Today many men's rooms have dividers between urinals so guys don't have to have their penises seen while they are peeing. The open showers are becoming a thing of the past. Guys who shower at the gym, change in the showers lest they be seen naked. Guys are also afraid to act too masculine. There is even more confusion about what it means to be male and female.

At the same time, there is confusion about what sexuality is. The "gay" community pushed an agenda of equality. This meant that men had to have sex just like men with women. This meant pushing anal intercourse. Terms like "boy cunt" in reference to a male's anus became part of the language. "Gays" were not really more secure in being male than any one else.

The "gay" community also pushed shaving body hair. Men shaved their arm pits, chests, backs, butts, and even genitals and anal clefts. They were to look less male. Straights are now doing this also. These signs of masculinity are not viewed favorably.

So called "heterosexuals" were confused. Sometimes "straight" men had erections when they did not want them. They became defensive. This defensiveness lead to more confusion. In an attempt to resolve this confusion, it lead to hostility to the point of violence directed towards gays. This was because they had to convince themselves that they are not gay.

We men can do something to help men and women. If we reclaim our masculinity, we will also liberate women to reclaim their femininity. In the process, children will grow up more secure in themselves and be able to grow to be successful, happy adults.

We need to learn about our bodies and what it means to be a male. Competing body to body will help us do this. Wrestling, nude, we will sweat and feel this male body to male body competition. We will sense mastery of ourselves and each other.

Will we perhaps have inadvertent erections? Sure. But if both men have erect penises, neither will be embarrassed. Could we ejaculate from the rubbing, sure. But we will not be embarrassed if both of us do so. We will learn to be real men.

Many of us will be or are married to women. As we rediscover and value our masculinity, I predict our wives will rediscover their femininity. Our children will grow up with less confusion.

That is why I believe this work is going to be so important. Bill is not just providing a site for men to hook up, get naked, and ejaculate. This is a site to promote men learning what it means to be men again. It is an important step in helping our society regain a healthy view of what it means to be men and women. This will help all of us restore the family and regain our sense of who we are.

Walter

Bill Weintraub

Re: learning what it means to be men again

7-21-2008

Thank you Walter.

Today we have "gay" males and "straight" males.

Neither are Men.

Nor are either truly male.

"Gay" males are only one-half male.

"Straight" males are only one-half male.

Nowhere are there whole, true, complete, and Natural, Men.

Nowhere.

So great is this absence that, Walter says, we need "to promote men learning what it means to be men again."

"Men learning what it means to be men."

"Again."

Recently I got a letter from a young guy in Canada.

He's lost.

He wanders through his great country from prairie to coast and back to prairie again.

Looking for Manhood, looking for his own Natural Masculinity -- his by right of birth.

He can't find it.

In large part because there's NO ONE to guide him.

He gets dubious -- I would say useless -- "advice" from peers and parents alike.

And he asks me, "Do you think I can get out of this trap?"

It's a good question.

It's a reasonable question.

I talk about Sparta and the Agoge a lot.

• The Spear-Points of Young Men Blossom There

• Flesh and Spirit

• The Longing for Masculinity

• Excellence, Honor, and the Molding of Men

• A Nation of Heroes: State-education in Sparta

Sparta -- and the Agoge.

I'm sure many think that's just Weintraub being foolish and eccentric.

How can you have a nation of heroes?

And what do excellence and honor have to do with us?

Or spear-points?

Or spirit?

Yet the Spartans raised their boys to be MEN.

In every way, and including sexually.

While teaching their girls to be WOMEN -- without being effeminate.

They encouraged the boys to be interested in the girls -- sexually.

And they encouraged the boys to be interested in each other sexually.

And they encouraged the women to be interested in the women.

Those interests -- boy-boy, boy-girl, girl-girl -- were not accidental.

They didn't just happen.

The children were guided -- and taught.

It's right there in Plutarch.

Look, for example, at chapter 14 of Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus, the Spartan law-giver:

14. Since Lycurgus regarded the upbringing of children as the greatest and noblest responsibility of the legislator, at an early stage he took his start from that by first showing his concern for matters relating to marriages and births. ...

First he toughened the girls physically by making them run and wrestle and throw the discus and javelin. Thereby their children in embryo would make a strong start in strong bodies and would develop better, while the women themselves would also bear their pregnancies with vigour and would meet the challenge of childbirth in a successful, relaxed way.

He did away with prudery, sheltered upbringing and effeminacy of any kind. He made young girls no less than young men grow used to walking nude in processions, as well as to dancing and singing at certain festivals with the young men present and looking on. On some occasions the girls would make fun of each of the young men, helpfully criticizing their mistakes. On other occasions they would rehearse in song the praises which they had composed about those meriting them, so that they filled the youngsters with a great sense of ambition and rivalry. For the one who was praised for his manliness and became a celebrated figure to the girls went off priding himself on their compliments; whereas the jibes of their playful humour were no less cutting than warnings of a serious type, especially as the kings and the Elders attended the spectacle along with the rest of the citizens.

There was nothing disreputable about the girls' nudity. It was altogether modest, and there was no hint of immorality. Instead it encouraged simple habits and an enthusiasm for physical fitness, as well as giving the female sex a taste of masculine gallantry, since it too was granted equal participation in both excellence and ambition. As a result the women came to talk as well as to think in the way that Leonidas' wife Gorgo is said to have done. For when some woman, evidently a foreigner, said to her: 'You Laconian women are the only ones who can rule men,' she replied, 'We are the only ones who give birth to men.'

15. There were then also these inducements to marry. I mean the processions of girls, and the nudity, and the competitions which the young men watched, attracted by a compulsion not of an intellectual type, but (as Plato says) a sexual one. ...

The custom was to capture women for marriage -- not when they were slight or immature, but when they were in their prime and ripe for it. The so-called 'bridesmaid' took charge of the captured girl. She first shaved her head to the scalp, then dressed her in a man's cloak and sandals, and laid her down alone on a mattress in the dark. The bridegroom -- who was not drunk and thus not impotent, but was sober as always -- first had dinner in the messes, then would slip in, undo her belt, lift her and carry her to the bed. After spending only a short time with her, he would depart discreetly so as to sleep wherever he usually did along with the other young men. And this continued to be his practice thereafter: while spending the days with his contemporaries, and going to sleep with them, he would warily visit his bride in secret, ashamed and apprehensive in case someone in the house might notice him. His bride at the same time devised schemes and helped to plan how they might meet each other unobserved at suitable moments. It was not just for a short period that young men would do this, but for long enough that some might even have children before they saw their own wives in daylight. Such intercourse was not only an exercise in self-control and moderation, but also meant that partners were fertile physically, always fresh for love, and ready for intercourse rather than being sated and pale from unrestricted sexual activity. Moreover some lingering glow of desire and affection was always left in both.

