Bill Weintraub

Re: Where do I fit?

12-28-2004

Thank you Jim.

In an email, Jim said that "We tried oral, but really prefer lots of cuddling and mutual j/o. Not exciting to some, but intensely personal--and meaningful--to us."

This is a choice -- of mutually genital and very masculine, uniquely male sex -- which does not need defending.

Jim also said that he doesn't "consider himself a warrior."

There's sometimes some confusion over what we mean by "warrior."

At its most basic, however, the word "warrior" when used on the site is simply a validation of masculinity among men who have sex with men.

It doesn't imply one form of Frot (such as cock combat) over another (such as slow, sensual Frot) or being in the military or even training in a combat sport like wrestling or a martial art like karate -- though we do recommend that sort of training.

First and foremost, then, we use the word "warrior" to empower men into Frot -- Frot men -- and strengthen them in their naturally masculine sexual choice.

And in that sense Jim and his love do fit in -- perhaps as what Brad has called "gentle warriors."

Because, as Jim said, "We tried oral, but really prefer lots of cuddling and mutual j/o. Not exciting to some, but intensely personal--and meaningful--to us (monogamous relationship for 22 yrs)."

That's a history of which any warrior pair can be proud.

In addition, there are two other senses in which we use the term "warrior."

Sociobiologists have established that the ability and inclination of men to bond into warrior bands is instinctive and genetic, a special case of "reciprocal altruism," and without question, as a recent correspondent said, part of our birthright as men.

Today, that daily experience of the warrior bond has been lost, though by no means forgotten, because the material conditions of life which sustained it have changed.

Simply put, warfare is no longer so endemic as it once was; human beings have learned and indeed been forced to cooperate on an ever greater scale.

That does not mean that warfare itself is entirely atavistic, or that we might not see a resurgence in warfare as conditions change in the future.

For now, however, our job is to renew the idea of the warrior and make the warrior relevant again.

And that's one of the things we do here:

We say to guys, that rather than lives consumed by meaningless, compulsive promiscuity and anal penetration -- what Patrick aptly calls "pansyism" -- there's a warrior model of men loving men *as men,* phallically and faithfully.

And that too is part of your birthright as a man -- the ability to bond fiercely, exclusively, and phallically to another man.

Fierce, exclusive, phallic.

Those are the components of an erotically-expressed bond between warriors.

And between men.

That's the second sense in which we use the word "warrior," and we point to the many famous erotically-bonded warrior pairs of myth and history -- Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Achilles and Patroclus, David and Jonathan, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Alexander and Hephaestion, Cu Chulainn and Ferdia -- as role models for men today.

Which they are.

When Gilgamesh shouts in battle, "Two men, companions, they can prevail!" he presents a model.

As does Achilles when he bandages Patroclus' wound; and when later he avenges Patroclus' death.

And David when he looks after Jonathan's orphaned son.

And Aristogeiton when he guards Harmodius' honor.

And Cu Chulainn when he says of himself and Ferdia, "Fast friends, forest companions, We made one bed And slept one sleep."

Those are all models.

And they're models not just of bonded warrior behavior, but of moral warrior behavior.

And that's the third sense in which we use the term warrior -- as someone fighting the good fight.

In our case, working to overthrow the analist and hetero tyrannies, and freeing men to be their authentic sexual selves.

We need to remember, in that regard, that many of the warrior virtues, such as courage, and many warrior skills, such as in weaponry, are morally neutral.

Spears have been bravely thrown, arrows flown, and guns fired in bad causes as well as good.

So there has to be a moral dimension to the warrior.

Are Jim and his love warriors?

In my view, yes.

After years of searching and abstinence -- not a bad thing again in my view -- they found each other and have been together monogamously and true sexually for 22 years.

Now, as they face the illnesses of middle age -- which we all will -- they're caring for each other.

That's classic warrior behavior, it's morally good behavior, it's behavior worth talking about and publicizing.

PS

We discuss the warrior ethos in many places on the site; if you're interested in learning more, a good place to begin is on the Definitions page with our discussion of Heroic Love and Warrior Altruism.