Reply from:

Bill Weintraub

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-10-2011

Hi Tom

Thanks for these great memories!

Let's take a look:

But can't forget how it validated my feelings of masculinity to be with another male who was willing to share his most male part with me and to have me share mine with him.

Yes, that's absolutely correct.

Frot validates and exalts Masculinity.

Over the years, I have frequently asked myself how and why these episodes happened.

They happened because you and your buddies were normal human beings and normal Men.

With a normal and natural desire to connect sexually and affectionally in the way you did.

It's a universal male desire.

I know that no one else will tell you that --

but it's true.

Recently I googled something like "penis to penis" and discovered your website, the term "frot," and other men who had the same experiences as teens.

And adults!

I think it has helped me to realize that this is what a lot of boys do with other boys and men do with other men,

That's correct.

Far more would do it if there was less repression of male-male and less ghettoization of male-male into a "gay" space.

Tom, we have many articles about that on the site -- and I encourage you to read as deeply as you can on the site.

One very important place to start is here:

Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition

Really essential reading.

and that perhaps many who do not do it have a hidden desire to experience what it is like to touch and rub dicks with another male,

Yes!

A hidden desire.

Tom, what we know is that in societies which lack a divine prohibition against male-male, male-male is virtually universal and usually quite open.

Again, please do some of the reading on the site.

and that my early experiences were not out of the ordinary at all.

That's correct.

They're not out of the ordinary.

Not at all.

But they're hidden.

Which is a shame.

As you said, Frot validates Masculinity.

Manliness.

Which Men need.

What we have now, instead of "bisexuality," -- is "gay."

And instead of Frot, we have anal, which is a prescribed activity.

That's dead wrong.

Dead wrong.

Tom, thank you again for writing.

Bill Weintraub

Reply from:

Tom

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-10-2011

I'll be sending a cash donation to the alliance. Oh, had a short conversation today with a guy at the gym this morning. He's young with a physique like a cage fighter. I told him he looked like a cage fighter and asked if he had ever fought. He said, "Oh I just look like this. I'm too passive to fight anyone." But I caught a glimpse of him later and he seemed to be standing up a little straighter. I think he took it as a compliment. Thought you might find that interesting since you write so much about the warrior ethos.

Tom

Reply from:

Bill Weintraub

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-10-2011

I'll be sending a cash donation to the alliance.

Tom, thank you so very very much.

Donations are greatly needed and greatly appreciated.

Oh, had a short conversation today with a guy at the gym this morning. He's young with a physique like a cage fighter. I told him he looked like a cage fighter and asked if he had ever fought. He said, "Oh I just look like this. I'm too passive to fight anyone." But I caught a glimpse of him later and he seemed to be standing up a little straighter. I think he took it as a compliment.

Of course he did!

Thought you might find that interesting since you write so much about the warrior ethos.

Yes -- that's a fascinating and illuminating anecdote and thank you for it!

"he seemed to be standing up a little straighter"

Sure he was.

Warrior / Fighter is intrinsic to Men.

When I started this work, Tom, I didn't know that.

I knew it was important to me.

But just as with Frot, I thought that -- I was the only guy into it.

And then I started talking about Warriors on my sites --

and the response was overwhelming.

Guys really really really respond to it.

Now -- what's going on currently, of course, is that guys are being told that Warrior / Fighter is bad.

And they're encouraged -- very strongly encouraged -- to think of themselves as your guy does:

"I'm too passive to fight anyone."

And that's because of heterosexualization, which we discuss at length in

Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition.

Heterosexualization, like industrialization, is an historical process.

But, and like industrialization, ideologies come trailing in its wake.

And one of those, which is heavily identified with the more militant forms of feminism, is that Men and in particular Male Aggression -- are bad.

It's as the guy I call "my foreign friend" says:

"The heterosexual[ized] 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."

Men are problematic.

And Male Aggression is particularly problematic.

But -- to us, Frot is an aggressive expression of male-male.

It's what you said in your first email:

"We went into a furious humping of each other"

That furious and mutual humping is unique to Frot.

You can't do that in anal.

Which has always been clear to me -- I talked about it in my first published article, Hyacinthine Love.

And to what does that "furious humping" lead?

"the sensation that our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one."

Again, it's a unique mating of the male anatomy.

It's as Mart Finn says -- Fighting cocks become mating cocks.

Tom, this is something you understand and express very well:

"[I] can't forget how it validated my feelings of masculinity to be with another male who was willing to share his most male part with me and to have me share mine with him."

Actually, you express it beautifully.

And that Validation of Masculinity via furious and aggressive male-male humping is one of the reasons -- one of the prime reasons -- that both Frot and an advocate of Frot like myself are marginalized.

Anal effeminizes.

That today is considered a social good.

Frot Masculinizes.

Not good -- to an increasingly effeminized society.

But very good to us.

Because we like Men -- and Manliness, and Manhood, and Masculinity.

Bill Weintraub

Reply from:

Tom

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-10-2011 Hey Bill,

Fine to post anything you wish from my story about my teen m2m experiences, just be sure to post them anonymously. I'm sure you understand that. Truthfully, this is the first time I have ever discussed it with another male since I was 20, and only have shared it with one other person, my wife. She was very understanding and remarked that that's what a lot of boys do together. It has always been a sensitive subject with me, and probably is the reason I have never really bonded with another male as an adult, this out of fear of being drawn into "forbidden territory." Through the years I have always watched good looking, muscular, athletic guys and admired them, not so much out of wanting to get in bed with them, but just to say to myself, "Wow, that's a beautiful male, boy, or man." But I would never share those comments with anyone else. I have read with great interest your articles on the warrior. As a boy I always loved to wrestle with my friends, but was always afraid of getting a hard on and being labeled, never realizing that this is perfectly normal for boys. Since reading your website, I have pondered the morality or (some would say) immorality of two guys getting it on rubbing their dicks together and I think that maybe the answer might lie in what the two guys have in their mind and heart and rather than the fact they their body parts are together. If it were immoral for two penises to come into contact, that would pretty much do away with a lot of male contact sports. Anyway, I've found it liberating to know there are lots of other guys out there who like it dick to dick. I am in full agreement with you that our society has emasculated men and made us into "good little boys."

Bill, I appreciate being able to share with you and the feedback is enlightening.