After making marriage as modest and orderly as this, Lycurgus showed equal concern for removing absurd, unmanly jealousy. While excluding from marriage any kind of outrageous and disorderly behaviour, he made it honourable for worthy men to share children and their production, and derided people who hold that there can be no combination or sharing of such things, and who avenge any by assassinations and wars. Thus if an older man with a young wife should take a liking to one of the well-bred young men and approve of him, he might well introduce him to her so as to fill her with noble sperm and then adopt the child as his own. Conversely a respectable man who admired someone else's wife noted for her lovely children and her good sense, might gain the husband's permission to sleep with her -- thereby planting in fruitful soil, so to speak, and producing fine children who would be linked to fine ancestors by blood and family.

First and foremost Lycurgus considered children to belong not privately to their fathers, but jointly to the city, so that he wanted citizens produced not from random partners, but from the best. Moreover he observed a good deal of stupidity and humbug in others' rules on these matters. Such people have their bitches and mares mounted by the finest dogs and stallions whose owners they can prevail upon for a favour or fee. But their wives they lock up and guard, claiming the right to produce their children exclusively, even though they may be imbeciles, or past their prime, or diseased. They forget that where children are born of poor stock, the first to suffer from their poor condition are those who possess and rear them, while the same applies conversely to the good qualities of those from sound stock. What was thus practised in the interests of breeding and of the state was at that time so far removed from the laxity for which the women later became notorious, that there was absolutely no notion of adultery among them. There is a story recorded about Geradas, a Spartiate of really ancient times, who when asked by a foreigner what their punishment for adulterers was, said: 'There is no adulterer among us, stranger.' When the latter replied: 'But what if there should be one?', Geradas' answer was: 'His fine would be a great bull which bends over Mount Taygetus to drink from the Eurotas. ' The foreigner was amazed at this and said: 'But how could there be a bull of such size?' At which Geradas laughed and said: 'But how could there be an adulterer at Sparta?' This, then, concludes my investigation of their marriages.

16. The father of a newborn child was not entitled to make his own decision about whether to rear it, but brought it in his arms to a particular spot termed a lesche where the eldest men of his tribe sat. If after examination the baby proved well-built and sturdy they instructed the father to bring it up, and assigned it one of the 9,000 lots of land. But if it was puny and deformed, they dispatched it to what was called 'the place of rejection' ('Apothetae'), a precipitous spot by Mount Taygetus, considering it better both for itself and the state that the child should die if right from its birth it was poorly endowed for health or strength. ...

The children's nurses exercised special care and skill. To allow free development of limbs and physique, they dispensed with swaddling clothes. They trained children to eat up their food and not to be fussy about it, not to be frightened of the dark or of being left alone, and not to be prone to ill-bred fits of temper or crying. This is why some foreigners bought Laconian wet-nurses for their children. Amycla, who breast-fed the Athenian Alcibiades, is said to have been a Spartan girl.

When Alcibiades needed a tutor, however, Plato states that Pericles gave charge of him to one Zopyrus, who was no more than an ordinary slave. But Lycurgus did not put Spartiate children in the care of any tutors who had been bought or hired. Neither was it permissible for each father to bring up and educate his son in the way he chose.

Instead, as soon as boys reached the age of seven, Lycurgus took charge of them all himself and distributed them into Troops: here he accustomed them to live together and be brought up together, playing and learning as a group. The captaincy of the troop was conferred upon the boy who displayed the soundest judgement and the best fighting spirit. The others kept their eyes on him, responded to his instructions, and endured their punishments from him, so that altogether this training served as a practice in learning ready obedience. Moreover as they exercised boys were constantly watched by their elders, who were always spurring them on to fight and contend with one another: in this their chief object was to get to know each boy's character, in particular how bold he was, and how far he was likely to stand his ground in combat.

The boys learned to read and write no more than was necessary. Otherwise their whole education was aimed at developing smart obedience, perseverance under stress, and victory in battle. So as they grew older they intensified their physical training, and got into the habit of cropping their hair, going barefoot, and exercising naked. From the age of twelve they never wore a tunic, and were given only one cloak a year. Their bodies were rough, and knew nothing of baths or oiling: only on a few days in the year did they experience such delights. They slept together by Squadron and Troop [2] on mattresses which they made up for themselves from the tips of reeds growing along the River Eurotas, broken off by hand without the help of any iron blade. During winter they added the so-called thistledown and mixed it into the mattresses, since it was a substance thought to give out warmth.

17. By this age the boys came to be courted by lovers from among the respectable young men. The older men, too, showed even more interest, visiting the gymnasia frequently and being present when the boys fought and joked with one another. This was not just idle interest: instead there was a sense in which everyone regarded himself as father, tutor and commander of each boy. As a result everywhere, on all occasions, there would be somebody to reprimand and punish the boy who slipped up. In addition a Trainer-in-Chief was appointed from among the men with outstanding qualities; they in turn chose as leader for each Troop the one out of the so-called Eirens who had the most discretion and fighting spirit. Those who have proceeded two years beyond the boys' class are termed Eirens, and the oldest boys Melleirens ('prospective Eirens').

So such an Eiren, twenty years of age, commands those under him in his Troop's fights, while in his quarters he has them serve him his meals like servants. ...

~ Life of Lycurgus, translated by Richard Talbert

In Chapter 14, then, Plutarch tells us that the girls were taught to run and wrestle and throw the javelin and the discus -- and to appear in processions and to dance and sing -- nude, and like the boys.

And that Lycurgus did away with both prudery and effeminacy.

Thus giving the girls their own experience of and "equal participation in both excellence and ambition" -- which I would translate as Excellence and Honor.

In Chapter 15, we learn that "There were then also these inducements to marry. I mean the processions of girls, and the nudity, and the competitions which the young men watched, attracted by a compulsion not of an intellectual type, but (as Plato says) a sexual one."

Lycurgus did what he did, in part, to arouse the boys' sexual interest in the girls.

The boys -- young males -- were, remember, living in homosocial groups.

And they went on living in those groups even after they were, at the age of thirty, married.

That's what we learn in the first part of chapter 16, where Plutarch tells us that the bride would have her head shaved -- like a boy -- and be dressed in a Warrior's cloak, and that "The bridegroom -- who was not drunk and thus not impotent, but was sober as always -- first had dinner in the [men's] messes, then would slip in, undo her belt, lift her and carry her to the bed. After spending only a short time with her, he would depart discreetly so as to sleep wherever he usually did along with the other young men."

Basically, then, the Spartan Warrior, like many male mammals, left his homosocial -- that is, all-male -- group to breed with the female.

He then returned to his all-male group -- in order to sleep.

When the Spartan Warrior slept "wherever he usually did along with the other young men," was he sleeping alone?

No.

Because in the second part of chapter 16, Plutarch describes the Agoge:

As soon as boys reached the age of seven, Lycurgus took charge of them all himself and distributed them into Troops: here he accustomed them to live together and be brought up together, playing and learning as a group. The captaincy of the troop was conferred upon the boy who displayed the soundest judgement and the best fighting spirit. The others kept their eyes on him, responded to his instructions, and endured their punishments from him, so that altogether this training served as a practice in learning ready obedience. Moreover as they exercised boys were constantly watched by their elders, who were always spurring them on to fight and contend with one another: in this their chief object was to get to know each boy's character, in particular how bold he was, and how far he was likely to stand his ground in combat.

