Reply from Bill Weintraub:

I was talking with a guy about reading about cocksucking techniques that had been written by a gay guy when he told me that he couldn't take the thought of men having sex (and basically didn't want me to mention gay men again). I pointed out that I knew he would be very turned on by reading about a woman describing her techniques for giving head to another woman, which he agreed to and admitted that the repulsion to gay guys was his "problem".

Yes.

Actually, it's natural and normal for virtually all men, no matter how they self-identify -- "gay," "straight," "bi" -- to have some degree, usually a large degree, of sexual interest in other guys.

Right now, there's a severe level of suppression of that interest among "straight-identified" men.

Like you, I'd have to write a novel to explain why, but part of it has to do with a cultural definition of masculinity, which makes masculinity synonymous with "heterosexuality."

That's quite recent, and the result of a process we call heterosexualization.

In reality, cross-culturally and historically, guys have had and continue to have sex with other guys all the time.

But those men don't self-define as "gay."

"Gay" is a very recent concept -- the word "homosexual" itself was not coined until 1869, and a "gay community" didn't start emerging until the 1970s.

So what we see now is just a moment in time, and it will change.

Now, what your friend is probably objecting to, is, like you, not two guys having sex, but two guys having anal sex.

Most straight-identified men -- indeed most men who haven't been acculturated into analism -- find anal repulsive.

It's not a natural human activity.

It has to be learned and, basically, induced.

I basically told him it was his business whether the thought of men having sex with each other repulsed him or not, just as they had a right to be repulsed by hetero sex but that the two sides must learn to live with each other and accord some consideration. I then told him that I myself wasn't really turned on by the image of two men having sex, unlike his horniness for woman on woman sex.

Later, I got to thinking why that was. I thought I was open-minded and it didn't have to do with bigotry. I could see how my friend could be excited by two women.

I wondered how it was that even though I could think both males attractive, and might be aroused by images of male foreplay: sexual stare, holding each other by the hips, kissing, etc. the image of one guy fucking the other did absolutely nothing for me and I had seen many images of this over the years. So, I couldn't quite figure this out. I started exploring about a week ago.

I came across your name, and "frot". Okay, I had to know what that was about. I read, found it interesting and started looking at images for illustration and it didn't take too long to realize that my cunt was engorged and throbbing slightly, and that I would have to do some rubbing myself to relieve myself of this heavy, delicious achiness.

Eureka!

Gay guys doing frot is extremely erotic to me.

As it should be and as it is for many women, because it's genital-genital sex.

Which is What Sex Is.

(Quite frankly, those images make me think "my God, if only I could envelope both those cocks and feel the wetness, and friction of them both." [Not to gross you out, but to share with you this woman's visceral response to those images]).

Frances, that doesn't gross me out.

First of all, like most "gay-identified" men, I have my hetero moments.

Secondly, this is a VERY common fantasy among bi / straight-identifed Frot men.

Very common.

Guys really get super turned on at the idea of maybe some cock combat first; and then vaginally "double-dicking" a woman -- usually one or both of their wives / gfs.

Very common.

I agree with your an anus is not a vagina article. And, have sometimes wondered at the apparent ignorance of some guys who seem to equate the structure of a vagina with that of a hole in a piece of cardboard.

That's right.

Unfortunately, the anus is lot more delicate than a piece of cardboard, which is why it's so vulnerable to disease and mechanical damage.

It did not evolve nor was it designed to be penetrated.

They have no understanding of what goes on in there: the engorgement, the throbbing, the intense need for powerful friction, like a guy needing to be jerked off.

Right -- and it's VERY important that that be said.

It's very common for gay men to equate anal penetration with vaginal sexual intercourse.

Based on what?

Like you said, "They have no understanding of what goes on in there."

Fact is, gay men don't have vaginas, and they have no ability therefore to make that sort of experiential equation.

Yet, as I said, it's very common.

For example, last year Walter Odets, a leading gay psychotherapist, took me to task for being critical of anal:

"I think that anal sex has for gay men the same emotional significance that vaginal sex has for heterosexuals," said Odets.

I wrote an article in response, in which I pointed that Walter doesn't have a vagina, and therefore cannot know what the emotional significance of vaginal sex is.

It's like Walter declaiming on the emotional significance of childbirth.

He doesn't know what it feels like to give birth to a child.

And he'll never know.

You, Frances, however, can speak experientially of vaginal: "the engorgement, the throbbing, the intense need for powerful friction, like a guy needing to be jerked off."

And you understand that vaginal is a uniquely genital experience which has its correlative in penile.

