First email:

"frottage is evil"

A few weeks back, a guy named Dale submitted a Frot Club post for Indiana:

looking for friend in central indiana have not tried frot ever would like to

Im 45 with brown hair and blue eyes

if interested email me

So I posted him.

Then he sent me a bunch of emails in rapid succession attempting to reply to pre-existing posts on the Frot Club board.

Including these:

i have never done this but am willing to try i'm in terre haute if interested email me

i have never done it but have often thought about it. willing to see

i have never done it but would like to try it i'm in terre haute

im in terre haute, i never done this before but have thought about it if interrested email me

im in terre haut have never tried this but think i would like to if interrested email me

So he was obviously trying very urgently to find someone.

Nonetheless, he's not supposed to send those emails to me -- he's supposed to respond directly to posters via their email.

And I wrote to him and very politely explained to him -- what he needed to do.

The next day, I got this email from him:

I have rethought my sexuality and would like to remain totally hetero-sexual and would like to be removed from your site. I have visited it and can't find how to un register but I WANT TO BE UNREGISTERED!!!!!!!

I have rediscovered my Christian roots and have realized frottage is evil and I had a weak time in my life and was almost sucked in. I will be perfectly happy with my wife, so please remove me from your site ASAP.

Thank you for removing me from you site.

Dale

Now, I'm going to talk about what Dale said, and more, in a moment.

But when I went to remove him, I discovered that he'd been on the site, under a different email address, since 2003.

So this was not his first foray into Frot.

Here's what I wrote to Dale in response to his "frottage is evil" email:

Hi Dale

Your religious beliefs are your own and you're certainly entitled to them.

However, I expect people who write to me to be polite and respectful.

Dale, I went to a lot of trouble to put up your posts, and when you began sending me unneccesary emails, I was polite in writing to you.

How have you repaid me?

By characterising frottage as "evil" -- which is disrespectful of me -- and also ridiculous.

As for the rest of your letter:

I have rethought my sexuality

You cannot rethink your sexuality.

You were born with same-sex needs and desires.

It's true that you don't have to act on those desires.

But they will never go away.

Never.

Not ever.

You will always have them.

and would like to remain totally hetero-sexual

But you're not "totally hetero-sexual."

We already know that.

Because if you were, you wouldn't be on our site.

You cannot remain something that you're not.

Furthermore, and not only is there no such thing as "totally hetero-sexual" -- but, as I explain on the site, there's no such thing as a "heterosexual" or "heterosexuality."

There are just sexual acts.

Sex between men -- or between a man and a woman -- is not a condition.

It's an act.

I suggest you read Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition -- to get clear about that.

and would like to be removed from your site. I have visited it and can't find how to un register but I WANT TO BE UNREGISTERED!!!!!!!

You've been removed.

I have rediscovered my Christian roots

Whether you choose to have sex with another Man -- has NOTHING -- I repeat NOTHING -- to do with the Christian Faith.

My husband is a Christian.

Warrior Brian Hulme is a Christian.

Many of our Warriors are Christians.

What you say you've "rediscovered" are a bunch of ill-informed lies put forth by the so-called religious right -- which is neither.

Try reading Questions about Homosexuality and Christianity.

and have realized frottage is evil

Frot is not evil.

In the context of a loving relationship between two men, it's one of the highest spiritual expressions of the human race.

and I had a weak time in my life

No.

Your same-sex feelings are not a sign of weakness.

Again, they're a normal and natural part of your Masculinity.

and was almost sucked in.

By who?

You came to the site of your own free will.

And you've been posted on the site since 2003.

What nonsense.

Fact is, you can't be sucked in.

That isn't what happens.

You, and you alone, chose to post on our site in response to your own natural and normal male needs --

needs which cannot be indefinitely denied.

I will be perfectly happy with my wife,

Possibly, but I don't think so.

Again, because your same-sex needs and desires won't go away.

You should look at Ex-gay ministries -- a letter from Chuck Tarver.

so please remove me from your site ASAP.

You've been removed.

But -- if you ever want to come back -- I'll expect an apology from you, and a recognition on your part that FROT, far from being "evil," is GOOD.

And not just GOOD, but GODLY.

Because Dale, Masculinity is a Divine Principle, and Manhood a Divine Gift.

And the merging of Manhood with Manhood a Holy Sacrament.

So, Dale, like Fighting Spirit, Frot is an expression of your own God-given Natural Masculinity;

and Man is Good.

Bill Weintraub

Now, Dale's letter sounds like it was written with significant input from either his pastor or his wife.

Let's hope it was the former.

But Dale's letter does sound genuine to me -- in other words, I think he had a hand in writing it and believes a lot of what it says.

And Dale is certainly like a LOT of straight-identified guys.

He's married to a woman, and he stays within the bounds of that marriage for as long as he can, even while his same-sex needs and desires are nagging and eating away at him.