Take care,

Tom

Reply from:

Bill Weintraub

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-10-2011

Hey Tom

It's great hearing back from you!

Fine to post anything you wish from my story about my teen m2m experiences, just be sure to post them anonymously.

Okay and will do.

I'm sure you understand that.

Of course I do.

At the same time, it's a problem because in an era when males into all the forms of shitsex, including eating ass and fist fucking, are using their real names on the net and elsewhere, our guys are deeply closeted.

That hurts our credibility.

And it isolates Men like yourself.

Truthfully, this is the first time I have ever discussed it with another male since I was 20,

I understand.

Tom, how old are you now?

and only have shared it with one other person, my wife. She was very understanding

That's unusual.

Most women react poorly do that information.

You're fortunate.

and remarked that that's what a lot of boys do together.

Right -- and good for her!

It has always been a sensitive subject with me, and probably is the reason I have never really bonded with another male as an adult, this out of fear of being drawn into "forbidden territory."

Of course.

But, and again at the same time, that's sad.

It means you've been cut off from your fellow Man.

Through the years I have always watched good looking, muscular, athletic guys and admired them, not so much out of wanting to get in bed with them, but just to say to myself, "Wow, that's a beautiful male, boy, or man."

Right.

As we say, Men are attracted to Manliness and to physical markers for Masculinity, which include muscularity and athleticism.

That attraction, Tom, is without question genetic.

It's not cultural.

It's far too universal to be cultural.

But I would never share those comments with anyone else.

I understand.

I have read with great interest your articles on the warrior.

Good!

As a boy I always loved to wrestle with my friends, but was always afraid of getting a hard on and being labeled, never realizing that this is perfectly normal for boys.

Right.

That fear of getting a hard on and the mis-conception of what's "normal for boys" acts to rob boys and young Men of normal male-male contact which is essential to their development as Men:

As my foreign friend says:

"Masculine male groups and bonds play an extremely important role in the development of physical, mental, emotional and social aspects of natural masculinity. As such they are an important part of the positive environment that all masculine-identified boys should have. An otherwise masculine identified man who is deprived of membership in a masculine male group / bond during his growing years will be less than 1/4th naturally masculine than if he had such an opportunity. Masculine identified boys have a natural tendency to seek to join male-only groups, and it's their natural right.

"The masculinity of men flows from their group. It's like their natural masculinity combines and gets manifold when masculine identified men unite. The camaraderie, mutual understanding, support, playing together, learning the ways of the world as a male, dealing with roughs and toughs of life together --- they all help to develop the natural masculinity that exists within him."

Dealing with roughs and toughs includes wrestling and other forms of playful fighting, as well as some real fighting.

Boys and young Men have to have that in their lives.

So what's going on, Tom, is that as society heterosexualizes, there emerge the labels and categories of "sexual orientation."

These labels and catagories serve to discourage what we would call a normal Warrior Boyhood by turning male-male into a condition and ghettoizing it in what is today the "gay" space.

And that in turn ensures that society will be 100% heterosexualized.

Because male-male is removed from the mainstream of society and shunted off into the "gay" ghetto aka analism.

Very important to understand that.

Your life, and that of Men in heterosexualized societies, has been shaped by historical forces of which most Men are completely unaware.

But heterosexualization is a very new phenomenon.

In the past, most spaces were single-gender, and most Men spent most of their lives with other Men.

It's not that they didn't like Women -- at least sexually.

But they spent a lot of time with other Men.

Which is pretty much true among mammals in general.

Since reading your website, I have pondered the morality or (some would say) immorality of two guys getting it on rubbing their dicks together and I think that maybe the answer might lie in what the two guys have in their mind and heart and rather than the fact they their body parts are together.

Yes, and that's fine.

But you also need to be clear that other cultures, including the greatest culture, that of the ancient Greeks, do not ipso facto put male-male into the category of "immoral."

To the contrary:

Plato:

There is no sort of Areté more respected by the Gods than this which comes of Eros.

There is no sort of Virtue more respected by the Gods than this which comes of Manly Love.

If it were immoral for two penises to come into contact, that would pretty much do away with a lot of male contact sports.

Right.

And fact is, Tom, that the skin-on-skin contact sports of wrestling, boxing, and MMA aka UFC -- are marginalized in our culture.

American UFC
popular, but marginal

To the Greeks, they were the most important form of athletics.

And Sacred.

And they were practised -- and celebrated -- nude.

Greek Pankration
core to the culture, and sacred

Tom:

Anyway, I've found it liberating to know there are lots of other guys out there who like it dick to dick.

Bill:

Good!

I am in full agreement with you that our society has emasculated men and made us into "good little boys."

Yes, that's correct.

But we need to be Men -- not boys.

I appreciate being able to share with you and the feedback is enlightening.

Tom, that's great.

And likewise -- your letters are terrific.

Bill Weintraub

Reply from:

Tom

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-10-2011

Hi Bill,

Fine to use my first name, Tom. As to my age, I am just passing the 55 mark. As to my talks with my wife about my teen m2m experiences, I think she found that a little threatening, particularly when I told her that two males, particular in that 16 to 19 year range, who want the same thing can have explosive sex that can go on for hours at a time. Women generally want to know they satisfy their man completely. She does satisfy me in penis-vagina sex; I just haven't told her how different male-female and male-male sex are. Without violating my confidential relationship with my wife, I'd love to discuss that question with you in a general way. I've read some of your comments about penis-vagina sex which seem to suggest that the climax comes from rubbing. I find it extremely exciting to insert my penis and feel the vagina voluntarily squeeze around it, but the rubbing is great too and entirely necessary as we get older. I'm mulling over your contention that the desire for phallic mating is almost universal among men, based, I take it, on historical evidence from the Greeks, Celts, etc. If so, most of us men sure do a good job of hiding it.

Great to talk to you.

Tom

Reply from:

Bill Weintraub

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-10-2011

Hi Tom

It's great hearing from you --

but it sounds like you're having some buyer's remorse.

So let's take a look:

Fine to use my first name, Tom.

Okay.

As to my age, I am just passing the 55 mark.

Okay.

As to my talks with my wife about my teen m2m experiences, I think she found that a little threatening, particularly when I told her that two males, particular in that 16 to 19 year range, who want the same thing can have explosive sex that can go on for hours at a time.

Okay, but that's not what you first told me.

