they don't follow lovable leaders."

Remember guys that this was an outtake which Mr. Millan, foolishly, allowed to appear in the DVD.

But what did he say that was so unforgivably "sexist?"

"woman always applies affection before discipline"

If a woman said that -- a feminist like Robin Morgan -- it would be laudatory: "women apply affection before discipline."

But because a man said it, it's sexist: "women apply affection before discipline."

But it means the same thing, no matter who says it.

The op-ed was written by a rival dog trainer -- that's a cutthroat and very competitive field -- and in that context, the attack sounded like a smear:

"This guy's popular, I don't like his methods, so I'll accuse him of sexism."

This article too was in the Times' top ten for a couple days.

Clearly, this sort of gender feminist, anti-masculinity and anti-male writing has a big audience among Times' readers.

As do condom campaigns.

Once again this week, the Times had an editorial endorsing the distribution of condoms in California's prisons -- which of course de facto endorses buttfucking in those prisons.

Given that men have sex with men in prison, are condoms a reasonable intervention?

Well, there are huge questions about the efficacy both of condom campaigns and of condoms themselves during anal penetration.

We've cited those over and over again.

This is not some sort of secret or esoteric knowledge.

What we've cited includes peer-reviewed and published articles, like Buchbinder et al; information from the Surgeon General and the FDA; books that are either in print or soon to be with chapters already circulating; and publicly available transcripts of testimony given before the President's Advisory Council on HIV / AIDS.

Let me go through that list:

Buchbinder et al, published in May 2005, showed virtually no difference in risk between "protected receptive anal" and "unprotected receptive anal";

Halperin, who gave a poster presentation at Barcelona in 2002, found that women in serodiscordant couples were ten to twenty times more likely to seroconvert -- that is, acquire HIV -- through anal than through vaginal;

The report of the Cochrane Institute on condom efficacy, which dates from 2003, found a condom failure rate of 20% in vaginal intercourse; because the anus does not self-lubricate and is far less elastic than the vagina, anal is far rougher on the condom and it's reasonable to assume that condoms fail more often during anal;

The Surgeon General's statement is on the FDA website and has been there since July 2005;

Leading epidemiologist Dr. James Chin's forthcoming book titled The AIDS Pandemic: The collision of epidemiology with political correctness has had chapters circulating among AIDS specialists since at least August 2006, and states quite clearly that there's little evidence that condom campaigns have had any impact on prevention; and,

Infectious disease expert Dr. Myron Cohen's testimony to the PACHA on the very high efficiency of anal in HIV transmission was given in June 2006.

So, what do we know?

That per Cohen, the efficiency of vaginal transmission is about one in twenty -- 5%;

that per Halperin, the efficiency of anal transmission is at least 10 times greater -- which would be 10 in 20 or 50%;

that the Surgeon General of the United States says that even with a condom, "anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice."

that Dr. Chin says condom campaigns don't work; and

that Dr. Cohen says "the efficiency of rectal intercourse changes everything because of the number of dendrite cells, receptors and trauma. So you can never overwhelm, you can't win against anal intercourse. ... Anal intercourse is a really bad sexual practice for HIV transmission. It changes the equation."

Yet the Times thinks prisoners should have condoms.

Even though of course a lot of sex in prison is rape -- and rapists don't wear condoms.

What could be done?

Protection programs for those threatened with rape and severe penalties for the rapists;

and comprehensive MSM HIV education which stresses how dangerous anal is and how safe -- and pleasurable -- Frot and mutual masturbation are.

That makes sense.

Condom distribution does not.

What it does is send a message -- we approve of buttfucking and condoms will protect you.

When the state should absolutely NOT be endorsing anal, in no small part because evidence for the efficacy of condoms and condom campaigns among MSM is virtually non-existent.

Finally in the news this week, there was this report out of Chicago:

Illinois Appellate Court Reverses $2M Award To HIV-Positive Woman Who Sued Fiance's Parents For Allegedly Lying About Son's HIV Status

What happened here is that a poz guy was engaged to a woman, lied about his antibody status, gave her HIV, and died.

She sued his parents, asserting that they knew he had HIV and should have told her.

The parents said they didn't know.

The woman who sued won a $2M award in court, which was reversed on appeal.

Not a big deal so far.

But then we get this comment from an advocate for people with HIV / AIDS:

Ann Fisher, executive director of AIDS Legal Council of Chicago, said she agrees with the appellate decision, adding, "Any adult in this day and age old enough to be having unprotected sex who somehow thinks they can rely upon somebody else to tell them whether they should protect themselves from HIV is a crazy notion."

This is that culture of mistrust which we've talked about before and which these sorts of AIDS activists seem to think is perfectly okay.

In their view, a woman who's engaged to be married to a man should not trust him.

That's incredible.

Why else get married?

Because you don't trust him?

Suppose she wants to have his child?

Does he still need a condom?

I have a better idea.

That we make it a crime to knowingly transmit HIV -- which this guy did -- and punish those who do it.

And not put the onus of protection on the VICTIM.

Which is what this man's fiancee is.

He gave her HIV.

If he'd shot her or stabbed her or run over her with his car, there'd be no question of his culpability.

But "AIDS activists" like Ms. Fisher want one rule for those who are poz, and other rules for the rest of us.

Like, if you're poz, it's okay and perfectly legal for you to callously and knowingly give someone else your disease.

Someone who's foolish enough to love and trust you.

As I said in my earlier post, con men will tell you that what they steal first is trust.

It's a "con" because they gain your confidence and steal your trust.

But society -- and certainly relationships -- cannot function without trust.

A woman should be able to trust her sexual partner not to give her HIV.

If he does, he should be held accountable criminally and civilly.

The condom code is, as Museveni said, part of a culture of mistrust.

And such a culture is not viable.

For men and women.

For men and men.

Yet what we see in these stories and reports, is endorsement of a society of mistrust and anomie:

The glorification of men posing as women;

condoms and anal, a failed solution and degrading practice among free men, being mandated for prisoners;

and more advocacy of the "right" of the HIV positive to infect anyone they please.

Guys, do not let yourselves be dragged down to the level of the gender benders and the condom code.

Stay true instead to the Warrior Way of Manhood and Masculinity.

FIGHT BACK.

Bill Weintraub

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