There comes a point, however, when he can no longer ignore those needs and desires, and he reaches out.

And, unlike someone like Ted Haggard, who's calculating and more-than-possibly sociopathic, the ordinary straight-identified guy reaches out in a way that's impulsive and very emotional, that expresses a heart-felt male longing and achingly intense male need for the company of another Man.

Then he's either found out -- or his "religious" conflict -- which is really NOT religious, but an expression of heterosexualization and the ghettoizing of same-sex affection, intimacy, sex, and love -- takes over -- and he hurriedly beats a retreat.

Now -- why do I say Dale's "religious" conflict is not a true reflection of his "born-again," "fundamentalist," religion?

Because we know that in the nineteenth century, when almost all Americans were what today is called "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" -- same-sex affection, intimacy, sex, and love were, on the whole, not a religious issue.

And as we've seen in posts like Warriorhood and Male Intimacy, it was common for Men of that era to express affection, intimacy, and love towards other Men -- and, we have every reason to believe -- to have sex with them as well.

That's because their culture was not yet heterosexualized.

And, for that reason, same-sex affection, intimacy, sex, and love had not yet been ghettoized, it was not a political issue, and, unlike today, was rarely addressed by "religion."

So -- what Dale experiences as a religious objection to "frottage" is actually a HETEROSEXUALIZED objection to MASCULINITY.

And guys it's very important that you understand that.

And we can see that, perhaps, a little better in this second letter, whose author doesn't concern himself with religion, but who objects nonetheless to "too much" talk about the Warrior.

In his letter, Jim -- who identified as "straight" throughout his teens and twenties -- recounts how, following a divorce, he experienced feelings of what, again, we call The Longing for Masculinity -- and for a male lover -- surfacing in his life.

What's interesting in his letter is that he found that male lover -- and describes him and the cock2cock sex they had in very Masculine terms.

But then, in the last paragraphs of his letter, starts objecting to the Warrior imagery in our work.

As though that had nothing do with Masculinity.

But it does.

Which leads Jim in turn to make a number of strawman arguments about our work -- that is to say, arguments which are based on a purposeful misreading of my work and of our sites.

What I've learned over the years with people like Jim is that, unfortunately, it's usually a waste of time to correspond with them.

Because, even when straight-identified, as this guy is, they're too conflicted about their Masculinity -- they've drunk too deeply of the anti-Masculine kool-aid -- to ever get past their objections to "Warrior."

Are those objections valid?

Oh no.

And when we examine Jim's letter, and what he's actually said, we can see just how false his objections are.

Here's Jim's email:

I am old now, 65. I've had a lot of sexual experience, most of it with females, and one experience with a man that left more questions than I could answer.

I was about 30, and right after my marriage broke up, when a desire for a man began bubbling to the surface. I had fantasies of touching a man's erect penis and having him touch mine. I hadn't had male fantasies while growing up. As a teenager, girls were all I cared about. But in the lonely years after my divorce, I wanted a mysterious naked male lover. It was never specific. I didn't meet anyone who would awaken those desires in real life, and I presumed that it would stay in my fantasies.

And then an old friend from school days came into my life again. We had been to an all-boys high school together. Ed was a rugged, good-looking man now, and he told me in the bar that first night that he had "come out" as gay. Knowing his past unhappiness with girlfriends, it made sense. He said he was happy in a way he never was with women. I thought, I might have just met the guy who would indulge my fantasy. We had been in a strict boy's school, and though he hadn't been my closest friend, we shared many of the same interests and experiences. I trusted him to watch out for me -- it would be my very first time -- and he aroused me even more than the fantasy figure I had dreamt of. He "worked out," and he was built like a linebacker. I had an erection just sitting in the bar, talking. I wanted him but I couldn't say so.

A little later, I decided to blurt it out. We were in a bar again, and we talked in ever-narrowing circles until I surprised him by asking if he'd come back to my place and "have sex with me." The question sounded so childishly blunt. He paused a frightening second or two before he said yes. I hopped in a cab with him hoping that the cab driver wouldn't notice my raging boner.

Well, my first night with a man was incredible. I loved being naked with my old buddy. I loved kissing him, and feeling the male beauty of his body, and his wonderful erection. Yes, grinding our cocks together was a fantastic new pleasure. Since this was my first experience, I would have moments of a kind of moral vertigo, when I couldn't quite believe that this was really happening, and my cultural guilt would rise and my desire would ebb briefly. What should we do next? That was the question I kept asking myself. Should I take him in my mouth? Should I take him in my anus? That seemed too weird for me, but that's what I presumed he expected. But we continued kissing and grinding, and eventually I couldn't hold back any longer and came lying between his legs.