You said, "She was very understanding and remarked that that's what a lot of boys do together."

Women generally want to know they satisfy their man completely.

No no no.

Women *in our culture* are TOLD that they must satisfy their man completely and that their marriage must be 100% and *exclusively* fulfilling for both partners.

No Greek woman would have thought in those terms.

And this New York Times op-ed by historian of marriage Stephanie Coontz makes clear that neither did women in the nineteenth century:

Too Close for Comfort.

We discuss that op-ed in a number of places, including:

slouching toward matriarchy;

And this far more recent post:

I love the female body, but the cock is also wonderful;

in which I summarize some of Coontz' points:

• That our expectations of contemporary marriage are burdensome;

• That "In some cases we even cause the breakdown [of marriage] by loading the relationship with too many expectations";

• That historically people didn't do that;

• That, rather, they had many paths to fulfillment and friendship;

• That as recently as the Victorian era, "Men wrote matter-of-factly about retiring to bed with a male roommate, 'and in each other's arms did friendship sink peacefully to sleep'";

• That "many men [are] rediscover[ing] what earlier generations of men had taken for granted -- that men need deep emotional connections with other men, not just their wives"; -- and --

• That we should return to a pre-twentieth century model of marriage, saying, "we should raise our expectations for, and commitment to, other relationships."

Tom:

She does satisfy me in penis-vagina sex; I just haven't told her how different male-female and male-male sex are.

Bill:

Okay.

Telling her that might help allay her fears.

Might.

Given the cultural messages she's absorbed about this, it would be a very big adjustment for her to understand and accept that male-female and male-male are different, and exist in two separate spheres of your life.

A huge adjustment.

Without violating my confidential relationship with my wife, I'd love to discuss that question with you in a general way. I've read some of your comments about penis-vagina sex which seem to suggest that the climax comes from rubbing.

It comes from mutually and direct genital contact.

That's the point.

I'm contrasting penile-penile / penile-vaginal -- with anal.

I find it extremely exciting to insert my penis and feel the vagina voluntarily squeeze around it,

Okay.

But aren't you splitting hairs here?

The squeezing is because of the engorgement of the vaginal erectile tissue.

Which then rubs against or -- if you prefer, contacts -- your penile erectile tissue.

but the rubbing is great too and entirely necessary as we get older.

Fine.

I'm mulling over your contention that the desire for phallic mating is almost universal

Not almost.

Is universal.

among men, based, I take it, on historical evidence from the Greeks, Celts, etc.

And the Azande of Africa -- but it's not just anthropological and historical.

It's anatomy.

Cock2Cock is mutually and directly genital sex.

It feels great.

Guys, when fooling around, as you described in detail in your first email, discover it naturally.

My husband Patrick got into it as a teenager wrestling his best friend.

They were shirtless and in their briefs or jeans wrestling around, getting hard, and then humping each other like demons.

And at the same time they had girlfriends whom they were fucking -- like demons.

Just two all-American boys.

And their girls.

Male-Female.

Male-Male.

VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY COMMON.

If so, most of us men sure do a good job of hiding it.

Indeed!

And you, Tom, are Exhibit A.

You had a passionate youth and young adult cock2cock sex life, which you abandoned when you got married, and which you've told me NO ONE ELSE KNOWS ABOUT besides your wife.

Tom -- how do you know that the guy next door or the guy who waited on you in Home Depot today or whomever -- isn't into cock2cock -- and doing just as "good job of hiding it" -- as you?

Duh.

Guys hide it -- and hide it well -- because there's a divine prohibition against it in our culture, and because guys don't want to be put into the "gay" box.

Here's my experience, however, from the years when I was still gay-identified and single.

When I, as an out "gay" man, was among straight-identified guys in a group, the guys would ALL make a point of talking about their wives and their kids and how much they loved women -- and only women.

And then -- and this happened to me time and again -- I'd be alone with one of these putatively 100% "straight" guys -- and he'd come on to me.

He'd proposition me.

That happened so many times that I concluded, correctly, that there is NO SUCH THING as a "straight" man.

And again, you're Exhibit A.

Haven't you spent the last 30 years or so telling everyone how much you love your wife?

And NEVER indicating to your fellow MEN -- that given the chance, maybe you'd love one of them too.

Or at least enjoy phallus-against-phallus sex with them.

And do you not see what a terrible dis-service you did to those Men --

and to yourself?

You dissembled, you dissembled well, and your dissembling was a dis-service -- to yourself and your fellow Men.

Because, Tom, you said in your Frot Club post:

"No m2m experiences since teen and college years with buddies but vivid memories and yearnings are still there."

"Vivid memories and yearnings are still there"

If they're still there -- they're still there.

They never went away.

And they never will.

And all these years Tom, you could have had what Greek Men had -- a wife, and kids, and a Male Lover too.

Openly and honestly.

And your life would have been richer and better for it.

Our cultural model of marriage and sexuality is deficient -- and a sham.

A lie.

Some people -- not necessarily you, Tom -- want to live a lie.

I'm not interested.

I've seen where those lies lead.

AIDS is one of the places.

Like I say, I'm not interested.

So -- let's go through this again.

Why were the straight-identified guys coming on to to me -- and not each other?

Because -- under the rules of sexual orientation -- which is an artifact, remember, of heterosexualization -- and I strongly encourage you to re-read and then read again

Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition

"straight" guys have no sexual interest in other Men.

"Gay" gays do.

So the "straight" guys were coming on to me -- because I openly expressed a sexual interest in other guys.

And because I'm Masculine.

That's part of it too.

But the main thing was that, under the rules of sexual orientation, it was, in theory, "safe" to come on to me.

But not safe to come on to to another "straight" guy -- who would react with disgust -- or so we were told.

React with disgust -- and maybe, rat the other guy out.

So Tom --

You did and "do a good job of hiding it."

Like most straight-identified guys, you have several advanced degrees in "hiding it."

And that's very much to the shame of our culture.

Men have sex with Men.

Guys have sex with Guys.

Always have.

Always will.

And the natural and organic way for them to do that is -- Frot.

And Tom, you know that to be true.

Problem:

You live in a very conservative place.

And even if you didn't -- if you lived in NYC let's say -- the culture would still be bifurcated into "gay" and "straight" and the "gay" part would be analist.

