Bill Weintraub

Two Spearmen


Hi guys.

This is a long post.

For ease of reading, I've divided the post into several parts:

Parts I and II have not yet been posted.

I'll let you know when they are.

But I encourage you to start reading today -- by reading the Preface.


This is a post about Morality and Sexuality.

Two areas of human thought and action which the religious right believes should be joined repressively at their heterosexualized hip --

joined in a manner which completely and definitively excludes any expression of male-male eros or love;

and which the secular left believes should have no relationship to or contact with each other -- whatsoever.

Yet our work on this site and in our Man2Man Alliance is about both:

We celebrate and extol both male-male sexuality -- and morality;

and the relationship between them.

That, I've always thought, was clear from the content of our Alliance sites.

Nevertheless, I get letters -- emails actually -- which tell me that many guys -- some of them in the Alliance, some of them not -- really don't understand our work.

And that's because they see it through the distorting prism of heterosexualization and its categories of sexual orientation;

and through heterosexualization's various isms: analism and pansexualism and heterosexism and of course genderism and gender feminism --

while lacking any understanding of the historic reality of Men Loving Men.

That reality was above all a Moral reality.

A Virtuous reality.

A reality which encompassed what we may accurately term both a Moral Masculinity and a Virtuous Virility.

Cross-culturally and historically.

Whether one looks at the Lakota Sioux or the Dorian -- Spartan -- Greeks -- Moral Masculinity and Virtuous Virility are what one sees.

While it is the contemporary mis-understanding and indeed lack of a Moral and Virtuous sense in what we may call the sexual and affectional realm which is so destructive of the lives of Men today.

For example, and without question, one of the central moral issues of our time is the way gay-identified men went on infecting other gay-identified men with HIV -- even after HIV had been discovered and anal penetration identified as the principal and primary vector for its dessemination among those men.

That was in 1984.

What I've always known, and what was brought out very forcefully last summer -- that is, the summer of 2008 -- is that males went on infecting males with great gusto -- despite that knowledge.

And that behavior continues to this day.

As a recent study (Sullivan PS et al. Estimating the proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS 23, 2009) reported by Aidsmap makes clear.

Here are some highlights from that report:

  • "over 50% of new HIV infections in the US are amongst gay men"

  • "Gay men remain the group most affected by HIV in the US. There is some evidence that the number of new HIV infections in this group has increased since 2000."

  • "[among gay-identified men,] receptive anal intercourse was the main (69%) mode of HIV transmission ... [researchers] attributed 28% of infections to insertive anal sex and 3% to oral sex"

  • "The majority of HIV transmissions (68%) were estimated to be from main partners, with 32% thought to be from casual partners."

So -- what have we got?

Twenty-five years after HIV was identified as the pathogen and anal as the vector, the majority of new HIV infections in the US are STILL among gay-identified males.

The rate of new infection in that group has, seemingly, increased since 2000.

And it was already high -- and had been high since at least 1993.

How many guys per day get infected?

The most conservative estimate is 73.

Each and every day.

It's probably more like 80 or 90.

But even 73 is a lot.

That's about three per hour.

One guy every twenty minutes.

Infected with a pathogen which is TOTALLY avoidable.

And remember that prior to last August, we were told that it was a "mere" 40 per day.

The figure keeps going up.

Who's infecting these guys?

Their "main partners" -- their "lovers."

You know, I get an email every now and then asserting that anal's okay so long as it's part of a "loving relationship."

What part of a "loving relationship" involves fucking your "lover" up the butt, damaging his anal sphincter, destroying the delicate lining of his anus and rectum, creating fissures and other tears, getting his shit on your dick, dumping whatever's on and in your dick into his bloodstream, risking perforation of his large intestine, and infecting him with HIV, hepatitis C, and HPV?

And other pathogens.

Doesn't sound "loving" to me.

But then, I'm old-fashioned.

I don't think inflicting disease and death on your lover is a loving act.

Nor do I think that feces should be an integral part of sex.

Yet that's what's happening.

Am I exaggerating about that?


Remember the words of openly-gay ano-rectal surgeon Dr Stephen Goldstone:

Anal sex [sic] is the highest risk sex act two men can perform -- and not just because of HIV. Most sexually transmitted diseases (STDS) can pass between partners during close skin-to-skin contact when a penis rubs against your anus -- and vice versa. Infections travel both ways.