He didn't come. In fact, in all of the sex we would have in the next four or five years, perhaps a dozen encounters, I always had an orgasm and he never did. I couldn't figure him out. I thought of it as an inadequacy of mine, and suspected that he wanted anal sex. He said that he never had an orgasm except with the younger guys he'd ream in the ass. I didn't want any of that, especially since he implied that he was rough with them. But it was unsatisfying, finally. He was literally holding back.

So, eventually, we stopped seeing each other. I presumed that I just wasn't gay enough for him. That I was somewhere on the midpoint of the Kinsey scale. Unless I could become a successful "analist," as you put it, I'd never have another male partner. But still, I've thought about that first night, and the pleasure of being naked with Ed, many times, and it still makes me horny.

Every night we spent together was brought about by my getting in a specific mood brought about by loneliness, thinking that this time, we'd complete "normal" anal sex, but I could never do that. This was just before the first news of AIDS, but I am from a family of doctors, so I knew all about the infections and STDs. By the end of our latest encounter, when I'd have come happily, I'd be caught between the feeling of failure over not completing the "gay" act, and the feeling that I didn't want to be gay if that's what it meant.

Your site gives me a lot of insight into my experiences back then, and what I was looking for in my desire for a male bond. It's late for me now, but I finally do understand what I wanted from my one male lover and why it couldn't work with him.

I share many of your opinions about "homosexuality" and the like. I'm not sure I would reject it-- for others-- so definitively, but I'm listening. About the male bond, I'm also listening. You seem to talk about the Warrior figure a bit too much for me. I love a heroic man, yes, and a "Warrior" in the metaphysical sense, perhaps, but I'm not so sure about this talk of Spartans and so on. I don't want a man to boss me around, and I think there's a real tenderness between men which is incredibly gentle. A man's curves are hard and square, but his skin is as soft as any other human.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your reactions. I'll be reading more of your site to try to understand better what you mean by "warriors." I hope you don't mean "fetish."

[emphases mine]

This is my response to Jim:

Hi Jim,

Thank you for writing to me.

However, I've been doing this work for ten years, and what I've learned is that guys who object to our use of Warrior language and imagery are not a good fit with the Alliance.

Just so you know:

I trained in self-defense and karate for a number of years;

I was a founding board member of the NYC Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, where I helped promote a self-defense program for g and l people;

My first lover, Brett Averill, who died of AIDS in 95, and I trained in self-defense and practiced it together; and

My present husband, Patrick, is a karate black belt and former pro kickboxer who was also a street fighter in his youth.

So -- Warrior and Fighter is central to my own self-image and that of most of the guys who make up the core membership of the Alliance.

Our first site was called Cockrub Warriors -- it was succeeded by Heroic Homosex,

and then The Man2Man Alliance.

And that's who we are.

And in our view, guys who are uncomfortable with their Masculinity in the sense of being uncomfortable with their own Warrior / Fighting Spirit will never truly understand what we're talking about vis-a-vis analism and effeminism, which we regard as anti-masculine and emasculating ideologies.

And in that sense, I'm not convinced that you truly understand what went down between you and Ed.

If you feel that my work has helped you to some degree, that's fine.

But again, I'm not certain you understand what actually happened.

In any case, it's the thrust of my work to teach Men, as I say on the site,

To make LOVE as MEN -- not as the heterosexualized puppets of a system which at its heart despises Men and Masculinity.

That's core.

And for us, Men and Masculinity means Warrior.

Now, and in that regard, I would point out to you that your language in describing your lover Ed is Masculinist and Manly:

• Ed was a rugged, good-looking man

• he aroused me even more than the fantasy figure I had dreamt of. He "worked out," and he was built like a linebacker.

• I loved kissing him, and feeling the male beauty of his body, and his wonderful erection. Yes, grinding our cocks together was a fantastic new pleasure.

So -- Ed was rugged, he was muscular, he was built like a linebacker, his body was possessed of a male -- not feminine and not androgynous but male -- beauty -- and that's what you loved feeling : "the male beauty of his body" -- and "his wonderful erection."

And you loved grinding -- grinding -- your cock against his.

Everything you say about Ed there is about masculinity and manliness.

And normal male aggression too.

No way around that.

You say that "he aroused me even more than the fantasy figure I had dreamt of" -- sounds like your "fantasy figure" was decidely masculine.

And that's not surprising.

Jim, it's normal and natural for Men to be attracted to the Masculinity of other Men.

And the Warrior is the Masculine archetype.

My advice: Stop fighting it.

In fighting it, you're fighting yourself.

And please don't hit me back with some Jungian list of archetypes.

I'm not interested in Jung.

I'm interested in Warrior.

The WARRIOR is the MALE archetype.

Not the Shaman -- you didn't say you were attracted to Ed because he looked like Gandalf.

You said "Ed was a rugged, good-looking man ... He "worked out," and he was built like a linebacker."