In addition, your wife is freaked by the thought of her husband enjoying male-male.

All that is in the "con" column.

What you've got in the "pro" column is my words and the words of others on our website -- and your memories.

It's Bambi meets Godzilla.

You'll have to very strong -- to overcome all those negatives.

So -- here's a little help:

Here are two articles from the NY Times which appeared over the last two days documenting "bisexuality" in famous Men:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/books/gandhi-biography-by-joseph-lelyveld-roils-india.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/arts/actor-farley-granger-dies-at-85.html

Farley Granger -- sure -- he was in a "gay" profession.

BUT -- he was into male-female and male-male.

He was NOT "gay."

He was just another guy.

He does say, in the obit, that he found male-male "most satisfying."

So what?

He was still fucking girls.

Fact is, when we look historically, many guys -- in some cultures, most -- who fucked women and had kids and families -- would say the same as Granger --

Admiral Mahan -- 'when it comes to sex, commend me to Men'

And what about Gandhi???

Who'd a thunk it?

You and every other straight-identified guy are wearing blinders.

Your liberation, Tom, depends on your willingness to free yourself of those blinders --

and see the world as it actually is.

Bill Weintraub

April 11, 2011

© All material Copyright 2011 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Reply from:

Tom

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-12-2011

Hey, Bill,

Wow! I see you are an up front, in your face, bare knuckles kind of guy and I like that in you. You and I could have some interesting philosophical discussions because, one, I love to study history (have a Ph.D. in modern European history) and, two, I enjoy discussing sexual issues.

You have my respect for calling penis-anal sex what it is -- a feminizing, defeating, humiliating result for the poor guy getting butt-fucked. Only one time did I consent to that and my body told me instantly that this is not natural. Also, I respect you for working out a new paradigm for men who have sex with other men. Your work reflects a huge investment of time, thought, and respect for other guys who have struggled, and as one of those guys who has struggled, I say "thanks" Bill for defining what my past sexual experience with my buds really was (I'm speaking of frot) and why it still looms so large in my thinking.

Here is my response to the points you made:

First, as to my wife wanting to know she satisfies me completely sexually, whether this is innately female thinking or something she has learned, the fact is that if I tell her after sex that "you satisfy me," it makes her joyful, peaceful, and fulfilled. Since I am committed to her happiness and welfare, I choose to convey something to her that I know will help her to be receptive the next time I want sex. Since I want that sex to be the best possible, I do and say the things which I know appeal to her as a woman because that makes my home a better place for us both.

After many years of marriage, I chose to reveal my m2m experiences with her because I was tired of hiding those in a closed room in my mind and she was the only one I knew I could trust to listen non-judgmentally and treat me the same afterward. In our talks over several weeks I deliberately used very graphic language in explaining to her what I had done with my teen buddies. I even asked her to give me her opinion as to why I had done those things. She didn't make a big deal of it and commented that probably lots of boys in the developmental stage do it with each other but gravitate toward exclusive male-female sexual relationships, get married, have children, and leave the m2m things behind (which is what happened with me).

What I haven't told her and probably won't is that if I met another guy similar to me physically and in life experiences, I could easily strike up a close friendship which could include a frot relationship. In other words, have a male lover. I can honestly say that this is the first time since age 20 that I have seriously considered following up on my desire to frot with another guy, and that is probably because of your website, particularly the historical articles, the warrior stories, and frot club. I found the Sensei Patrick story particularly engrossing.

Here's my dilemma. If I take a male lover, it will have to be a secret from my wife, my friends, my family, and to a lot of other people who depend on me for various reasons. Society being what it is, there just isn't any way I could do this openly without completely turning my life upside down. If I have "buyers remorse, " it is because I don't want to hurt others who, for whatever reasons, just wouldn't understand. I take it that others who post on frot club are in my situation as well, because, like me, to them "discretion is a must." Call me a butt-fucked wimp or whatever you want, Bill, I just can't do it.

But back to my marriage sitaution. One night in bed, I shared with my wife that male-male sex is easier than male-female sex because two guys are physically alike, they both have male strength and stamina, they usually both want the same things, they are both ready at the same time and that sex between men is something like an athletic competition and therefore is explosive. When I said this, I was lying on my back, penis erect, and noticed that it lay flat on my belly and pointed due north. I explained that when two guys lay together or sit opposite, they get their most sensitive areas (the frenulum area) together and rub back and forth or that when one is on top he can position himself and move so as to rub their balls and penis shafts together, all of which produces intense sensations and can go on and on for hours. That was before I discovered your website and that this kind of m2m sex now has a name, frot. Imagine my surprise at finding other guys talking about the same thing in the same way.

Secondly, I take your comments toward the end of your e-mail as a male to male challenge which always makes the pulse pick up and the testosterone level rise, to quit denying myself and other guys the pleasure and fulfillment we all desire. Challenge duly noted.

Thirdly, I'm a very cerebral guy so I'm going to ponder all this for a time. In the meantime, to show my sincere appreciation for your input, I'll send a money order donation. It's worth much, much more, believe me.

Great to talk to you again, Bill.

Tom

Reply from:

Bill Weintraub

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-15-2011

Hi Tom

Let's take a look:

Wow! I see you are an up front, in your face, bare knuckles kind of guy

Right.

Up front is right.

I tell the Truth.

I do that, in no small part, because I was mentored by two Holocaust survivors who taught me that it is NEVER right and it is ALWAYS a mistake to compromise with or otherwise entertain a lie -- aka evil.

That mentoring had added power because of where and when I was born:

In America, in 1948.

The only reason I was born was that my father was brought to America as a babe-in-arms from Czarist Russia.

He and the other members of my family who either made it here or were born here, survived.

The rest died at Auschwitz.

That's not something I can forget.

And they died because too many compromises were made with too many lies.

Those lies usually took the form of dominant cultural models -- what historian of science Tom Kuhn, in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, called "dominant paradigms."

And while you, Tom, are unlikely to be mentored by a Holocaust survivor -- there aren't many left -- you can learn from those survivors by reading the Holocaust literature.

For example, here on the site I discuss the Resistance Fighter and Holocaust survivor Jean Amery:

(See The Back of the Bus).

Amery talks about how the dominant anti-semitic paradigm of the 1930s -- affected the Jewish response to the Nazis and the Holocaust.