The boys learned to read and write no more than was necessary. Otherwise their whole education was aimed at developing smart obedience, perseverance under stress, and victory in battle. So as they grew older they intensified their physical training, and got into the habit of cropping their hair, going barefoot, and exercising naked. From the age of twelve they never wore a tunic, and were given only one cloak a year. Their bodies were rough, and knew nothing of baths or oiling: only on a few days in the year did they experience such delights. They slept together by Squadron and Troop [2] on mattresses which they made up for themselves from the tips of reeds growing along the River Eurotas, broken off by hand without the help of any iron blade. During winter they added the so-called thistledown and mixed it into the mattresses, since it was a substance thought to give out warmth.

Thus leading us to Chapter 17:

17. By this age the boys came to be courted by lovers from among the respectable young men.

These boys grew up to be whole Men.

Men who could Love Men.

Men who could Love Women.

Men who were raised not just by their fathers, but by all the "Spartiates" -- the male citizens of Sparta:

there was a sense in which everyone regarded himself as father, tutor and commander of each boy. ... visiting the gymnasia frequently and being present when the boys fought and joked with one another.

Once again, these boys grew up to be whole Men.

Men who could Love Men.

Men who could Love Women.

They were expected to do both.

Every boy had a lover.

The relationship was modeled on that of Hyakinthos and Apollo -- faithful, manly, heroic.

Virtually every man married.

Those few who didn't marry were to some degree ostracized.

Not because they were "homosexual" -- neither the word nor the concept existed in ancient Greece.

As I keep saying, because I want you to understand it, among the Greeks as among most human beings, sex between men was an activity -- not a condition.

So: men who didn't have children weren't ostracized because they were "homosexual."

They were ostracized because in the ancient world, marriage was about, as John Boswell has said, "family and country," and it was the responsibility of men to have children.

Men with Men.

Men with Women.

Men were instructed and guided in ways that enabled them to have balanced and complete Lives.

If our young Canadian had had that sort of upbringing, would he be as lost as he is today?

No.

I don't think so.

Now, in his post, Walter speaks of the importance of wrestling:

We need to learn about our bodies and what it means to be a male. Competing body to body will help us do this. Wrestling, nude, we will sweat and feel this male body to male body competition. We will sense mastery of ourselves and each other.

That's exactly right.

And that's why the Greeks, including the Spartans, wrestled and fought nude -- from a very early age, and well into adulthood.

Indeed, we've described and documented, in previous posts, how literally central Fighting was to Greek education:

Schematic of the palaestra at Olympia
The Fight Pits are in the center of the building;
they're surrounded by classrooms for teaching philosophy, rhetoric, and other subjects

Remember that "Lycurgus regarded the upbringing of children as the greatest and noblest responsibility of the legislator"

And that to that end, he made sure that the youths fought often, as we can see by the many many references there are to Fighting and Fighting Spirit in Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus:

The captaincy of the troop was conferred upon the boy who displayed the soundest judgement and the best fighting spirit. ...

Moreover as they exercised boys were constantly watched by their elders, who were always spurring them on to fight and contend with one another...

the older men, too, showed even more interest, visiting the gymnasia frequently and being present when the boys fought and joked with one another. ...

In addition a Trainer-in-Chief was appointed from among the men with outstanding qualities; they in turn chose as leader for each Troop the one out of the so-called Eirens who had the most discretion and fighting spirit. ...

So such an Eiren [troop leader], twenty years of age, commands those under him in his Troop's fights ...

Those are just a few.

And the boys fought nude.

The experience of wrestling and fighting nude was core to Greek education, not just at Sparta, but throughout the Greek world.

And that experience -- coupled with other elements of Greek culture -- produced the Greek Miracle, the greatest flowering of culture and civilization that the world has ever known.

Now, and to be sure, Lycurgus, according to Plutarch, believed that people should be bred like animals.

Sounds dreadful, doesn't it?

And when Plutarch says that one man would borrow another so as to fill his wife with "noble sperm," that really offends our (contemporary) Judeo-Christian sensibilities.

Why, that's as bad as those polygamists down in Texas.

People like that should be arrested and their children seized, taken away from them, put in proper -- monogamous -- households.

But we have to consider what our good and proper and monogamous middle- and upper-middle-class families put their children through today in the struggle to get them into a "good college."

And thus give them a competitive edge.

Personally, and assuming that the wife gets to assent or demure, I'd rather have the noble sperm than the brutal years of study and extra-curricular activities our kids go through.

Not to mention our (contemporary) "assassinations and wars" -- generally known as "adultery and divorce" -- which men and women suffer in the name of our oh-so-Christian monogamy.

A good example is the McGreevey divorce -- between former New Jersey governor James McGreevey and his wife Dina Matos McGreevey.

The case has dragged on for four years, with all sorts of ugly accusations being traded back and forth -- including of three-ways in the governor's mansion.

But at the crux of it was that McGreevey, although he'd fathered one daughter with his wife, suddenly decided he was "gay" and said so on national TV.

He did that, he said, because he was about to be outted by a former aide, with whom, he said, he'd been having an affair.

The aide claimed that there'd been NO affair, but that McGreevey had been sexually harassing him.

At which point McGreevey's wife sued for divorce.

What a mess!

In Sparta, NONE of this would have happened.

James McGreevey would have had his Warrior brother -- publically, openly, and honestly.

Dina would have known about it -- and would have always known.

James and Dina's lives would have been essentially separate.

And so long as James fulfilled his obligation to father children, nothing more would have been said.

Furthermore, James could have invited a handsome and worthy friend to fill Dina with "noble sperm."

We don't know if Dina had to accept such an invitation.

But I don't think it's a question of "had to" so much as it was "would."

Because, based on what we read in Sayings of Spartan Women, women no less than men in Sparta regarded it as their duty to bear strong children for their city-state:

When an Ionian woman prided herself on something she had woven, a Spartan woman boasted of her four beautiful sons, saying 'such should be the works of a fine woman and upon this is what she should be proud of and boast about'.

~ Plutarch, Sayings of Spartan Women

But it wasn't, I -- and Plutarch -- would suggest, just a matter of duty.

It was that the women had an equal stake in the success of the Spartan experiment:

There was nothing disreputable about the girls' nudity. It was altogether modest, and there was no hint of immorality. Instead it encouraged simple habits and an enthusiasm for physical fitness, as well as giving the female sex a taste of masculine gallantry, since it too was granted equal participation in both excellence and ambition. As a result the women came to talk as well as to think in the way that Leonidas' wife Gorgo is said to have done. For when some woman, evidently a foreigner, said to her: 'You Laconian women are the only ones who can rule men,' she replied, 'We are the only ones who give birth to men.'

Notice first off that Plutarch views nudity as a social good:

[nudity] encouraged simple habits and an enthusiasm for physical fitness, as well as giving the female sex a taste of masculine gallantry, since it too was granted equal participation in both excellence and ambition.

The women were "granted equal participation in both excellence and ambition" -- which in this context is another word for honor.

And the women were proud therefore to "give birth to men."

And not just any men of course, but Laconian men -- Spartans.