That's Warrior.

In fact, in a recent post, and quite independent of my letter to you, the Alliance Warrior we call "NW," who has wrestled at the collegiate level and trained in mixed martial arts, said

Masculine Characteristics are admired and cherished by ALL males Worldwide, whether they admit it or not. It's why men go watch football for shit sake! Men want to watch Men do battle, because battle is what Men want to do, instinctively.

And that's right.

Men like to Fight.

And if they can't or won't do it themselves, they like to watch other Men do it.

Jim, around the same time that you had your Ed, I had a sexual partner named Ed -- Eddie actually.

He was incredibly hot.

And he loved watching football.

Loved it.

Unfortunately, he too, like your Ed, was done in, literally, by analism -- he died of HIV / AIDS.

But the point here is that football players are, in terms of the male psyche, Warriors.

Football players are Ruggedly Masculine Men -- Warriors:

And that's what you were responding to in Ed.

You also said,

I love a heroic man, yes, and a "Warrior" in the metaphysical sense, perhaps,

To which I respond -- Only "perhaps," huh?

You were turned on by Ed's "linebacker" build.

And that's fine.

But:

Linebackers are not the toothfairy, you know.

Nor are they metaphysical.

They're football players who are lionized -- that is, hero-ized -- by the American -- mainly male -- public.

Including apparently, you.

Not us, by the way.

We don't endorse linebackers or linebacking.

And that's because of our own view, which we share with the Greeks, about what the male-male Contest -- the Agon -- actually is.

But -- Why are linebackers lionized?

Not just because of their builds --

but because they put those built bodies to highly aggressive male use.

Indeed, so aggressive is the linebacker that the US military has named a tank for the position:

The M6 Linebacker

And you, apparently, get into that, on some level, because you say -- he was built like a linebacker.

You don't say -- he had broad shoulders.

You say -- he was built like a linebacker.

Not like Tiny Tim,

but like a linebacker.

Sounds like you like that.

And that's not bad -- it's Masculine.

Once again, not a big deal.

Jim, would you have rejected Ed if, in real life, he'd been an actual linebacker?

I doubt it.

I think it would have just fed your erotic fervor.

Right?

So, I repeat:

It's normal and natural for Men to be attracted to the Masculinity of other Men.

And Fighting Spirit -- *Warrior* Spirit -- is the hallmark of Masculinity.

That's what you were attracted to in Ed.

You had no interest in following him down that analist shit-filled rabbit hole into effeminacy and buttsex.

You were attracted to him as a Man and you made love to him as a Man.

And good for you for doing that.

But -- having told me about Ed -- and having revealed that you reveled in his Masculinity -- you then hit me with all sorts of objections to and strawman arguments about my work -- mainly focused on -- Masculinity.

Of course you use the word "Warrior" in your objections.

But as I've said, the Warrior is the Masculine Archetype.

No way around that.

Which means, no matter what you may think, that you're conflicted about Masculinity.

You begin by objecting to my rejection of the categories of sexual orientation:

I share many of your opinions about "homosexuality" and the like. I'm not sure I would reject it-- for others-- so definitively, but I'm listening.

Maybe.

But if you are, you need to listen harder.

Look, this is a paragraph from a NYTimes obit of a memoirist named Lord:

The first [memoir] was "Picasso and Dora: A Personal Memoir" (1993), an exercise in gossip at the highest level. Mr. Lord added his own twist to the complex relationship between artist and muse when, despite his homosexuality, he entered into an affair with Maar. "When with her, one feels at an extraordinary altitude," he recorded in his diary."

What "homosexuality?"

He had affairs with men.

And he had an affair with Picasso's mistress.

And probably other women.

He is, or was, "bi," just like everyone else.

Sex between men and women is an activity -- not a condition.

Similarly, the Times just reviewed a posthumous book by the writer Dominick Dunne, who died in August -- in which it's revealed that Dunne, who was married and had three kids, was "gay" -- and mentions his "lifelong determination to keep his homosexuality hidden from his children."

To which I respond, once again,

What "gay" and what "homosexuality?"

He had affairs with men.

And he was married and had children -- to whom he was very devoted.

Indeed, it was the murder of his daughter that provided the keystone for the rest of his work.

And in addition to being married, he may have had affairs with other women.

Dunne was "bi," just like everyone else.

Once again, sex between men and women is an activity -- not a condition.

As, Jim, your own life story more than illustrates.

Are you going to tell me that you're "heterosexual?"

You're not.

Are you going to tell me that Ed was "homosexual?"

He wasn't.

Like sex between men and women, sex between men is an activity -- not a condition.

I discussed that most recently in our Man2Man Alliance Policy Paper titled Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition.

You need to read it.

Now, let's look at all your strawman arguments about my work and Masculinity:

For example,

I don't want a man to boss me around,

Where on the site do we advocate that?