News flash: an anus is not a vagina. Your anus is only 1 to 2 inches long and connects to the rest of your colon. The colon's main function is to absorb water from the liquid waste that leaves your small intestines so that by the time it reaches your anus it is solid material.... It is this heightened absorptive capacity that makes your rectum so good at trapping STDs.


The anus has two sphincter muscles, the internal sphincter and external sphincter, which control your bowel movements. These muscles are bands that surround your anus and rectum. Your internal sphincter is actually a part of the colon wall and is an involuntary muscle -- which means you can't control it. This is the sphincter that relaxes to let out your bowel movements and gas. Your external sphincter is under the skin of your anus and is a voluntary muscle. You tighten it to keep from having a bowel movement at inopportune times. It also contracts reflexively (and out of your control) when something approaches your anus from the outside. Therefore, no matter how much you want your partner inside you, your muscle will contract to keep him out. ...

Another important difference between a vagina and an anus (or "mangina" as some men like to call it) is that it will not self-lubricate; you need to use a water-soluble lubricant (no Crisco, please!). In addition to damaging condoms, oil-based lubricants can block your anal glands and cause infection. Many oils, including hand creams, also contain perfumes which can irritate your skin and cause dermatitis.


Sex between men; sex between women and men: Because of the high risk of passing STDs during anal sex and foreplay, place a condom on your partner as soon as his penis is going to come in close contact with your anal area -- even if he isn't going to penetrate you. Put a lot of lubricant on your partner's condom-covered penis and on the outside of your anus. Beware of the "two finger stretch" to get ready for him because this can tear your sphincter muscles easier than his penis. ...As soon as the head of his penis pushes against your anus, the internal and external sphincter muscles contract. You will feel a sharp pain. Stay there! ... Do not stimulate your penis while you are trying to take your partner. This also sets up a strong reflex that contracts your sphincter muscles even tighter.



No matter how hard you try, your anus will always be an anus. You can't sterilize it. You can, however, gently wash the outer skin with a moist cloth or pad (try Tucks) to remove any fecal residue stuck to your skin. Avoid wet toilet paper or tissues because they flake and leave behind annoying bits of paper. If necessary, try to move your bowels prior to sex. I do not advise enemas or douching, which may increase the risk of HIV transmission. Enemas -- even if they are just plain water -- irritate the lining of your colon and make it easier for HIV to get in or out. The motion of the sex toy, your partner's hand or penis also stimulates colon contractions. Frequently you won't evacuate the entire liquid enema before sex, and the remainder is forced out during sex by increased colon contractions, making a bigger mess than the one you took the enema to avoid.



Bleeding: most often from a hemorrhoid of fissure (tear). If you see blood, stop. Most often the bleeding stops quickly. Do not have anal sex again until you stop bleeding with bowel movements. If you have hemorrhoids, experiment with different positions to see if you can tolerate one better than the other. Many men find that when the receptive partner is on his stomach, his hemorrhoids experience less swelling and bleeding.

Pain: Pain during anal sex most often results from your sphincter muscles going into spasm or from a tear. You can tear the sphincters or your delicate anal lining (a fissure). If it hurts, stop anal sex. Try treating your fissure conservatively with stool softeners, sitz baths (warm soaks) and hold off having sex until you are healed. STDs can often be present with pain in your anal area but the pain usually doesn't begin until several days after sex. Pain that begins during or immediately after sex usually results from a fissure or sphincter injury.

Perforation: A true tear through your colon wall is a very rare complication of anal sex. A penis is pliable and does not have the strength to rupture your colon. A toy, on the other hand, can cause serious damage - especially if it is long. Your colon makes a sharp bend to the left, approximately eight inches up. A penis can bang against this turn and you might notice a sharp pain in the pit of your stomach. It usually won't push through. A hard toy can push through and when it does, you are in a life and death situation. You feel intense pain and must get right to a hospital. Delay and the bacteria can spread throughout your abdomen. This type of infection (peritonitis) can take your life.

Incontinence: Incontinence is an inability to control your bowels or gas. If your anal sex is pain free, your muscles should be fine and you don't have to worry about this dreaded complication. Those who enjoy fisting or large toys can permanently overstretch their sphincters and are at increased risk for incontinence in later life.