The Spartans, as we saw in A Nation of Heroes, viewed Sparta as an heroic enterprise.

The Spartans viewed Sparta as an heroic enterprise.

Not just the Men, but the Women too.

The Spartan women shared that idealism.

Which is why Jaeger says,

The early Greek city-state was small, but it had something truly heroic and truly human in its nature.

The pride the Spartan women felt for their children -- was human.

But it was also heroic:

Another woman was burying her son, when an ordinary old woman came up to her and said: 'Poor woman, what a misfortune.' The first woman said, 'No, what good fortune, by the twin gods, for this is why I bore him, so that he might die for Sparta, and now that is what has come to pass'.

Which meant that the Spartan women, as much as the Spartan men, were both truly heroic and truly human.

So: if Dina were Spartan and was asked to accept a man's noble sperm, chances are she would have said Yes.

Because culturally that's what she had been taught and encouraged to do.

And because that's what she would have wanted to do.

To bear a child worthy of Sparta.

The child would become part of the McGreevey household.

If the child were a girl, she would be encouraged to be healthy and physically fit, and would be "granted equal participation in both excellence and ambition."

If the child were a boy, he would become part of the Agoge, where he would have, de facto, not just one father, but all the Spartiates to guide and mentor him.

All in all, that's a far more workable arrangement than spending years fighting about custody and alimony in court.

While the kids, along with everyone else, suffer.

Beyond divorce and custody fights, one reason our contemporary kids suffer as much as they do is that they're living in tiny, dyadic, "nuclear" families, in which the role of the individual mother and father looms very large in their upbringing.

At Sparta, the upbringing of children -- the Agoge -- the moral, physical, intellectual, and spiritual education of the children -- was communal.

Everyone participated.

So -- the sexual aspect of what was done at Sparta matters; but so does the communal aspect.

In Athens, notes Plutarch, as in many other city-states, the children of the well-to-do would be tutored by slaves.

But at Sparta,

Lycurgus did not put Spartiate children in the care of any tutors who had been bought or hired. Neither was it permissible for each father to bring up and educate his son in the way he chose.

Rather, the boys were entered into the Agoge, a communal education in which all the Spartiates were responsible for them.

Plutarch:

Lycurgus did not put his laws in writing: in fact one of the so- called rhetras is a prohibition to this effect. Instead he reckoned that the guiding principles of most importance for the happiness and excellence of a state would remain securely fixed if they were embedded in the citizens' character and training.

When Plutarch says "training," the word he uses of course is "Agoge"; and, remarks translator Talbert, "The sense of the Greek term used here (agoge) cannot be conveyed neatly in English. It denotes a mixture of upbringing and training, and is used of the Spartan system in particular."

Again, and as we talked about in A Nation of Heroes, the Spartan ideal -- which was the Agoge -- an upbringing, training, and education which, to repeat, was at once moral, physical, intellectual, and spiritual -- was, as Jaeger says, of "vital importance in the later development of Greek paideia" -- that is, of the Greek idea of education and upbringing in its broadest sense:

'In hand and foot and mind built foursquare without a flaw'

Jaeger:

The greatest work of art they had to create was Man. They were the first to recognize that education means deliberately moulding human character in accordance with an ideal. 'In hand and foot and mind built foursquare without a flaw' -- these are the words in which a Greek poet of the age of Marathon and Salamis describes the essence of that true virtue which is so hard to acquire.

The acquisition of true virtue -- that was the Greek ideal -- and it was the Spartan ideal.

Now, you'll notice Plutarch's disdain for bought or hired tutors.

Our teachers today of course are hired.

And there are many fine people among them.

But there are also time-servers.

And of course the teacher can only be with the child for a limited amount of time per day.

The Spartan idea was to make every adult Spartan male responsible for every boy; and I would bet, every adult Spartan woman responsible for every girl.

So that someone was always present to supervise and guide the children.

The result was a citizenry deeply committed to its city.

Because it was committed to each other.

Plutarch:

there was a sense in which everyone regarded himself as father, tutor and commander of each boy. As a result everywhere, on all occasions, there would be somebody to reprimand and punish the boy who slipped up.

And, one would hope, to praise and encourage those kids who were doing well.

What this means is that the child wasn't raised by his family; he was raised by his city.

And in the case of the boys, that means he was raised by his fellow Warriors.

We'll talk about this some more, and in particular the Spartan marriage arrangements, and what they tell us about the nature of Men, in a later post.

For now, we would all do well to remember what Walter said:

We men can do something to help men and women. If we reclaim our masculinity, we will also liberate women to reclaim their femininity. In the process, children will grow up more secure in themselves and be able to grow to be successful, happy adults.

We need to learn about our bodies and what it means to be a male. Competing body to body will help us do this. Wrestling, nude, we will sweat and feel this male body to male body competition. We will sense mastery of ourselves and each other.

Will we perhaps have inadvertent erections? Sure. But if both men have erect penises, neither will be embarrassed. Could we ejaculate from the rubbing, sure. But we will not be embarrassed if both of us do so. We will learn to be real men.

Many of us will be or are married to women. As we rediscover and value our masculinity, I predict our wives will rediscover their femininity. Our children will grow up with less confusion.

That is why I believe this work is going to be so important. Bill is not just providing a site for men to hook up, get naked, and ejaculate. This is a site to promote men learning what it means to be men again. It is an important step in helping our society regain a healthy view of what it means to be men and women. This will help all of us restore the family and regain our sense of who we are.

Walter

Thank you Walter.

Beautifully and truly said.

Now, earlier in this reply, I mentioned the young guy in Canada who's so lost.

Here's what I said to him -- we'll call him "Joe" -- in an email:

Joe, I assume, because you've been writing to me and spending a lot of time reading on the sites, that you feel a strong attraction towards other guys.

But that you're not interested in analism.

One of the things you need to understand is that society gives you virtually no guidance in how to deal with your same-sex feelings, other than analist guidance -- which is dreadful and worse than no guidance at all.

Joe, when I write about the Greeks, what I want you guys to see is how carefully structured both male-male and male-female relationships were among them.

Young people were given a great deal of guidance.

Good guidance.

Sound guidance.

Cradle-to-grave guidance.

That was particularly true at Sparta, where education in the broadest sense was considered the highest calling of the commune or state.

But it was true elsewhere too.

Miller: "Homosexuality [sic] among the students in the gymnasion was accepted, common, and regulated by tacit rules of conduct."

The rules, actually, were not that tacit.

They were spelled out:

• In myth -- Zeus and Ganymedes, Poseidon and Pelops, Apollo and Hyakinthos, Herakles and Iolaos, Achilles and Patroclus;

• In poetry -- poets such as Theognis, who we looked at in Excellence and Honor;

• In philosophy -- philosophers such as Plato, who often discusses the essentially ethical component of same-sex love, as when he says of Lysis that he is "not less worthy of praise for his beauty, than for his nobility and goodness"; and

• In history -- Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Pelopidas and Epaminondas, the Sacred Band of Thebes, Alexander and Hephaestion

Again, in a place like Sparta, and in Athens too I feel, the rules were spelled out.

You don't have that -- or anything like it.