I can tell you:

NOWHERE.

That's a strawman argument which has no relationship to my work.

From my earliest articles -- here, this one wasn't even originally published on my site --

I stress the EQUALITY of Men into Frot:

So it's no accident that men into frot reject almost every aspect of the anal sex worldview, embracing equality and masculinity as the essence of a gay male sexual experience, and often, though not always, seeking involvement in such traditional male contact sports as wrestling and boxing. To the frot boys, the buttfuck emperor has no clothes -- his proclamations of superiority and sexual fulfillment ring hollow, and much of the time, guys into frot like myself just don't get it.

Why, we ask for example, is it better to dominate (or be dominated by) your partner? Doesn't make sense for guys into frot. What we value is the intense and complete equality we feel with our buds and lovers, the face to face, heart to heart, cock to cock contact, in which neither partner is controlling the other. What we seek, as I've said often in my own writing, is the union (or contest) of two equally strong and noble beings, not a master and slave. If that's romantic, so be it. For many of us, frot is the ultimate expression of romance.

"What we value is the intense and complete equality we feel with our buds and lovers, the face to face, heart to heart, cock to cock contact, in which neither partner is controlling the other."

I'm very critical of dom-sub and of heterosexualized sex roles.

And have been from the git-go:

"intense and complete equality ... neither partner is controlling the other"

How do you get from there to "I don't want a man to boss me around"?

Bizarre.

But maybe it's that you don't understand Fighting -- in the sense of combat sport.

Fighting is about equality.

When you fight in a combat sport, you're matched on the basis of age, height, weight -- but most of all, skill level.

You don't pit a white belt against a black belt in other words.

You're looking for a "fair fight" -- and a competitive fight.

That's what it's about.

Not bossing someone around -- boring -- but fighting him --

Exciting!

And fun!

And you can see the fun in these "face-off" pix:

And afterwards, because of the parity in skill level, there's the basis for a true camaraderie.

Which if you haven't engaged in Fight Sport, you'll never understand.

In any case, I feel that given how much I talk about equality, the bossing bit is a purposeful misreading of my work.

I don't like that -- but I know it's coming from a place I'm not likely to get through to you on.

Same with your mention of the Spartans, which is also strawman and, in my view, ignorant.

12345678910
Spartan Hoplites

Are you a classicist?

Do you read ancient Greek?

How deep is your knowledge of Sparta and/or the Spartans?

Of sixth, fifth, and fourth century BC Greece?

What do you know about philolakonism -- pro-Spartan sentiment -- among Men like Socrates, Plato, Xenophon -- and Plutarch?

Do you understand to what extent the Greek ideal is actually a Spartan ideal?

Apparently not.

But Sparta as an ideal had tremendous influence in Greece.

And that influence was not solely about Warriors or military matters --

it was about an ideal of austerity and equality.

Which produced both a commune and an individual who were "temperate" -- self-controlled and stable.

Plutarch:

While [the laws of Lycurgus] remained in force, Sparta led the life, not of a city under a constitution, but of an individual man under training and full of wisdom. Nay rather, as the poets weave their tale of Heracles, how with his club and lion's skin he traversed the world chastising lawless and savage tyrants,

so we may say that Sparta, simply with the dispatch-staff and cloak of her envoys, kept Hellas in willing and glad obedience, put down illegal oligarchies and tyrannies in the different states, arbitrated wars, and quelled seditions, often without so much as moving a single shield, but merely sending one ambassador, whose commands all at once obeyed, just as bees, when their leader appears, swarm together and array themselves about him. Such a surplus fund of good government and justice did the city enjoy.

...

People did not send requests to [the Spartans] for ships, or money, or hoplites, but for a single Spartan commander; and when they got him, they treated him with honour and reverence, as the Sicilians treated Gylippus; the Chalcidians, Brasidas; and all the Greeks resident in Asia, Lysander, Callicratidas, and Agesilaus. These men, wherever they came, were styled regulators and chasteners of peoples and magistrates, and the city of Sparta from which they came was regarded as a teacher of well-ordered private life and settled civil polity.

A Spartan Warrior-Envoy addresses other Greek soldiers --
Notice the Spartan's simple red cloak, elaborately dressed hair, walking stick, and bare feet

Plutarch:

It was not, however, the chief design of Lycurgus then to leave his city in command over a great many others, but he thought that the happiness of an entire city, like that of a single individual, depended on the prevalence of virtue [areté] and concord within its own borders. The aim, therefore, of all his arrangements and adjustments was to make his people free-minded, self-sufficing, and moderate in all their ways, and to keep them so as long as possible.