Similarly, Bruno Bettelheim, also a Resistance Fighter, and who survived Dachau, has written critically of the Anne Frank story.

The Frank family had emigrated from Germany to Holland to escape Hitler.

When the Nazis invaded Holland, Otto Frank, Anne's father, moved his family into a well-appointed hideout, usually referred to as "the Annex."

As one of my mentors, a Dutch Jew, explained to me, the Annex was the Titanic of such hiding places.

Most people were hidden in cellars or attics and had to be frequently moved.

The Annex was comparatively large and was designed as a permanent hiding place.

Within the Annex, and in part because it was large and in theory permanent, Otto Frank strove to maintain a "normal" life for his family and the other residents, making sure that the kids kept up with their studies, etc.

But -- Bettelheim notes that Otto Frank was so anxious to preserve a bourgeois life-style for his family, that he didn't do two things:

1. Devise an escape route from the Annex; and

2. Get a gun.

That was a problem, because eventually the Franks were betrayed, arrested, and deported to Auschwitz.

If, when the Green Police had come to the door of the Annex, Otto had held them off with a gun, Anne and her boyfriend Peter might have had a chance to escape.

Otto would almost certainly have been killed.

But some of the others might have made it.

As it was, Anne, her sister and mother, Peter, etc -- were all killed.

Only Otto survived.

Again, from Bettelheim's point of view, Otto was too caught up in the dominant paradigm of middle-class respectability.

He needed to think outside that paradigm -- to think in terms of pure animal survival.

And Bettelheim points out that Anne Frank's famous "last words" -- "Despite everything, I still believe people are really good at heart" -- were written when she was still in the Annex.

It's unlikely, he says, that she continued to believe that after being transported to Auschwitz in a cattle car, seeing the gas chambers and ovens, and watching her mother and sister die of typhus in the camp.

Which means that to characterize the Anne Frank story by her expression of hope -- is false and misleading.

So -- you always have to challenge the dominant paradigm.

No matter how unpleasant challenging it -- may seem.

In the 1930s there was a radical and hardline Zionist named Jabotinsky.

He was militant, an early advocate of Jewish self-defense, helped bring about the first Jewish Legion, created the Irgun, and was often at odds with mainstream Zionism.

But he could see what was going to happen.

As World War II neared, he exhausted himself going from one European capital to the next, pleading with the non-Jews, and in particular the British, to make it possible for their Jews to migrate to Palestine, and warning that there would be an unimaginable tragedy -- if they didn't.

According to the Orthodox Union:

In the last years prior to the outbreak of the second World War, Jabotinsky made frequent visits to Central and Eastern Europe. Foreseeing the catastrophe that was imminent in the wake of Hitler's rise to power, he pressed for the mass evacuation of the Jews from Eastern Europe, especially from Poland, which numbered over three million Jews. "Either you liquidate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will liquidate you," he cried out. Alas, his was a voice crying in the wilderness.

No one listened to him.

No one let their Jews go.

Jabotinsky died of a heart attack in 1940.

So he didn't live to see his words become reality.

And if he lived, he'd probably have been killed by the Nazis -- or, and even more likely, died fighting them.

But Jabotinsky was right.

He knew it was a mistake to compromise with a lie.

You don't do that.

You tell the Truth.

And there is precious little Truth being told either about anal, or about Men who are sexual with, and more importantly, are affectionate and in Love with -- other Men.

There are so many lies around anal that it's hard to know which deserves mentioning in this little reply, but the biggest without doubt at this moment, and which is driving not just American but worldwide policy towards "gay" people is -- that the "gay community" didn't cause AIDS.

That's a lie.

It was the "gay community's" unrelenting emphasis on anal, coupled of course with a level of promiscuity which is unimaginable to most straight-identified people, which caused the AIDS epidemic among "men who have sex with men" and killed hundreds of thousands of them in the US, millions worldwide.

That plain fact was demonstrated by gay-identified journalist Gabriel Rotello in his 1997 book Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men.

Rotello was excoriated by the "gay community" for telling that particular Truth and basically left -- or was forced out of -- the "community" as a result.

But he was right.

Just as am I.

I'm living proof that AIDS is spread not by sex between Men, but by anal penetration, and that you can have a passionate sexual life with a Man who's infected with HIV and who dies -- without yourself becoming infected with HIV.

NO BUTTBOY, NO SHITFAERY, HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO REFUTE THAT -- or even deal with it.

THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH IT.

BECAUSE THEY ARE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL MIDGETS.

WHO SPREAD AIDS AND NOT JUST TOLERATE BUT CELEBRATE THOSE OF THEIR PEERS WHO DO THE SAME.

THEY'RE DISGUSTING.

What about Men having sex with Men?

Men have sex with Men.

That has NOTHING to do with either "homosexuality" or "being gay."

The ancients had it right.

They talked about acts -- NEVER a condition.

Both the Hebrew Bible and Greek literature talk about an act which "uses men as women."

And they forbid it.

While speaking highly and in exalted language of Men Loving Men:

David and Jonathan, Achilles and Patroclus, Harmodius and Aristogeiton.

There's no conception of a condition.

Just Virtue and Love.

The Greeks institutionalized Male-Male Love, and associated it directly with Military Valour.

The Romans didn't.

But they were just as into it.

Suetonius: The Twelve Caesars.

Biographies of the first twelve Roman emperors.

Only one of the twelve didn't have a boyfriend or multiple boyfriends.

That was Claudius, who was weird in a number of ways.

Robert Graves made him into the hero of his novel, I, Claudius.

But that's a fictionalized account.

Claudius was weird.

Sure, Caligula and Nero were weird too.

But Julius Caesar wasn't; nor was Augustus, nor Vespasian, nor, on the whole, the rest of them.

They weren't pretty -- they were tyrants -- and most of them were, in terms of their public acts -- the conquest of Gaul, the destruction of Jewry in Judea -- exceptionally nasty.

But sexually, they were ordinary Roman Men.

Indeed, there are references to male-male throughout Roman literature --

in the Satyricon, in Ovid, in Virgil, etc.

The Roman emperor and "phil-hellene" -- lover of Greek culture -- Hadrian had an extremely public love-affair with a guy named Antinous.

When Antinous died, Hadrian had him deified and erected temples and statues to him throughout the Empire.

Hadrian, by the way, was married.

Like most Roman Men.