Hence, my appreciation for frot.

Women, of couse, have anuses and I've never wanted it used as a receptacle for a dick.

That speaks well of you.

I think this is why I couldn't be aroused by a guy getting fucked up the ass. I might be aroused by the guy with the erect dick before the act, but the act did nothing for me, I don't think it has to do with whether a man or woman is being fucked analy, it doesn't have the same power of arousal as genital to genital sex. Believe me, if I thought I could have an incredible orgasm that way, it would be my position of choice, no doubt about it.

But, it just seems benign,

It's not benign, however, it's deadly dangerous.

And painful.

and so third, fourth or fifth rate to me.

That's right.

Compared to true mutual genital sex it has nothing to offer.

So, I just chalked up my disinterest in homosex to me not being able to relate because I didn't have a prostrate and would never know how good it felt.

No.

You need to look at where the prostate actually is.

This is what one of our Warriors said in a post titled smells like shit, looks like shit, is shit:

"And, I keep on hearing about this prostate gland / Male G spot. Nonsense. The prostate gland is not a sexual organ, it's a gland smaller than a ping pong ball. I don't know about you but my G-spot is my dick, simple as that. The way it feels when people rub it the right way, I don't think I would need any other G-spot in my body. Not only that, the prostate is located a couple inches in and down toward your dick. And 2 inches, not 6, 7, or 12 inches for all you size queens. Because of its position, it's easier to reach it with your finger than with a dick. Sex with penetration "CAN" be applied to men you say, but "SHOULD" it be? Maybe it shouldn't."

So: The prostate plays no role in anal -- I don't care what any other gay man says.

The prostate can be "massaged" with a finger.

I've experienced that many times and it is NOT a sexual experience.

It feels no different when done in a "sexual" context than it does in the doctor's office.

But during penile-anal, the penis is headed for the rectum -- nowhere near the prostate.

As ano-rectal surgeon Dr Stephen Goldstone says in that "anus is not a vagina" article, there is no g-spot in anal penetration.

Not in the anus, not in the rectum, not the prostate.

An anus is what it is, a rectum what it is, the prostate what it is.

None of them are organs of genital pleasure.

I also think women are under increasing pressure to incorporate anal sex into their lovemaking techniques,

Yes, they are, and I'll be posting about that soon.

And, I have the same objection you do as far as people doing something for reasons other than it being something they passionately want to to engage in.

Yes, that's correct, and in the case of anal, the act is so dangerous, that to do it because your bf saw some porn and wants to experiment -- is insane.

Your site, has made me think some. I'm now wondering at how it would work for young adults to form a triad with 2 males and one woman. My idea of an ideal situation which I never considered when younger would be for 2 males to live together, maybe nextdoor to the woman in their life who they might both have children with. Their children would be siblings and would unite them all, and me being me, I can see the incredible eroticism of a woman being sexual with 2 men at once, from time to time, especially during sex for impregnation which could be an incredible bonding experience for all three involved in an act of sacredness as well as passion.

Again, Frances, this is a very common male fantasy.

Two guys and one woman, impregnating her, and sharing the kids.

VERY common.

Would it work in reality?

I don't know.

But it's a common dick2dick / cock2cock "straight guy" fantasy.

One even I have been known to engage in.

It's not like heterosexual monogamy has served women, children, or maybe men all that wonderfully well, as you know.

That's right.

There are a lot of problems for everyone in the present set-up.

SECOND EMAIL

I hear you about would the triad "work in reality"? I don't know. To my mind the primary sexual relationship would be between the men, because I think they have more of a need to fuck constantly than women do. And, as you have pointed out homosex and heterosex are distinctive flavors that offer us different things. I think they offer everyone something to some extent. Women might find platonic or possibly sexual relationships with women belonging to other triads for same sex relating of an entirely feminine flavor, just as their men seek their own cravings peculiar to them.

It seems to me to be of paramount importance that this topic be explored in depth, in a way that would surely outrage many heterosexualists, but it must be done.

What is to be the future? Future implies birth, and children. Should we all just accept and continue to perpetrate heterosexual monogamy? Should warriors like yourself remain for all intents and purposes, sterile? This is an oft-cited reason for comfort among your foes is that "well, at least they don't reproduce," which I'm sure you are all too aware of.

Where's the generativity of the society you desire? Will your numbers ever be big should you continue to rely on the old social norm to provide you with warriors, or must you make your own and grow your community in the most organic way, from the inside out?