STDs: Anal sex is the highest risk sex act that men who have sex with men can perform. Virtually every STD can pass between partners during anal sex, and for most, penetration isn't necessary and a condom may not protect you. STDs are harder to diagnose when they are inside your anal canal and not on your penis. STDs commonly passed during anal sex include: HIV, herpes simplex, gonorrhea, syphilis, molluscum contagiosum, crabs, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis, and chlamydia. MEN: Put a condom on early -- as soon as you anticipate contact between the anus and penis. Remember that fingers and toys used during foreplay can also carry STDs between partners. A condom doesn't cover the base of your partner's shaft, his scrotum or pubic hair -- these are all places where STDs can lurk or land.

HIV Risk

Anal sex is the highest risk sex act two men can perform.

This is also true for a woman if she's the anal receptive partner with a man. Your risk increases dramatically in proportion to the number or partners you have and if your sex is unprotected (whether you are inserting or receiving). One medical study published in 1987 found that anal sex with one partner increased your chances of catching HIV by three times -- five or more partners increased it 18 times.

[emphases mine]

So -- I'm not exaggerating.

Anal penetration is dangerous and destructive and potentially deadly -- in a number of ways.

And "dangerous, destructive, and deadly" are not attributes we ordinarily associate with a "loving act."

In the study reported by Aidsmap, moreover, the danger, destruction, and deadly disease are being conveyed by "main partners" -- that is, "lovers."

"Main partners" are infecting their "main partners" -- "lovers" are infecting their "lovers" -- with HIV.

How are the "partners" who are doing the infecting -- themselves getting infected?

Through "casual" sex.

You know, the "committed-but-play," always ready to "hook-up" kind of sex.

Of course, "sex" is what the researchers call it.

It's not really sex.

It's anal penetration.

These males are being infected through acts of anal penetration.

How frequent are those acts?

A total of 3652 men ... were included in the investigators' analysis. These men reported 2395 main partners and 2850 casual partners. Based upon information from the VPS [a Vaccine Preparedness Study, which, together with data from the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System, made up the data base for the Sullivan et al study], the investigators estimated that the combined total of sex [sic] acts with main partners was 195,000 per year and 175,000 per year for casual partners.

175,000 acts of "casual" "sex" -- that is, "casual" anal penetration -- per year.

That's a lot.

From among just 3652 males --

175,000 acts of infidelity.

175,000 acts of anal penetration.

That's a lot.

A lot of infidelity.

A lot of anal penetration.

That's why and how those gay-identified males are getting infected.

Through many many acts of infidelity and anal penetration.

That is, through many many dishonorable and shameful acts.


And having become infected through infidelity and anal, they then commit the ultimate act of betrayal and convey the ultimate defeat -- by INFECTING their own "lovers."

Isn't that fabulous?

Isn't that just great?

Doesn't it make you want to get out there and sing that you're proud to be gay?

Yet that's what happens when a culture and subculture denigrate Masculinity and divorce sexuality from Morality.

So -- we need Morality in our discussion of sexuality.

We have to have that.

Because absent any discussion of morality, absent a moral sense to our thinking about sex, absent a moral *purpose* to sex -- what we get is very bad behavior -- indeed.

Now: Is this bad and immoral behavior in some way intrinsic to "men who have sex with men?"


You didn't see such behavior among the ancient Greeks.

And that's because their culture -- their CULTURE -- didn't support it.

And I cannot emphasize that enough.

It would be unimaginable, to an ancient Greek, for a Man to damage his Lover -- in a way that is a routine and de facto accepted part of society today.

So this is a question of *culture* -- and morality.

Which goes beyond HIV.

For example, the credit crisis, which has caused such terrible pain, and which may yet destroy us all -- was brought about by immoral behavior underwritten by a *culture* of greed.

That's the truth.

Analism too is a culture -- a dominant culture -- of selfishness and greed.

Selfishness, greed, and, as was recently pointed out by Warrior John in his post titled pure, masculine, egalitarian, exploitation.

Analism, like the larger culture it inhabits, is a culture of selfishness, greed, and exploitation.

So culture -- and the morality put forth by culture -- matter.