But that didn't stop him either from loving Antinous, or from mourning him extravagantly and publically.

These are historical facts.

They're not secret, they're not esoteric, they're well-known.

Yet Dan Savage, a syndicated gay-identified sex advice columnist who's a darling of the New York Times, had an op-ed in the Times in which he claimed that "gay people" are a "tiny and stable" minority.

If that's true, what's all the fuss about?

If it were true that 1 or 3 or even 5% of the population of American males was exclusively "gay" -- and the other 95% exclusively "straight" -- which is what the categories of sexual orientation teach --

why the fuss?

Because after all, if the vast majority of people are, genetically or through some other pseudo-scientific legerdemain, exclusively straight, they're exclusively straight.

It doesn't matter how many pool balls gay-identified males stuff up their rectums.

It won't affect anyone else.

But it does.

And the evangelicals are the ones -- for whatever reason -- who've gotten this right.

It matters because Men -- and Women -- are not exclusively "straight."

Not at all.

And given the opportunity, ordinary guys will have sex with other guys.

Passionate sex.

Not to mention Love affairs.

Passionate Love affairs.

That's what the religious right fears.

And they have reason.

Because fact is, even under the categories of sexual orientation, and in the face of our society's alleged divine prohibition against it -- straight-identified Men -- for example, you, Tom -- still have sex with other straight-identified Men -- and Love affairs too.

That's one of the most remarkable things about so-called homosexuality, but which is really just individual and passionate acts of Man2Man:

We went into a furious humping of each other and in the next few moments I had the sensation that our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one. . . That was about 11:00 P.M. and until 6 AM the next morning we were on each other, pushing, rubbing, grinding dicks together.

That despite all the suppression and repression, those passionate acts continue -- and OUTSIDE of sexual orientation.

That's the TRUTH and I will continue to tell it.

and I like that in you. You and I could have some interesting philosophical discussions because, one, I love to study history (have a Ph.D. in modern European history) and, two, I enjoy discussing sexual issues.

Uh-huh.

Problem:

THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME.

THIS IS NOT AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE.

I SAW HUNDREDS OF MEN DIE.

I WATCHED MY LOVER DIE.

THAT CHANGED ME.

I'M NO LONGER INTERESTED IN POLITE, INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSIONS.

NOT INTERESTED.

You have my respect for calling penis-anal sex what it is -- a feminizing, defeating, humiliating result for the poor guy getting butt-fucked.

And for the one doing the fucking.

It's defeating and humiliating for both.

We will NEVER let the so-called top think he's being "masculine" by doing it.

TRUE MANLINESS IS VIRTUOUS.

That's core to the way the ancients thought about Men -- and they were right.

TRUE MANLINESS IS VIRTUOUS.

There is NOTHING virtuous about buttfucking -- for either "partner."

Only one time did I consent to that and my body told me instantly that this is not natural.

Right.

It's profoundly UNnatural.

Also, I respect you for working out a new paradigm for men who have sex with other men.

Okay.

It's okay if you want to think of it that way, but it's based on an ancient and very brilliant paradigm which used male competitiveness in the service of both male-male Love and male-male Valour.

Your work reflects a huge investment of time, thought, and respect for other guys who have struggled, and as one of those guys who has struggled, I say "thanks" Bill for defining what my past sexual experience with my buds really was (I'm speaking of frot) and why it still looms so large in my thinking.

Right -- we have the answer to that crucial point:

"why it still looms so large in your thinking"

Here is my response to the points you made:

First, as to my wife wanting to know she satisfies me completely sexually, whether this is innately female thinking or something she has learned,

Some of it may have to do with genetically-determined female reproductive strategy, but a huge part is cultural.

Tom, did you read the Coontz op-ed?

And if you did, did you understand it?

Coontz is very respected; and what she said is very important.

Once again, these are the points she made:

• That our expectations of contemporary marriage are burdensome;

• That "In some cases we even cause the breakdown [of marriage] by loading the relationship with too many expectations";

• That historically people didn't do that;

• That, rather, they had many paths to fulfillment and friendship;

• That as recently as the Victorian era, "Men wrote matter-of-factly about retiring to bed with a male roommate, 'and in each other's arms did friendship sink peacefully to sleep'";

• That "many men [are] rediscover[ing] what earlier generations of men had taken for granted -- that men need deep emotional connections with other men, not just their wives"; -- and --

• That we should return to a pre-twentieth century model of marriage, saying, "we should raise our expectations for, and commitment to, other relationships."

Those points can be summed up as follows:

People's expectations of marriage, including the sexual component of marriage, vary widely over time and space -- depending upon culture.

The idea that a Woman has to satisfy a Man completely is -- a very recent one.

As is the idea that a Man and a Woman have to satisfy each other completely.

And in practice, that idea can be very stressful.

Coontz:

"many men [are] rediscover[ing] what earlier generations of men had taken for granted -- that men need deep emotional connections with other men, not just their wives."

Coontz:

"we should raise our expectations for, and commitment to, other relationships."

Stephanie Coontz said that, Tom.

Not Bill Weintraub.

Stephanie Coontz.

Is she wrong?

For example, is she wrong in saying that "men need deep emotional connections with other men, not just their wives"?

Or is she right?

Tom, you said that your youthful cock2cock experiences were "the reason I have never really bonded with another male as an adult, this out of fear of being drawn into 'forbidden territory'."

True Man2Man -- which incorporates -- embodies -- a TRUE MAN2MAN bond -- "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" ;

-- and which is emotional and spiritual as well as physical -- is 'forbidden territory' for ALL MEN, and especially married Men, in our culture.

Yet Coontz is saying "that men need deep emotional connections with other men, not just their wives."

And that "we should raise our expectations for, and commitment to, other relationships."

Who's right?

the fact is that if I tell her after sex that "you satisfy me," it makes her joyful, peaceful, and fulfilled.

Sure -- and that's only human, particularly given what her culture is telling her.

Since I am committed to her happiness and welfare, I choose to convey something to her that I know will help her to be receptive the next time I want sex.

Okay.

Tom -- do you feel she's committed to your "happiness and welfare"?

Since I want that sex to be the best possible, I do and say the things which I know appeal to her as a woman because that makes my home a better place for us both.

Yes -- and no one's telling you not to do and say those things.