I would like to see the community grow in that organic way, and it means men reclaiming their reproductive rights and competing with the heterosexualists for the hearts and minds of women who would bear their children and maybe live a truer, more empowering form of womanhood than is currently experienced within many a heterosexual "monogamous" relationship. Now, that's a revolution.

Sincerely,

Frances

Bill Weintraub response:

I hear you about would the triad "work in reality"? I don't know. To my mind the primary sexual relationship would be between the men, because I think they have more of a need to fuck constantly than women do. And, as you have pointed out homosex and heterosex are distinctive flavors that offer us different things. I think they offer everyone something to some extent. Women might find platonic or possibly sexual relationships with women belonging to other triads for same sex relating of an entirely feminine flavor, just as their men seek their own cravings peculiar to them.

Actually, what you're describing is more or less the Spartan system.

Which was greatly admired by the other ancient Greeks.

Basically, the men were raised in all-male groups and didn't marry till they were 30.

And even after they were married, they belonged to all male-eating clubs or messes, which were considered very important in their lives.

If a man was derelict in his duty to his club, he was basically ruined.

So historians today agree that the Spartan ethos was decidely "homosexual."

At the same time, women were given more freedom than in most Greek city states.

Part of that had to do with Spartan ideas about eugenics.

They thought that women who were athletic would bear healthier children.

So women were encouraged to be athletic, they got to exercise nude -- with other women -- and no doubt they had same-sex relationships.

They also had a lot of say in running the big plantation-style Spartan farms.

Part of the reason was that Sparta was a slave society -- which of course is repulsive to us today.

But, like I say, many other ancient Greeks admired the Spartan system.

For one thing, Sparta was stable -- and it was the dominant land power in Greece for about 200 years.

Eventually, the Spartans were defeated and their slaves freed by the Thebans, who also had what historians call a homosexual ethos -- we would call it a Warrior ethos.

But they weren't slave holders to the extent the Spartans had been.

Even after that defeat, which was ca 370 BC, the Spartans retained the agoge -- the all-male warrior training system -- and it was still extant well into Roman times.

So it had staying power.

But of course its raison-d'etre -- to produce hardened warriors who were impervious to deprivation -- had long since vanished.

The Thebans by the way were wiped out first by Philip of Macedon, and then by his son Alexander the Great, who did not appreciate their democratic tendencies.

It seems to me to be of paramount importance that this topic be explored in depth, in a way that would surely outrage many heterosexualists, but it must be done.

What is to be the future? Future implies birth, and children.

Frances, I agree.

This is an area of debate within the Alliance, because Fidelity is a core value.

But clearly, people have to reproduce.

Again, historically, men married, but they had romantic relationships with other men.

Should we all just accept and continue to perpetrate heterosexual monogamy? Should warriors like yourself remain for all intents and purposes, sterile?

Good question.

Men -- and women -- want and need to have children.

And while of course male-male couples can adopt kids, most people want to have children the old-fashioned way.

This is an oft-cited reason for comfort among your foes is that "well, at least they don't reproduce, " which I'm sure you are all too aware of. Where's the generativity of the society you desire? Will your numbers ever be big should you continue to rely on the old social norm to provide you with warriors, or must you make your own and grow your community in the most organic way, from the inside out?

I would like to see the community grow in that organic way, and it means men reclaiming their reproductive rights and competing with the heterosexualists for thehearts and minds of women who would bear their children and maybe live a truer, more empowering form of womanhood than is currently experienced within many a heterosexual "monogamous" relationship. Now, that's a revolution.

Right.

Again, this is not an issue we can solve today, but the present set-up clearly puts immense pressure on a male-female dyad.

And that's something new in history, and, as my foreign friend points out, only possible because of the vast wealth generated by the industrial revolution.

But of course money doesn't necessarily equal happiness.

Traditionally, people have lived in extended families and clans, and men have married but also had the freedom to spend a lot of time with other men and to have passionate friendships with those men.

Of course there were problems in extended families -- issues primarily of privacy and control, which are important to human beings.

Nevertheless, as I've explained in many posts, including Natural Masculinity and the weight of the lies, when we look at the ancient Greeks, we see a system which was spectacularly successful.

Including the Spartans.

Of course, part of the basis for the Spartan system was slavery.

Spartan men could spend their lives drilling for hoplite battle because they didn't have to work the farm.

Same for the women -- part of their freedom and authority was based on the slave system.

However, the point to the industrial revolution is that, in theory at least, it obviates slavery.

We don't need slaves because machines do the work better, faster, cheaper.

So -- could we, in theory, have the sort of system that Frances describes?

Yes.

Thank you Frances.

Bill Weintraub

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