You wander from one "LGBT centre" to another being given dubious advice by people who are essentially your peers.

Or your stepfather -- who treats you like a peer and talks about eating pussy.

No wonder you're confused.

That's not how the Greeks did it.

If you read Plutarch's Lycurgus / Lykourgos -- look for the Talbert translation which is on the Heroes reading list --

-- you'll see how carefully sexuality was handled.

It wasn't left to chance and the vagaries of popular culture.

The very opposite.

The Hyacinthia was one of the most important holidays at Sparta.

As was the Gymnopaedia.

So -- from my perspective, many of your problems are the result of the way your society is NOT structured and not helping you.

And that's a huge problem.

But you need to understand that it's not your problem alone.

It's a societal problem.

A problem of our heterosexualized society.

It's a problem we seek to solve.

But it's going to take a long time.

Because society today supports what I call a sort of sloppy hedonism in sexual matters;

unless it's religious right, in which case it's simply nonsensical.

Nowhere is Nature truly Honored.

And certainly not the True Nature of Men, and the need of Men for the True and Natural Love of Man for Man.

That's what you need.

It won't be easy to find.

But -- you have to try.

We all do.

Please stay in touch -- and try perhaps to think about yourself in a societal context.

Not just intra and interpersonal -- but societal.

Because society has a great impact upon you.

Try too to stay with your martial arts training.

Think about Excellence and Honor in that context.

The people at your dojo may not understand that.

But you try.

Try.

That's what everyone has to do.

We have to try.

Otherwise nothing will change.

And your lives will remain not lives -- but shadows of lives.

Walter:

That is why I believe this work is going to be so important. Bill is not just providing a site for men to hook up, get naked, and ejaculate. This is a site to promote men learning what it means to be men again. It is an important step in helping our society regain a healthy view of what it means to be men and women. This will help all of us restore the family and regain our sense of who we are.

That's right.

We need "to promote men learning what it means to be men again."

Which in turn will help "society regain a healthy view of what it means to be men and women."

That in turn "will help all of us restore the family and regain our sense of who we are."

Of who we REALLY are, I would say.

The Spartans had a remarkably good and clear grasp on who human beings are -- on who Men and Women really are.

We have to work towards understanding ourselves as well as they understood each other.

Walter, thank you again.

Bill Weintraub

July 21, 2008

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

Bill Weintraub

Re: learning what it means to be men again

7-27-2008

Dear friends,

After going to a great deal of trouble to put together Walter's post and my reply, I got two responses from Walter once the post had appeared.

The first said "I was very moved by your response to my post."

The second began, "Bill and I don't agree about everything."

And then Walter said that he loved sex with his wife -- which is not in question here;

that he wouldn't let anyone else raise his kids -- which is also not in question here;

but he also said that he would never put another man's phallus against his own; and that wrestling naked with another man, getting hard, and having an ejacuation, is NOT "a real SEXUAL ENCOUNTER":

Having sex with my wife is making love. I don't want to make love to any one else.

I want to compete.

If I am with another naked male and there is a grapevine hold, I expect that we will both have erections. Will our sweaty scrotums touch, sure.

However, I personally don't want to grab both penises and participate in full frot.

Will we ejaculate, perhaps. However that will not be the goal. If it happens, we will celebrate it as a natural way that the male body works.

My point is that there is a way to do this that is not a real SEXUAL ENCOUNTER. That is what I want.

Those statements are in question here.

And as you can imagine, I felt really burned by what Walter said.

Because, you see, Walter had come to the site via Frot Club.

The name of Frot Club is FROT Club.

It's not non-sexual-naked-encounters-between-men-that-just-happen-to-include-ejaculations club, or anything else.

It's a message board whose sole purpose is to help men into Frot, which is a man2man SEXUAL practice, find a Frot buddy or an LTR.

And I say so repeatedly on the "splash" or entrance page to Frot Club.

When the visitor enters, he sees the words "Frot Club," and "Fidelity and Frot."

Then he sees the following text:

Hey Frot man,

FROT CLUB is a group of regional message boards designed to make it easier for you to meet another guy in your area who's looking for a Long Term Relationship or a Frot buddy.

That's right Cockrub Warrior dude, a guy who, like you, loves to FROT and is looking for an LTR or a Frot buddy.

There are, as you can see, three clickable links in those first three lines of text.

The first two describe and/or have a link to the definition of Frot.

The third, labeled Frot, contains this little pictorial essay:

are all terms for phallus-against-phallus sex

in FROT, two guys put their hard cocks together and rub and grind till they shoot

you can FROT in a bearhug

or lying down

art © by EROS V

or by grippin both cocks in your fist

FROT is super HOT and super INTENSE dude

so ck it out bro and find out why

© Copyright 2008 by Bill Weintraub.
All rights reserved.

---

That's the pictorial essay.

And it very clearly illustrates that Frot is direct and mutual phallus on phallus SEX.

Furthermore, in describing Frot, in the first two links, we use the word "erotic," and then in the third link, we use the word "sex."

So I don't know how anyone could be confused about:

1. What Frot is -- Phallus-on-Phallus Sex;

2. That Frot IS Sex; and, therefore,

3. That Frot is What Sex Is -- for guys.

Because not just What Sex Is, but many articles, are devoted to explaining that and making that point.

And because that, after all, is the premise, sexually speaking, of the entire website:

that Frot is Sex;

and that the truest expression of Sex between Men is Frot.

We make that very clear.

In addition, before anyone can post on that Frot Club message board, he has to click on a link which says Add a new message to this discussion, in which he encounters Posting Guidelines which include the following:

1. Frot Club, like our other sites, is for guys who are passionate about frot and not into anal. Don't post on this board if you're into anal.

That's very explicit.

Frot Club is for guys who are PASSIONATE about Frot -- phallus-on-phallus sex.

We don't want guys posting on Frot Club who aren't PASSIONATE about Frot.

Because the board is for guys who are passionate about Frot.

The purpose of the board is to help those men connect.

So, it's clearly not fair to the other guys who post if males post on the board who aren't into Frot.

It poisons the well.

And, once again, we repeatedly describe Frot as Sex:

On, for example, the Man2Man Alliance splash page, which says that "The Man2Man Alliance is a coalition of gay-, bi-, and straight-identified men who practice Frot: phallus-to-phallus sex."

So we're clear that this is about SEX.

Yet Walter contacted me a number of times, submitted his Frot Club post to me a number of times, each time wanting it to go up in Frot Club.

Even though he now says he would "I personally don't want to grab both penises and participate in full frot."

Instead, he seems to be saying that if when he's wrestling some guy, they just happen, sort of accidentally-on-purpose, to get into a grapevine hold -- in a grapevine, the legs are intertwined and the guys are face-to-face, heart-to-heart, and yes, cock-to-cock and scrotum-on-scrotum, that's okay.

Walter says this is okay

But it's not okay if Walter or the other guy reaches down and actually aligns the phalluses so that the two men experience the direct sexual pleasure and power of Frot.

Walter says this isn't okay

Nor is this

Nor this

Why not?

What's wrong with touching another man's penis?