His design for a civil polity was adopted by Plato, Diogenes, Zeno, and by all those who have won approval for their treatises on the subject, although they left behind them only writings and words. Lycurgus, on the other hand, produced not only writings and words, but an actual polity which was beyond imitation, and because he gave, to those who maintain that the much talked of natural disposition to wisdom exists only in theory, an example of an entire city given to the love of wisdom, his family rightly transcended that of all who ever founded polities among the Greeks.

That, Jim, is the judgment of one of the ancient world's wisest and certainly best-educated Men, who was born and lived most of his life in Greece, who had access to the works of many historians, philosophers, and poets which are lost to us, and who made a number of trips to Sparta and other city-states to study their state archives.

He's an exceptionally knowledgeable and trustworthy source.

Here's another strawman argument:

and I think there's a real tenderness between men which is incredibly gentle. A man's curves are hard and square, but his skin is as soft as any other human.

So?

Do we say otherwise?

NO.

Do we say men should have skin like reptiles?

NO.

Same with "fetish."

As it happens, you're misusing the word -- here's the actual definition of fetish.

But who cares?

There's no fetish material, in the sense that you mean -- state troopers fucking convicts, etc. -- or any other sense -- on my sites.

Analist sites, by contrast, are full of that.

Just google "Tom of Finland" -- if you've never seen his work before, it'll educate you.

Yet do you write to the webmasters of analist sites complaining about their anal fetish, anus fetish, rectum fetish, fecal fetish, cop fetish, etc etc etc?

Or all the dom-sub and s&m fantasies?

Or all the barebacking?

On one analist hook-up site I monitor, they give away free downloads of porn dvds.

Last month's was "Gang Fuckers"

This month's is "Bound, Shaved, and Fucked."

Rape.

That's what they're marketing.

We say that analism is a rape culture -- and we're right.

Yet do you write to the webmasters of those analist sites protesting the dom-sub "fetish" rape material?

Which is incredibly degrading to all involved.

NO.

You write to me.

The one Man on this earth who's actually on your side.

And whose site has NO RAPE on it.

Also bizarre.

But it suggests to me that you're too conflicted about male-male and your own masculinity to ever come to a true resolution of what you feel and think.

You begin your letter by saying, "I am old now"

Which makes it sound like Ed was your one chance at the brass ring.

And you missed it.

So why are you taking me to task for talking about Warriors?

Doesn't it bother you that Ed's concept of sex was so twisted by the effeminist and emasculating "gay male" analist world, that the only way he could cum was in some kid's ass?

Is Ed still alive?

Do you know?

If he's not, do you ever wonder how many of those "younger guys he'd ream in the ass" he infected with HIV or HPV or anything else?

Do you ever wonder how many guys died to satisfy Ed's utterly bogus buttboy notion of what sex is?

Do you ever wonder about that?

I do.

As soon as I read that "younger guys he'd ream in the ass" line and the late 70s date -- I wondered.

Because I watched Brett die.

And a lot of other guys too.

We say, "Anal kills" -- but anal is just an artifact of anti-masculinism.

It was the rejection of the Masculine principle -- the Warrior principle -- which killed all those guys.

And which goes on killing.

That's something you need to figure out.

But basically it works like this:

Anal is an artifact of anti-masculinism.

Anti-masculinism is the result of heterosexualization.

As my foreign friend says:

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

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

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

So -- the analism which came between you and Ed -- was actually the result of an anti-Masculine -- which in our view is anti-Warrior -- bias.

But so long as you object to "talk about the Warrior figure" -- you'll never be able to figure it out.

You say things like "I love a heroic man, yes, and a "Warrior" in the metaphysical sense..."

I'm not sure what a metaphysical Warrior is.

Perhaps you mean "metaphorical" -- "I love a heroic man, yes, and a "Warrior" in the metaphorical sense"

Well, in some ways our use of Warrior is metaphorical -- the Warrior as the metaphor for the Man's Fighting Spirit.

But in other ways -- it's not.

We celebrate guys who participate in Fight Sport, and we encourage our members -- who we call Warriors -- to train in a Fight Sport, such as karate or wrestling or mixed martial arts.

We regard that as core.

And when you say, "I love a heroic man," but suggest only if the heroism is metaphysical or metaphorical or whatever --

What does that mean?

Suppose the hero is a war hero?

Is that bad?

Is hero limited to guys who rescue babies from burning buildings?

Because heroism generally takes place in the context of a struggle and a fight.

It may be a fight against a social ill -- such as drug abuse or segregation -- but it may be a real Fight.

If a Man's involved in a real Fight -- can he no longer be a Hero in your eyes?

And as I asked you before -- If Ed had been a real linebacker, rather than simply "built like a linebacker" -- would you have rejected him.

I doubt it.

I think in these matters your head, which has been so corrupted by feminist and other heterosexualized clap-trap, tells you one thing;

and your Manly heart tells you another.

Jim -- you need to listen to your heart.