In mainstream American culture, discussions of morality have tended for many years now to be dominated by the so-called religious right.

But that the religious right -- which has been so noisy -- drew the wrong conclusions from the Bible and from everything else -- doesn't mean that we have to stop thinking and acting ethically.

The Greeks didn't.

The Greeks had their own sacred texts and priests and theologians and philosophers -- who were primarily what we would call ethicists.

And the conclusions they drew -- were the right ones.

Of course, sometimes our religious leaders get it right too.

This is from an op-ed about the financial crisis which appeared in the London Times.

It was written by the chief rabbi of the UK, a guy named Sacks.

Markets need morals, and morals are not made by markets.

They are made by schools, the media, custom, tradition, religious leaders, moral role models and the influence of people. But when religion loses its voice and the media worship success, when right and wrong become relativised and morality is condemned as 'judgmental', when people lose all sense of honour and shame and there is nothing they won't do if they can get away with it, no regulation will save us. People will outwit the regulators, as they did by the securitisation of risk so no one knew who owed what to whom.

[emphasis mine]

Now -- the rabbi says that "the media worship success," but in reality it's the people -- you -- who worship success.

Which is measured by money.

If the people weren't fascinated by money and success and celebrity, the media wouldn't push it because there'd be no market for it.

So I'd change Rabbi Sacks' statement in just this one word:

when religion loses its voice and the *people* worship success, when right and wrong become relativised and morality is condemned as 'judgmental', when people lose all sense of honour and shame and there is nothing they won't do if they can get away with it, no regulation will save us.

And he's correct.

What's more, although the rabbi, in this instance, is talking about markets, you can plug his statement into HIV, the condom code, and the behavior of gay-identified men under analism and pansexualism:

"when right and wrong become relativised and morality is condemned as 'judgmental', when people lose all sense of honour and shame and there is nothing they won't do if they can get away with it, no regulation will save us."

That's correct.

What happened in the "gay male community" was that "right and wrong became relativised and morality was condemned as 'judgmental.' "

Just as we of the Alliance are condemned as 'judgmental.'

And not only did people "lose all sense of honour and shame" --

but they were TOLD that they SHOULD "lose all sense of honour and shame."

That's what happened:

Morality was condemned as 'judgmental'; and people were *instructed* to "lose all sense of honour and shame":

because, they were told, concepts such as honor and shame and morality were, in the sexual arena, not just out of date, but destructive.

In no small part because, they were also told, such concepts were the products of "patriarchal" and "masculinist" thinking.

What was put in place of morality, honor, and shame was a slogan -- "it's all sex and it's all good";

and, in the case of AIDS, a regulation -- the so-called condom code:

Use a condom every time, every time.

Don't rely upon -- or trust -- your partner to protect you.

It's your responsibility to protect yourself.

If your partner has HIV and doesn't tell you, and you get infected -- it's your fault -- because you didn't use a condom.

That's the condom code.

And the problem with the condom code, as Rabbi Sacks would, I think, agree, is that it seeks to be what I call a "technocratic" solution -- and what he calls a "regulation" -- to what in fact is a MORAL problem.

The result?

Rather than making the person who knows he's positive or has reason to believe, because of his behavior, that he might be positive, rather than making that person *morally* responsible for infecting others --

it relieves him of any and all responsibility.

That's why we now have 600,000 gay-identified males in the US alone "living" with HIV.

Because we gave those who did the infecting -- a free pass.

Remember what Rabbi Sacks said:

when right and wrong become relativised and morality is condemned as 'judgmental', when people lose all sense of honour and shame and there is nothing they won't do if they can get away with it, no regulation will save us.

Yet the idea that you can dispense with Morality, indeed not just dispense with it, but condemn it as judgemental, and then simply "regulate" the problem -- remains the dominant thinking about HIV prevention to this day.

Here's the conclusion of the Aidsmap study we just looked at:

"New HIV prevention interventions for US men who have sex with men [MSM] are needed and should be responsive to current behavioral risk patterns and transmission characteristics of the US MSM epidemic", conclude the investigators. "Our data suggest that the development and testing of HIV prevention interventions for MSM couples, a historically understudied area of HIV prevention, may be important as we approach the fourth decade of the US HIV epidemic."