Why is it okay if the penises just happen to touch while the guys wrestle --

but not okay for Walter "to grab both penises and participate in full frot."

Why?

I have news for Walter -- if two guys are wrestling in a sexual or semi-sexual context -- which nude wrestling in our culture certainly is -- and their hard cocks start to touch, one or the other or most likely both of the guys is going to try his utmost to keep them in contact.

While hump hump humpin away.

Because it feels really great!

Nothin feels as good as that.

There's going to be more than a little volition in that act, whether Walter wants it there or not.

It's okay, says Walter, if they have ejaculations, because that's "a natural way that the male body works."

No kidding.

BUT: "My point is that there is a way to do this that is not a real SEXUAL ENCOUNTER."

That's BULLSHIT, and it's the sort of bullshit I will never tolerate on this site or in this Alliance.

Let's look at it again.

Walter says he wants to wrestle naked with another man, and if they both get hard and ejaculate due to the "rubbing," that's okay.

But it's not, he insists, SEX.

Even if they're in the "grapevine position," in which both men are face-to-face and cock-to-cock.

Let's parse that out:

If you

1. Put up a post on message board for guys into phallus-on-phallus sex;

2. Meet with someone who responds to your post;

3. Get naked;

4. Wrestle;

5. Get hard; and

6. Ejaculate --

That's not "a real SEXUAL encounter" says Walter.

OF COURSE IT'S SEXUAL, AND OF COURSE IT'S REAL.

REAL

I know Walter's confused, but there are limits to the levels and types of confusion I can tolerate.

I assumed that Walter and I were reading from the same page because he'd gone to a lot of trouble to get a post up in Frot Club.

Which is where guys meet in order to develop a relationship whose sexual component is Frot -- Phallus-on-Phallus SEX.

It's true, that as in his Personal Stories post on this page, he described the experience he was seeking in gingerly terms:

We need to learn about our bodies and what it means to be a male. Competing body to body will help us do this. Wrestling, nude, we will sweat and feel this male body to male body competition. We will sense mastery of ourselves and each other.

Will we perhaps have inadvertent erections? Sure. But if both men have erect penises, neither will be embarrassed. Could we ejaculate from the rubbing, sure. But we will not be embarrassed if both of us do so. We will learn to be real men.

So, yes, Walter talks about the two men having "inadvertent erections"; but he also says the men might "ejaculate from the rubbing" -- which sounds like Frot to me -- and at the least is frottage.

And that sort of tentative approach and language is not unusual for straight-identified guys his age who are just coming to terms with their same-sex feelings.

And the very strong implication in his statement is that if they "ejaculate from the rubbing," they won't be embarrassed, but "will learn to be real men."

Which just happens to be a point which we repeatedly put forward:

That the development of the Man's True and Natural Masculinity depends upon his coming to terms with and acting on his same-sex needs and desires.

That point, and many others, are stressed in the list of recommended site readings which is in an email sent to anyone and everyone who posts in Frot Club or otherwise contacts me.

Everyone.

Including Walter.

Yet Walter went ahead and posted in Frot Club, and then sent me a Personal Stories post, even though he believes that Frot isn't sex, that if two guys ejaculate together it isn't sex, and that it isn't important for men to have sex with men.

Indeed, he probably thinks it's a bad idea -- at least if you're married to a woman.

He says, "Having sex with my wife is making love. I don't want to make love to any one else."

On the other hand, Walter doesn't mind two guys getting together, getting naked, wrestling, and ejaculating -- so long as they don't call it sex.

Why is it okay if you don't call it sex?

Because it doesn't shake up your a priori view of yourself and the universe?

I think that's why.

Further, Walter seems to have convinced himself that if it doesn't take place in a vagina, it's not sex.

That's heterosexism, and that belief has been used to beat down and beat to death men who love men for thousands of years.

The corollary to if it ain't vaginal, it ain't real, is the gay male version: if it's not anal, it's not real.

That's analism, and that belief has been used to beat down and beat to death men who love men for the last thirty-five years.

Both heterosexism and analism are belief-systems which result from heterosexualization, an historical process which we ask that everyone who visits the sites come to understand.

Now, let me make clear, this is not a tempest in a teapot.

This is a tempest in the real world, where, in America alone, more than 550,000 have died of a disease which is primarily anally-vectored.

So: what people believe matters.

Once again, this is not a question of words spoken in church or a bar or a meeting-hall, words which express an opinion but go no further.

This is a question of words which have a real-world impact and which do tremendous damage.

I will never allow anyone to post on this site to the effect that what Walter has described isn't sex.

Because that's a lie and a deadly lie.

Fact is, our guys face these lies each and every day.

If they're straight-identified, they hear that if it's not in a vagina it isn't real over and over and over again.

If they're gay-identified, they hear that if it's not in an anus it isn't real over and over and over again.

If they're a guy like NW, who lives in both the gay and straight worlds, he hears BOTH LIES over and over and over again.

But he will NOT hear them on this site.

Other than labeled as what they clearly are -- LIES.

Which means that if Walter wants to look for a male with whom he can wrestle naked and have ejaculations and pretend it's not sex -- he has to look elsewhere.

Our sites are for guys who proudly, openly, and honestly embrace the True Love of Man for Man as expressed by FROT.

Which is REAL SEX.

Finally, Walter's view of love itself is strongly heterosexualized:

Having sex with my wife is making love. I don't want to make love to any one else.

He's saying in effect, that a man can only "make love" with a woman, preferably his wife.

Though he doesn't say so, I think he's suggesting that Men should not "make love" with other men.

Yet that idea -- that "love-making" is something you do with Women, and sex -- or not-real-sex -- is something you do with Men --

is the very opposite of what we find in the ancient world -- which means that Walter's view is cultural, rather than being in any way reflective of some biological or human reality.

And also opposite of what we find in the mammalian world.

As John Boswell points out, to start with the ancient world, in Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, "Much evidence might, indeed, leave the observer with the impression that in antiquity sexual activity was about 50 percent homosexual [sic]."

To which I would say, "At least."

So, at least 50 percent of the *sexual activity" in antiquity was same-sex.

Boswell then turns to Fidelity.

And, as I've emphasized over and over again in my work and on these sites, he says,

Most ancient writers -- in striking opposition to their modern counterparts -- generally entertained higher expectations of the fidelity and permanence of homosexual [sic] passions than of heterosexual feelings.

And you know, guys, I agree with much, though not all, of what Boswell says; but he often employs what to me are the old-fashioned and clearly no-longer-useful terms "homosexual" and "homosexuality" throughout his book, which was published in 1995.

I've decided therefore -- and to avoid a lot of [sic]'s -- to simply substitute the more accurate term "same-sex."

Let's go back to Boswell's previous statement, therefore: in which he says,

Most ancient writers -- in striking opposition to their modern counterparts -- generally entertained higher expectations of the fidelity and permanence of [same-sex] passions than of heterosexual feelings.

Which means, that most of those same-sex encounters took place in a non-promiscuous, faithful, permanent, and committed setting.