After many years of marriage, I chose to reveal my m2m experiences with her because I was tired of hiding those in a closed room in my mind and she was the only one I knew I could trust to listen non-judgmentally and treat me the same afterward. In our talks over several weeks I deliberately used very graphic language in explaining to her what I had done with my teen buddies. I even asked her to give me her opinion as to why I had done those things. She didn't make a big deal of it and commented that probably lots of boys in the developmental stage do it with each other but gravitate toward exclusive male-female sexual relationships, get married, have children, and leave the m2m things behind (which is what happened with me).

Okay.

"She didn't make a big deal of it" --

but she belittled it.

She made it sound juvenile -- the act of "boys" going through a "developmental stage" -- and she put it in terms of a paradigm -- something which is "left behind" and succeeded by "exclusive male-female sexual relationships," marriage, and children -- that worked best for her --

not for you.

Question: How would you react if your wife revealed she'd had female-female affairs as a young woman and wanted to resume seeing a woman now?

Would you be supportive?

"joyful, peaceful, and fulfilled"

Suppose she could only have that if she had female-female in her life as well as male-female?

Would you support her in that goal?

And shouldn't she support you if you need more than male-female?

You see, right now what we're being told by our culture is that Men must support Women in their dreams and aspirations.

Rarely -- if ever -- do you hear that Women should likewise be supporting Men.

"The heterosexual[ized] 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."

What I haven't told her and probably won't is that if I met another guy similar to me physically and in life experiences, I could easily strike up a close friendship which could include a frot relationship. In other words, have a male lover. I can honestly say that this is the first time since age 20 that I have seriously considered following up on my desire to frot with another guy, and that is probably because of your website, particularly the historical articles, the warrior stories, and frot club. I found the Sensei Patrick story particularly engrossing.

Okay.

But something made you google "penis to penis."

You looked for our site.

We didn't look for you.

You looked for us and found us.

So those m2m "yearnings" remained and were affecting you.

Here's my dilemma. If I take a male lover, it will have to be a secret from my wife, my friends, my family, and to a lot of other people who depend on me for various reasons. Society being what it is, there just isn't any way I could do this openly without completely turning my life upside down.

Yes, that's right.

But that would be the honest thing to do.

Tell your wife the Truth.

That male-female and male-male are two entirely separate spheres of your life.

That she satisfies you completely in the male-female sphere.

But that you need male-male too.

And tell all your neighbors and friends and co-workers too.

Most would condemn you.

But a few would thank you.

If I have "buyers remorse," it is because I don't want to hurt others who, for whatever reasons, just wouldn't understand.

Okay.

But then don't start attacking me.

And it's not just that you don't want to hurt "others"; you're also protecting yourself.

You don't want to "turn your life upside down."

Again, don't attack me because you feel the need to protect yourself.

I take it that others who post on frot club are in my situation as well, because, like me, to them "discretion is a must."

Sure they are.

But eventually, you guys are going to have to come out.

Because when you don't come out, you remain within your current culture, which is heterosexualized and usually very heterosexist, and you can't survive in that culture.

You just can't.

You're not strong enough.

Like other human beings, you need cultural and peer support.

Call me a butt-fucked wimp

Not a butt-fucked wimp --

a heterosexualized wimp.

In the parlance of my schooldays, you're pussy-whipped.

But it's the heterosexualized culture which is doing the whipping.

or whatever you want, Bill, I just can't do it.

You could do it.

But you'd take -- most likely -- a huge hit and suffer accordingly.

Would you benefit as well?

Probably.

But I can't guarantee it.

But back to my marriage sitaution. One night in bed, I shared with my wife that male-male sex is easier than male-female sex because two guys are physically alike, they both have male strength and stamina, they usually both want the same things, they are both ready at the same time and that sex between men is something like an athletic competition and therefore is explosive.

Right.

And very well-said too.

"Sex between men is something like an athletic competition and therefore is explosive."

Sex between Men -- True Sex -- Phallus-Against-Phallus Sex -- is an Agon.

An Athlos -- a competition which owes at least as much to the battlefield as it does to the playing field.

That's what it is.

Ferocious and Furious.

Which is what the Romans said Male Youth was about -- Ferocity and Fury.

Ferocity and Fury which led to Virtue -- Virtus.

This is from J E Lendon, the classicist whose work we discuss in The Secret Craft of Warriorhood:

Youth in the Roman tradition is ferox, ferocious; and embodies furor, savage passion.

Thus the Aggressiveness of young Men at War.

And in Love.

The Romans of the Republic had a problem balancing Virtus -- Martial Courage -- with disciplina -- staying within the phalanx as ordered.

Because their young Warriors would break ranks to seek out One-on-One Combat with Warriors from the opposing force.

Lendon:

The Romans believed "that for young men to disobey [that is, break ranks] and fight against orders was justly punishable but at the same time right and natural" -- an expression of Virtus -- Martial Courage -- Manly Excellence -- Virtue.

When you as a youth, and as a straight-identified guy, engaged in male-male, Tom, you too broke ranks -- but at the same time what you did was right and natural.

And also -- at least potentially -- an expression of Virtus.

Manly Virtue.

What you did was an expression of a Manly Virtue which was struggling, furiously, to emerge -- but which was then submerged in the sea of conventional societal "heterosexuality."

That submergence of Virtue in the "heterosexual" sea had to have been un-manning for you.

You said that you "can't forget how it validated my feelings of masculinity to be with another male who was willing to share his most male part with me and to have me share mine with him."

Yet for thirty years, acting not like the Warrior you need to be but like the good heterosexualized soldier society expects you to be, you've DENIED yourself that Validation of Masculinity.

When you deny yourself that Validation -- you UN-man yourself.

And that's what every dominant culture wants --

it wants those it oppresses -- to OPPRESS THEMSELVES.

And that's what you've done and are doing.

Again -- and I'm picking this out of Lendon, but it's germane -- the Romans said it was "right and natural" for young Men to Fight -- even if their orders were not to Fight.

Our culture, faced with the form of Fighting which is Phallus-Against-Phallus, won't even allow that such Fighting is "right and natural."

But it is.

And Tom, you know it is.

Furor.

Savage passion.

You once had that Tom.

To want it again -- is both right and natural.