Look at all the technocratic jargon which is used to obscure the fact of the immoral, shameful, and dishonorable behavior which is the cause of the problem:

"prevention interventions"

"men who have sex with men"

"current behavioral risk patterns"

"transmission characteristics"

"Our data suggest that the development and testing of HIV prevention interventions for MSM couples, a historically understudied area of HIV prevention, may be important as we approach the fourth decade of the US HIV epidemic."

"may be important"

The researchers have just demonstrated, through peer-reviewed research, that a lot of males are getting infected by their partners during anal penetration.

Sounds important to me.

Sounds like something which needs to be addressed.

"as we approach the fourth decade of the US HIV epidemic"

Fourth decade?

It'll be thirty years in 2011.

That's a long time.

But the researchers want to do *more* studies.

This time in "the development and testing of HIV prevention interventions for MSM couples."


And what incredible bullshit.

The solution is clear -- DON'T DO ANAL, and don't sleep around.

You have a lover -- be true to your lover.

Don't do things which will damage your lover -- who is, after all, a fellow human being -- physically and emotionally.

And you know, although Aidsmap and the AIDS establishment gave this particular study a lot of play, it's NOT new information.

We've known for years that "lovers" aka "main partners" infect their "main partners."

Indeed, at the very beginning of the epidemic, there was an article in the Village Voice by Richard Goldstein in which he quoted a man afflicted with HIV who said, with qreat anguish,

It was my lover, my lover, who brought this disease into our house!

That's why, in my initial email interactions with Yury, and as I detailed in my reply to Yury's The Trap of Anti-Masculinity, I talked about how common it is for guys to get infected by their so-called lovers:

Had you not found the Alliance, [Yury,] that acculturation process [into anal and analism] would have gone forward -- and I can say, with a fair degree of certainty, that you would now be HIV+ and infected with hepatitis C and probably a number of other pathogens.

Why am I certain of that?

Because you're vulnerable -- in the sense that you develop crushes -- and you were hanging with gay-identified young people who were into anal and homeless; and you were also apparently encountering drug dealers as part of that milieu.

Obviously, gay-identified kids who are doing anal and drugs -- and are homeless to boot -- are at tremendous risk for HIV and all the other anally-vectored diseases.

Diseases I talk about in my reply to Joe's post You people are changing lives.

And of course in an anus is not a vagina

There are a lot of diseases.

This is what would have happened to you:

And let's forget the guy who you had the crush on and who robbed you.

Let's forget him for the moment.

We'll invent someone, we'll call him Robert, he's a little older than you, a tad bigger and more muscular, and he's another gay-identified young guy, who's been homeless off and on, he's now sharing an apartment with a guy who deals occasionally or more than occasionally, and you meet Robert and you develop a crush.

Robert sees that, and he starts having sex with you.

He expects you to bottom and you do.

But you want to be "safe," so you make him use condoms.

And he goes along with that for a while.

Because that's what guys like Robert do.

And after a couple weeks or a couple months, he says to you one night, Yury I really love you and I want to be close to you --

and you say Sure.

So he fucks you without a condom.

Maybe he fucks you for a couple weeks without condoms.

And then he leaves you.

Because that's what happens.

It's a common scenario.

A guy like you -- very often -- gets infected not through promiscuous sex, but through sex with a partner who you thought really loved you.

But he didn't love you -- he was just using you.

And once he's gotten sexually from you what he wants -- he's outta there.

But you've got HIV and hep C.

And he no doubt convinced you to do oral-anal too, so that you've got -- giardia, for example.

Or maybe meningitis.

And maybe you live and maybe you don't.

Robert doesn't care.

I care.

Robert doesn't.

That's what would have happened to you Yury, if you hadn't found our sites.

Was I or am I exaggerating?


Look at the Aidsmap report.

And please note that the Aidsmap article is dated May 12, 2009.

I posted my reply to Yury on February 25, 2009.

Oh yeah.

This is something I've LONG known.

But it's not just me.

In point of fact, *anyone* who's been part of the so-called gay community at any point since 1981 knows it:

Guys routinely and commonly get infected by their own "lovers."

That's what happens.

It's gone on for years.

And in that sense, it's not news.

The statistics developed by the researchers may be new -- but the reality the study is reporting on is one the gay community has known about and known about well -- since the appearance of AIDS in 1981.