As you did when you went to bed -- with Ed.

And that said, Jim, good luck to you in your life.

I suspect that if you looked, even at 65, you might be able to find another cock2cock buddy.

There are guys your age and older in the Alliance.

And one of them might be your guy.

Bill Weintraub

Guys, I want to say one other thing about Jim's account, and it's regarding this:

I hadn't had male fantasies while growing up. As a teenager, girls were all I cared about. But in the lonely years after my divorce, I wanted a mysterious naked male lover.

That's interesting.

His marriage broke up when he was about thirty, he says.

Why didn't he have male-male fantasies when he was younger?

Because of his culture -- which was and is heterosexualized.

If he'd grown up in ancient Greece, you can be sure he'd have had male-male fantasies in his youth -- and probably throughout his life --

because such fantasies -- and behavior -- were mandated by the culture.

I discuss this in Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition.

And I'll repeat a bit of that here -- but, please read that article.

The discussion here is not meant to be a substitute for reading Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition.

So -- I said that in ancient Greece, male-male sexuality was mandated by the *culture.*

And classicists agree.

For example, here's what the great classicist KJ Dover, who, in 1978, literally wrote the book on Greek Homosexuality, says in his preface to the Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics 1980 edition of Plato's Symposium:

Wherever and whenever the homosexual [sic] ethos of the Greek world originated, the simple answer to the question 'Why were the Athenians of Plato's time so fond of homosexual [sic] relations?' is "Because their fathers and grandfathers were'.

Obviously, I disagree with Dover's use of the term "homosexual."

"Same-sex" or "male-male" would be a far better and far more accurate descriptor.

Because, remember, the Men involved in those "relations" -- which were acutally passionate love affairs -- almost always married later in life or were already married.

As Dover says:

[The Greeks] did not consider homosexual [sic] relations incompatible with concurrent heterosexual [sic] relations or with marriage...

So: It was taken for granted that guys would have sex with other guys -- before marriage to a woman or while married to a woman.

It was not a transgression, religiously or otherwise, to do so.

SEX BETWEEN MEN was an ACT -- NOT A CONDITION.

Falling in love with a guy did not make you "homosexual"; marrying a woman did not make you "heterosexual."

BOTH WERE SIMPLY THINGS GUYS DID.

They were not a condition.

They were acts, and that's all they were.

They were, no doubt, important to the actors, but they had no implications for other aspects of their lives.

And if we change Dover's language just a bit, what we see is this:

Wherever and whenever the emphasis on same-sex love -- that is, Eros -- in the Greek world originated, the simple answer to the question 'Why were the Athenians of Plato's time so fond of male-male relations?' is "Because their fathers and grandfathers were'.

In other words, the reasons were cultural.

This was not about genetics or bad parenting or exotic family structures;

nor was this about something called "situational homosexuality," which is theorized to occur when guys don't have access to women -- and which in my view -- and I'm correct -- does NOT exist.

And, in point of fact, Greek Men had lots of access to women, including, at Athens, women of free birth, slaves, prostitutes, and concubines.

Sparta was notorious for what classicist Michael Grant describes as its "homosexual ethos"; yet it was equally notorious for the "sexual looseness" of its women.

Well, you can't have it both ways.

If Spartan Men were turning to each other, it wasn't because their women weren't available.

In short, this was not about -- a shortage of women.

Rather, guys were understood to be openly, passionately, and virtually universally into other guys -- "because their fathers and grandfathers were."

Like nude male athletics --

and in particular nude male Fight Sport --

it was part of the warp and woof of their culture:

It had NOTHING to do with "sexual minorities," "identity politics," etc.

It was just Life.

And what we can see, is that in such a culture, in which there was no divine prohibition against Men Loving Men, in which, to the contrary, the Gods themselves had male lovers -- such Love was, as I said, virtually universal.

Zeus and his wife Hera on Olympos
Zeus' male lover Ganymedes stands between them

And it will be again.

Let's repeat that:

In such a culture as that of the ancient Greeks, in which there was no divine prohibition against Men Loving Men, in which, to the contrary, the Gods themselves had male lovers -- such Love was virtually universal.

And it will be again.

So -- this is a cultural issue.

And the religious right -- who teach that "frottage is evil" -- understand that.

They're not taken in by genetic arguments.

They know that every Man has the capacity to Love another Man.

And that's what they fear:

THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE.

Does someone like Jim understand that?

I don't know.

He and Ed didn't have many contacts -- they only got together twelve times over the course of five years.

Those contacts were, apparently, initiated by what I would call Jim's "longing for masculinity," and which he describes as "a specific mood brought about by loneliness":

"Every night we spent together was brought about by my getting in a specific mood brought about by loneliness..."

But they were limited by Ed's "inability" to cum outside of Jim's ass.