Here's Boswell again:

Plutarch adduces with evident disapproval cases of husbands who allowed their wives to be unfaithful to gain some advantage, and then notes, "By contrast, of all the many [same-sex] lovers there were and have been, do you know of a single one who surrendered his beloved, even to gain favor from Zeus? I do not." (Erotikos 760B).

The proponent of same-sex passion in the Hellenistic Affairs of the Heart says that wisdom and experience teach that love between males is the most stable of loves. This prejudice [sic] was doubtless influenced by the Symposium of Plato, in which heterosexual relationships and feelings are characterized as "vulgar," and their same-sex equivalents as "heavenly."

This contrast exercised wide influence on subsequent discussions of love.

~ Boswell, 74.

As well it should have -- given the content of same-sex love in the ancient world.

Also, please note that Boswell says that

The proponent of same-sex passion in the Hellenistic Affairs of the Heart says that wisdom and experience teach that love between males is the most stable of loves. This prejudice [sic] was doubtless influenced by the Symposium of Plato...

Boswell says that the notion that "love between males is the most stable of loves" is a "prejudice."

Actually, he doesn't know that, and there's no way he could -- he's a modern, not an ancient.

So suppose, rather than being a prejudice, it was the reality in the ancient world that "love between males was the most stable of loves," a reality strongly supported by culture, and that reality was merely being reported by the author of Affairs of the Heart.

Again, Love between Men in the ancient World was romantic and freely-chosen.

It wasn't arranged by the family for financial gain.

Heterosexual relations, and marriage in particular, most often were.

And sex and commerce, as I often say, don't mix.

Nor do Love and commerce.

Boswell also notes, as we often have, that

Doubtless the most surprising and counter-intuitive aspect of same-sex eroticism was not its frequency or duration, but its long and hallowed relationship to democracy and military valor, which modern military officials tend to find improbable or even unbelievable.

Remember that Boswell was writing in 1994, not long after the Clintonian surrender on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Boswell, who was head of the history department at Yale until his death from AIDS in 1995, goes on to note that in Plato's Symposium, the character named

Phaedrus argued that no one's behavior is better than that of those [same-sex] couples who are in love, because they would rather behave badly in sight of father or comrade than in view of those they love. He even advanced the idea that:

if we could somehow contrive to have a city or an army composed of lovers and those they loved, they could not be better citizens of their country than by thus refraining from all that is base in a mutual rivalry for honor; and such men as these, when fighting side by side, one might almost consider able to make a little band victorious over all the world. For a man in love would surely choose to have all the rest of the host rather than the one he loves see him forsaking his station, or flinging away his arms; sooner than this, he would prefer to die many deaths: while, as for leaving the one he loves in the lurch, or not succoring him in peril, no man is such a craven that the influence of Love [Eros] cannot inspire him with a courage that makes him equal to the bravest born; and without doubt what Homer calls a "fury inspired" by a god in certain heroes is the effect produced on lovers by Love's peculiar power. Moreover, only such as are in love will consent to die for others.

~ Symposium 179

Boswell notes that this recommendation "merely expressed common sense in relation to the social relations of men in antiquity," and that it was, perhaps, picked up some 20 years later by Gorgidas, who, according to Plutarch, put together the Sacred Band of Thebes -- a military unit consisting of 150 erotically-bonded same-sex couples.

However, I think that in the Symposium, Plato, in the person of Phaedrus, is simply reflecting upon the already extant Spartan reality.

Remember that the Britannica says that at Sparta, "a system of homosexual pair-bonding kept the hoplite bonds at a level of ferocious intensity."

Remember too that Plato had an intense interest in Sparta and the Agoge, that he used the Spartan model as his model of paideia, and that Plutarch noted that when the Thebans were finally able to defeat the Spartans by using the Sacred Band, they had the "air of schoolboys who had beaten their master."

In other words, I don't think that Plato was the first to think of an army of same-sex lovers.

But rather, that, as Jaeger says,

Plato's ideal ... was largely based on the Spartan model.

So, per Boswell, an army of same-sex lovers "merely expressed common sense in relation to the social relations of men in antiquity"; and, I would say, it's the sort of thing the Spartans -- and Lycurgus -- would have understood intuitively.

Plato: "only such as are in love will consent to die for others."

That was the hallmark of the Spartan system.

And sometimes it went beyond just one person or one city-state:

Leonidas of Sparta, ruled 491 - 480:

When the ephors said, "Haven't you decided to take any action beyond blocking the passes against the Persians?", "In theory, no," he said, "but in fact I plan to die for the Greeks."

When Xerxes wrote to him: "It is possible for you not to fight the gods but to side with me and be monarch of Greece," he wrote back: "If you understood what is honorable in life, you would avoid lusting after what belongs to others. For me, it is better to die for Greece, than to be monarch of the people of my race."

~ Plutarch, Sayings of the Spartans

Now, let's come back to Boswell's point about the ubiquity of same-sex sex -- and love -- in the ancient world: "Much evidence might, indeed, leave the observer with the impression that in antiquity sexual activity was about 50 percent homosexual [sic]."

He says that, by the way, in footnote 4 of chapter 2 -- you have to read the footnotes in his book, guys.

It's not a fast read, but it's worth it, because of his erudition.

So -- while I think the figure is much higher, because these were after all, homosocial societies, let's go with his 50 percent "homosexual."

Where have we heard something like that before?

Among other mammals, in which in some species -- and this story has a long ways to go before the last line is written because for years this information has been suppressed -- nevertheless, in some species, we now know, the MAJORITY of sexual contacts are same-sex.

55% of the sexual contacts among male American Bison are same-sex.

Similar figure for male giraffes.

Not only that, but what we can see is that in those animals who are able, anatomically, to easily and readily engage in male-male genital rubbing aka Frot -- they do it.

Whales do it, manatees do it, walrus do it, bonobos do it -- and we know the female bonobos engage in genital rubbing too -- and, dolphins do it.

And when we look at the dolphin social structure, as I keep repeating because I want you guys to hear it, we see -- SPARTA:

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

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

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

~Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

They live in all-male groups, they pair-bond in adolescence, the bonds are typically life-long, they look out for each other, and they maintain their bonds even after, relatively late in life, they're mating with females.

Spartan boys lived in all-male groups called Herds from the ages of seven to thirty, that is, during the Agoge; they pair-bonded in adolescence; the bonds appear to have been lifelong and were maintained even after marriage at the age of thirty -- when they continued to live in their all-male groups, which were the Men's Messes.

In other words, the males lived in "Herds" throughout childhood and adolescence; and at some point in adulthood, that is, upon leaving the Herd, each male applied to and joined a Men's Mess or Eating Club.

And the Eating Club was the most important affiliation in the life of an adult Spartan male -- a "Spartiate."

To paraphrase classicist W. G. Forrest:

The Spartiate did not work -- he trained, with the men of his mess; he fought, with the men of his mess; or he was idle, again for the most part, one would imagine, with the men of his mess.

Right.

Forrest, who didn't like the Spartans, leaves out all the music and choral singing and dancing and the exercises in character development, reason, judgment, and logic which went on at the messes -- but he's right:

In boyhood and adolescence, a young Spartan spent most of his time with the guys in his "herd."