So: Despite all the hate mail I receive and all the slanderous hate-Weintraub-propaganda out there on the net -- I'm telling the truth:


"The majority of HIV transmissions (68%) were estimated to be from main partners, with 32% thought to be from casual partners."


I guess Weintraub's right about that one.

Yes -- I'm right about it.

Just as I'm right about the huge and exigent danger presented by anal:

"[among gay-identified men,] receptive anal intercourse was the main (69%) mode of HIV transmission ... [researchers] attributed 28% of infections to insertive anal sex and 3% to oral sex"

Among the 3,652 gay-identified males studied, ninety-seven percent of the infections were due to anal penetration.

Three percent to oral.

NONE to Frot.

I'm right about that too.

And more than right therefore to caution guys about what goes down in analist "relationships."

And, you know, it's not just HIV.

Another recent article on Aidsmap looked at an outbreak of syphilis among gay-identified males in the UK:

Over the last ten years, 73% (9560) of all syphilis cases involved gay men. The HPA [Health Protection Agency] report notes that "the characteristics of these patients have changed little over the course of the epidemic." Around a third of patients are aged between their mid 30s and mid 40s, 90% are white, and a third are also infected with HIV. The infection is thought to have been contracted through oral sex in a third of cases.


Two-thirds are infected through anal; one-third through oral.

The article continues:

Contract tracing has traditionally been an important component of syphilis control, but the HPA notes that 56% of cases involving gay men were reported to have been acquired from casual partners, making this strategy impractical.


So that's what the researchers mean by "casual."

So "casual" that the males getting infected through anal and oral "sex" don't even know the NAME of the guy who infects them.

I wonder if they even remember his face -- or even, in many cases, ever saw it.

Getting fucked from behind in a backroom or at a rave -- you need have no contact, other than shitty dick in shitty asshole, with your "casual" "partner."

Remember what Rabbi Sacks said:

when right and wrong become relativised and morality is condemned as 'judgmental', when people lose all sense of honour and shame and there is nothing they won't do if they can get away with it, no regulation will save us.

"when people lose all sense of honor and shame"

Most people think it's dreadful of me to talk about "honor."

And "shame."

I get yelled at all the time for using those words -- particularly in a sexual context.

But, as George Orwell says, the evidence is "in front of one's nose":

You take honor out of sex, and what you get is a man-made disaster like HIV / AIDS.

You take shame away from anal penetration -- and what you get is the man-made disaster known as HIV / AIDS.

That's what happens.

And there are many other disasters -- not just physical, but pyschological and spiritual as well.

In point of fact, if we wish to be saved from those disasters, there's no substitute, in this area of our lives, for morality and moral judgments.

I repeat:

In point of fact, in this area of our lives, there's no substitute for morality and moral judgments.

None whatsoever.

But -- they have to be the RIGHT judgments.

They have to be correct.

I said that the religious right has been noisy and wrong.

And when we think of the religious right, it's primarily of the Protestant, exclusive-evangelical, right.

Which is not subtle, to put it mildly; and which in the US, revels in its folksy and down-home style.

But there's also the Catholic right.

The Catholic right is different.

It disdains the crudities of the evangelical right, and instead shrouds itself in the veils of intellectualism and reason.

Recently a colleague sent me these paragraphs from a rightwing Catholic blogger:

Condoms and the ideology behind them have operated on a superficial level of consciousness, proposing a mechanical solution to a value-based moral and behavioral problem. We should not be surprised they have failed; they never penetrated the level of consciousness necessary for changing behavior and social norms.

The beauty and wisdom of the Church is it penetrates the deepest levels of consciousness and therefore offers a solution which is authentic. As it does, it reveals the sophistry of other supposed solutions. Deceit leads to death-in this very sad epoch of human history, death by condom.

Is there any truth to what the blogger has said?

Let's de-construct those paragraphs and see.

  1. "Condoms and the ideology behind them have operated on a superficial level of consciousness, proposing a mechanical solution to a value-based moral and behavioral problem."

    Bill Weintraub agrees -- condoms are a mechanical, or in my words, technocratic, solution to a value-based moral and behavioral problem.

  2. "We should not be surprised they have failed; they never penetrated the level of consciousness necessary for changing behavior and social norms."

    Uh, yeah.