Since Jim, very sensibly, didn't let Ed fuck him, that doomed their "relationship" -- even as limited as it was.

And Jim had no other male contacts in his life.

In a non-heterosexualized culture, like that of ancient Greece, Jim would have had at least one major male-male love affair, and given what he says about himself, I think it would have lasted most of his life.

Because it was something he needed.

I thought Jim's letter, annoying as it was, was also sad in that respect.

He and Ed could have had a beautiful Man2Man and cock2cock relationship which lasted all their lives.

Instead -- they had very little.

And we don't know if Ed survived AIDS -- but it's not likely.

So is this is another sad tale of male Eros fucked up by heterosexualization, the categories of sexual orientation, and analism.

But Jim is unable to understand that the latter two -- sexual orientation and analism -- are brought about by heterosexualization's rejection of what I call the Warrior Principle -- Masculinity.

Instead, our talk of Warriors makes him uncomfortable.

And yet there's no reason for that.

He's a Man.

By nature, he's a Warrior.

That doesn't mean he has to kill someone.

But what's clear it that his attraction to Ed and the sex they had -- was Warrior.

And it was good:

my first night with a man was incredible. I loved being naked with my old buddy. I loved kissing him, and feeling the male beauty of his body, and his wonderful erection. Yes, grinding our cocks together was a fantastic new pleasure.

Perhaps some day, freed of his heterosexualized bonds, he'll be able to accept that --

MAN2MAN -- must always be -- WARRIOR2WARRIOR.

Bill Weintraub

December 26, 2009

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

Redd

Re: Two Emails: "frottage is evil" and "too much talk about Warrior"

1-4-2010

I wonder if some of the contributors who confess interest in man2man or who've had man2man experience(s) only to deny the experience by claiming to be heterosexual realize their contridictions.

Here's what I think happens. They find your site; read the man2manalliance mantra; are confirmed in their masculinity, that their interest in man2man is indeed masculine, indeed natural; feel relieved to confess man2man interest/experience; and for however long, are honest with themselves.

Then, the lie they've accepted, as Dale's "frottage is evil" indicates, slaps them on the back to remind them about heterosexism's dominance in their lives. Dale's rediscovering his "Christian roots" is merely his returning to bondage; his deciding to be "heterosexual" is his returning to living a lie.

But the truth exposed him. He's not a condition, especially not heterosexual, and no matter his dubbing frottage evil, he will never, never banish his man2man interest -- never. He never will because he is a man. He never will because he is a human being.

His measly attempt at self-proselytizing merely got his posts removed from the site. He is by no means convinced that he is heterosexual, and he's never had roots that jettisoned his man2man desire. Just think that Dale's marriage has never quelled his mascuine desire for masculine companionship.

How can I say this with confidence? Because humans lie to themselves when they fear rejection, humiliation, or embarrassment for defying a social condition. Dale got scared of his strong, real man2man needs and retreated into safety, or what he feels is safe.

This makes sense to me, Bill: human beings are one species. Hence, human beings desire intimacy with human beings. They connect emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually. The emotions that connect them -- i.e., love, empathy -- do not discriminate by gender. Women and men enjoy intimacy, women and women enjoy intimacy, and men and men enjoy intimacy.

The emotions that attract male to female--i.e., love, similar interests, intellectual camaraderie, etc.--are the same that attract male to male or female to female. Why? Because humans are attracted to and desire/crave intimacy with humans, making such attraction natural. The activity of sex, then, between two human beings is a natural activity.

If nothing else, human flesh rubbing human flesh feels good. Men know this; women know this. Western men, I think, are afraid to let themselves establish friendships with men because they fear what they know: that that friendship could, perhaps even most likely, turn physical; that they could fall in love. They fear caring, Bill. Caring is intimate. Caring is thoughtfullness. Caring is love. Caring makes you fight for the other.

Bill, I think some readers of the site struggle to express appreciation because they struggle being honest with themselves. But I suspect the likes of Dale will continue visiting your site. The truth draws them.

Redd

Brian

Re: Two Emails: "frottage is evil" and "too much talk about Warrior"

1-10-10

As a Christian I would like to say that I would be pleased if Dale, or anyone were to TRULY "rediscover" their Christianity and I would rejoice! However I suspect that what Dale has been brought back to is in fact what some pastor has told him as "This is what the Church teaches."

To Dale and any of my fellow Christians I would say remember what Jesus taught in Matthew 16:6 when He said "Take head and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees" and later this is explained in verse 12 that "leaven" means doctrine. Also to be a Christian is to follow and practice the teachings of JESUS and NOT some pastor/preacher.

I can say that I have REDISCOVERED my true Christianity AFTER leaving the SDA Church -- I am now closer to and have a better relationship as a MAN with Jesus than ever before, Amen!

With Christian and Warrior Love

Brian

---

---