And as a member of the herd, he was also tutored and overseen by any and every adult Spartan male -- the Spartiates.

The Spartiate, in turn, spent most of his time with the fellow Men of his mess.

If a Spartiate was thrown out of his Mess -- either because of failure to pay his dues or because of cowardice in battle -- he lost all social standing and was de facto ruined.

Notice too that Bagemihl says the male dolphins "cooperate in herding females" -- which sounds a bit like the Lycurgan rule of the guys cooperating to produce the best children through the best fathers with the best women -- rather than getting into adulterous rivalries and feuds.

So: what we see today, and what Walter is talking about, in which a male's romantic life and not just his reproductive life but his entire sexual life center on a single female, with whom he says he's in love and in whom he invests all his emotional energy -- is

ABERRANT!!!

It's an aberration.

It's not natural.

It's not normal.

Normal neither in human societies, nor in non-human mammalian societies.

And while Walter may insist that he doesn't want to have "sex" with another male -- something drove him to find this site, to pester me about posting in Frot Club, and to write his Personal Stories post.

He justifies it by saying it will make him a better father and husband.

Maybe.

But if Woman were the be-all and end-all of a Man's existence -- why would he need to wrestle another guy nude and with a hard-on?

Just doesn't make sense.

What Walter's trying to do -- and it's understandable given the pressures exerted by heterosexualization -- is to squeeze his perfectly normal and natural same-sex needs and desires into a hetero model which essentially denies their validity.

But I, Bill Weintraub, will not let him do that.

Because it's not good for him, nor for any other Man.

Men need Men in order to be whole.

Frances has spoken of our view of Men as "natural and organic."

She's also talked of "something of worth, something of eternal value."

Right.

That's what you need in your life -- that which is natural and organic, that which is of worth and of eternal value.

Just wrestling naked with a guy won't get you there.

LOVE is what's of worth, LOVE is what's of eternal value.

Men need the Love of other Men in order to be whole.

Walter can believe that or he can believe his wife is all he needs.

But what he cannot do is pretend that getting hard and getting off while wrestling with another man is not a sexual act.

Or that present-day heterosexuality and the nuclear family are the cat's pj's of cultural evolution.

They are NOT.

Sparta, the Agoge, Athens, Thebes, David and Jonathan, Hadrian and Antinous, Cuchulainn and Ferdia -- you can pick your own model.

I like Sparta and I like the Agoge -- and so did a lot of other Greeks.

I know what would have worked for me as a boy.

And it wasn't what I had.

It's what the Spartans had.

But whatever you pick, you cannot, if you're straight-identified, stay with heterosexualization and heterosexism;

nor if you're gay-identified, with analism.

You need first off to drop the gay-straight bullshit and accept that you're a MAN.

And from there accept that it's normal and natural for one Man to Love Another.

Anything else is just more lies and evasions.

Where have any of those gotten you in your life?

NOWHERE.

And when?

NEVER.

Try telling -- and living -- the TRUTH -- for a change.

Because only the TRUTH will set you FREE.

So: I said in my reply to Walter's post that it was excellent.

Do I feel stupid for saying that?

No, because I felt he was on the right path -- that is, that he was moving towards acknowledging his Manly needs and Masculine desires -- and I was trying to be supportive.

But when he says that Frot isn't sex -- he's no longer on the right path.

He's repeating an analist and heterosexist canard which has done tremendous damage to all Men -- including himself.

That cannot be allowed to stand.

Walter needs to understand that not all the sex in his life is necessarily going to occur within the confines of his wife's vagina.

And Walter needs to understand that in the long history of this world, millions upon millions of Men have had sex with and loved other Men, while at the same time having sex with and loving Women, and fathering children.

And that the Men, Women, and children have all been just fine with that.

And not simply "just fine."

As I often point out, there's never been a civilization as productive as the Greek.

And while Sparta didn't turn out a lot of philosophers or artists, the Spartan experiment itself -- which to me is the Spartan work of art -- was remarkable.

And that's why Plutarch, who was both a highly intellectual and deeply moral man, was so enthusiastic about Sparta and Lycurgus.

Plutarch was born into a wealthy family in central Greece, was the beneficiary of a superb education, was a prolific and successful author, humbly served his native city, received accolades from Emperors Trajan and Hadrian, and was a priest of Apollo at Delphi.

He was a good guy.

And his command of the knowledge of his time was awesome.

His account of Lycurgus and the Spartans is based on a huge number of sources, almost all of which are lost to us.

Plus his own visits to Sparta, where he witnessed the public aspects of the Agoge, and where he explored the public archives as well.

His account of Sparta, then, is based both on his reading and on his experience of Sparta -- which included discussions with living Spartans who were heir to the living history of their city.

So: He read texts which no longer exist -- and he experienced people and a way of life which no longer exists.

For those reasons, and given his over-all emphasis on and concern with morality -- I tend to believe what he says.

I also said that Plutarch was a priest of Apollo at Delphi.

As I discussed in A Nation of Heroes, Apollo, the god of light and reason, was very important to the Spartans.

Apollo
God of Light and Reason

That emphasis on reason is not unusual in revolutionary states -- like America and France -- which have created representative governments based on an ideal of Liberty.

And Apollo was pre-eminent in many aspects of Spartan life.

For example, in most places in Greece, an assembly was called an Ekklesia.

But in Sparta, the Assembly was called the Apella.

Apella / Apollo.

We know there was a month -- Apellaios -- named for Apollo and that at least one major meeting of the Apella would have occurred in that month.

But there were probably monthly meetings of the Apella as well.

Now, here's something interesting.

The ancient Greek verb "to apellaze" means to celebrate a festival of Apollo.

But in Sparta, says Plutarch, to apellaze also meant "to summon the Assembly, because Lycurgus related the origin and source of his constitution to Pythian Apollo."

That is, the oracle or Pythoness of Apollo at Delphi, which had told Lycurgus that his work would prosper and that he would become a god.

That's the same Delphi at which Plutarch, many hundreds of years later, would be a priest.

So: "to apellaze" is to celebrate a festival of Apollo.

And "to apellaze" is to summon the Assembly, the fount of representative government in the Warrior State.

And in so doing, to celebrate Apollo.

So: Plato and Plutarch -- two of the great thinkers of antiquity and easily of all time -- both found much to admire in Sparta.

And when I write about Sparta in the context of this site, it's to show you that our present-day American social and sexual mores are not the be-all and end-all of human existence.

That human beings have fashioned all sorts of social structures, many of which have clear advantages over the way we live.

Our system has been wildly successful at producing material goods.

But it's also poisoned the globe.

And it's poisoned the lives of Men.

And Women.

Walter appears to understand some of that.

But then he stops short of embracing his true male sexuality and falls back on canards like -- this isn't a sexual experience.

Sure it is.

And it's a sexual experience, and more important, a potentially Loving Experience, which has the potential to enrich his life, and the lives of all Men.

If and when they will let themselves be honestly and clearly open to it.

Bill Weintraub

July 27, 2008

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

---

---

---

Add a reply to this discussion

Back to Personal Stories

---

---