When I said this, I was lying on my back, penis erect, and noticed that it lay flat on my belly and pointed due north. I explained that when two guys lay together or sit opposite, they get their most sensitive areas (the frenulum area) together and rub back and forth or that when one is on top he can position himself and move so as to rub their balls and penis shafts together, all of which produces intense sensations and can go on and on for hours.

Right.

That was before I discovered your website and that this kind of m2m sex now has a name, frot. Imagine my surprise at finding other guys talking about the same thing in the same way.

Right.

And Tom, it should bother you that this was a surprise.

Why have you never seen this talked about in the mainstream media?

Why, whenever there's discussion of men having "sex" with men, is it all anal all the time?

Do you think that omission oppresses you?

Answer:

Yes, it does.

Secondly, I take your comments toward the end of your e-mail as a male to male challenge which always makes the pulse pick up and the testosterone level rise, to quit denying myself and other guys the pleasure and fulfillment we all desire. Challenge duly noted.

Yeah.

Stop denying yourself -- and your fellow MEN.

Thirdly, I'm a very cerebral guy so I'm going to ponder all this for a time. In the meantime, to show my sincere appreciation for your input, I'll send a money order donation. It's worth much, much more, believe me.

That's right, it is.

We need monthly donations -- and that's what you should be doing.

And the size of the donation could be commensurate with the worth of the work.

And with your ability to give.

Only one person is doing that right now -- and that's Warrior Brian Hulme.

Who tithes.

When enough of you start doing that -- the culture will change.

And your wives will suddenly become a lot more understanding.

Again -- cultural change is the key.

Now -- one more thing about "bare knuckles."

I said I was mentored by Holocaust survivors.

They weren't "nice" people.

They'd had their illusions stripped from them.

In the most brutal way imaginable.

So have I.

I now know what happens when you entertain lies about entities like "sexual orientation" and acts like anal "sex."

Disaster.

Which try as you might -- you can't avoid.

Even if you're intelligent and well-educated.

And affluent too -- by the way.

Your money will not protect you.

When AIDS hit, that was a real shock to a lot of gay-identified males who'd put a lot of energy into protecting their money -- famous people like Rock Hudson and Roy Cohn -- and ordinary but affluent guys too;

and then discovered that their money wasn't interested in or capable of protecting them.

So -- I'm not nice either.

Don't make the mistake of thinking I am.

And don't treat this like a game -- because it's not.

Tom, I said at the beginning of this reply that we have always to challenge the dominant paradigm.

No matter how unpleasant challenging it -- may seem.

And I talked about Anne Frank and Bruno Bettelheim.

Who's willing to beat up on Anne Frank, after all -- this sweet young girl who was murdered?

Or on Otto Frank, who lost his entire family?

Answer:

A Holocaust survivor.

Who knows that to not beat up on them -- is to do the world a false kindness.

And a false kindness is a lie.

And lies NEVER help.

You have to tell the Truth.

Even if the Truth is unpleasant.

The lesson to take away from the story of Anne Frank isn't that people are really good at heart.

The lesson to take away is that sometimes people are so heartlessly evil, that what you need isn't a pretty sentiment, but an escape route and a gun.

Can we apply that to AIDS and HIV?

Sure.

Because even as I write, somewhere in America someone, some gay-identified male, is, callously and heartlessly and viciously -- infecting another gay-identified male -- with HIV.

Is saying that beating up on "AIDS victims?"

No.

It's telling the Truth.

We've had twenty-seven years of condom campaigns -- and the number of people infected with HIV -- most of them "men who have 'sex' with men" -- is higher than ever.

Condoms don't work because the heterosexualized paradigm is a lie.

A vicious lie.

Which like all vice -- vice = vicious -- seeks to attack and destroy Virtue.

Manly Virtue.

"Heterosexuality" itself is a vicious lie.

You know that Tom.

You know it from your own life experience.

Which means you have a moral obligation -- no matter how unpleasant -- to FIGHT that lie.

Bill Weintraub

April 15, 2011

© All material Copyright 2011 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Reply from:

Warrior Man Brian Hulme

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-21-2011

Hi Warriors

Here are a few points in reply:

1) That in this society the ideas of "warrior" and "fighter" are frowned upon and we are discouraged from them. Why then is there so much violent crime, stabbings, shootings? Well there used to be a lot less, while those boys' boxing clubs were open but that was in the 1950's and 1960's. The natural aggression of young men was given a controlled environment in which to be released. Now I really love wrestling and prefer to do it "Greek style", naked, any way I think that if I were to try boxing I would not do so well -- I would tend to "pull" my punches -- but if I had a guy in my life who liked boxing I would be willing to learn from him the correct way.

2) As for questions of morality in connection with frot. Having read the Bible, (if I might say without seeming boastful) fairly thoroughly I can say that it condemns anal but not frot.It is churches and their preachers that do condemn ANYTHING outside marriage.

3) As far as ALWAYS telling the TRUTH let me tell you about something that happened while I was at high school.

I was in woodwork class and the teacher was trying to explain what he wanted to do for the next project, meanwhile there was one kid who was banging with a hammer, teacher finally got fed up and asked the kid to stop, well he did not so the teacher went to him to take the hammer from him and this kid hit the teacher with a peace of wood and ran. Later the teacher, the head teacher, and the kid were all in the classroom, the head teacher wanted to know what had happened, and unknown to me my reputation for truth telling had got to him and after he looked round the room and saw me said "Ah there is Brian I will ask him because I KNOW he will tell me the truth." Yes truth wins out in the end.

4) Warrior Tom, I would say that to a limited extent your wife has been tolerant but only as long as the cock rubbing is left in the PAST.

What would she do if a present buddy of yours was also your male lover?

First question, does, or would you having a Man2Man relationship affect your relationship with your wife in a general way?

Second question, would you having a Man2Man (including frotting together) relationship affect how passionately or how often you make love to your wife?

If the answer to both is NO then there is not any reason why you can not do both, be married and be with a MAN.

With Warrior Love

Brian.

Reply from:

Warrior Redd

Re: "our bodies melded into each other and our dicks became one" -- A Married Man's Memories of Cock2Cock

4-21-2011

Some countries value friendship and do not frown on initmacy in friendship.

In America, we devalue friendship for fear that intimacy would lead to sex. In America, we busy ourselves monitoring sex so much that we fear ourselves and we fear each other.

We might live in a free country, but we are slaves to fear.