    Except that it was never the intention of condom campaigners -- those pushing condoms as a solution to the HIV crisis -- to change *primary* behavior or social norms.

    To the contrary.

    The whole idea of condom promotion was that it obviated forcing people to make morally-based changes to their behavior.

  3. "The beauty and wisdom of the Church is it penetrates the deepest levels of consciousness and therefore offers a solution which is authentic."


    Second use of the word "penetrate" in just two sentences.

    But more to the point, what beauty and what wisdom?

    I've never seen anything either beautiful or wise in the Catholic Church.

    And in what way "authentic"?

    The RC Church is one of the least authentic institutions on earth.

    Not least in the way it uses the energy of its "gay" clergy to run its programs and preach its ideologies; and of course tolerates not only those guys -- so long as they're closeted -- but pedophiles, etc as well.

    When those people are exposed, the hierarchy is always shocked, shocked.

    But remember that the Church is, in theory, at least, a meritocracy.

    Everyone starts as a lowly priest or brother, and rises from there.

    Which means that the hierarchy is every bit as "gay" as the men they condemn.

    And while we're talking about beauty, wisdom, and authenticity, what about money?

    The aptly-named "princes" of the Church live in palaces.

    Not in the sort of hovels that Jesus and his disciples would have inhabited.


    In terms of beauty, wisdom, and authenticity, the Church just doesn't cut it.

    Which is why the Church has never succeeded in "penetrating" my consciousness.

    It's hypocritical, ugly, and stupid.

    Not authentic in any way.

  4. "As it does [offer a solution which is authentic], it reveals the sophistry of other supposed solutions."

    Except that its solution is NOT authentic.

    Its solution for "men who have sex with" -- is that they stop having sex with men.

    That's the Church's "solution."

    A "solution" which denies Men an essential aspect of their Masculinity and Manhood.

    Our solution is to tell Men that there's another way they can have sex with Men -- a way that's truly authentic, because it's mutually phallic, and thus exalts their mutual Manhood.

    Which is what sex between two loving Men SHOULD do.

    The blogger claims that any solution other than the Church's -- including therefore our own -- is "sophistry."

    But what we're talking about isn't sophistry.

    It comes rather out of the life EXPERIENCES of literally hundreds of thousands of MEN who've LIVED through the HIV and AIDS eras while having sex with other Men.

    That's not sophistry -- it's reality.

    The Church's position, by contrast -- IS sophistry.

    It claims that "homosexuality" -- which doesn't exist -- is "disordered" -- whatever that means -- and that all Men who engage in "homosexuality" will go to "Hell" -- wherever and whatever that is.

    In point of fact, the Church does NOT know what will happen to you, or Pope Benedict, or anyone else, after they die.

    It doesn't.

    And neither do you.

    And to claim that you -- or the Church -- does -- is sophistry.


    And that's all it is.

    What we say by contrast is grounded in reality and personal experience.

    Now -- some of us -- most especially Warrior Robert Loring -- do talk of Hell:

    Strip a male of his masculinity and you destroy the male psychologically, spiritually, and even physically. What does a stripped male have left? Nothing! Nothing except CONFUSION about himself! Strip a male of his natural pride in being or becoming a man and you send him down into the abyss of SELF REJECTION and SELF CONDEMNATION. In my opinion sending a male or anyone down the road of self rejection is just about the worst thing you could ever do to another human being. That road is a road walked through a literal psychospiritual HELL. For those of you who have walked that road I need not tell you how hellish that road is.

    Hellish indeed.

    But that Hell, as Robert makes clear, is one which Men experience in this life -- when they deny their own vital and masculine same-sex needs and desires.

    When they deny their own, organic, and innate Natural Masculinity.

    The Hell which Men inhabit who are, as Robert says, "defeated in their own minds" by the anti-Man forces of society -- such as the Church.

    Men do indeed go to Hell -- but their Hell is in *this* life, and they end up there because of the preaching of institutions like the Catholic Church.

  5. "Deceit leads to death-in this very sad epoch of human history, death by condom."

    "Deceit leads to death"


    But the Church is a leading practitioner of that deceit.

    It works to deceive Men about their nature.

    While lying about its own nature.

    Guys, there are priests, Catholic priests, priests with congregations, who visit this site.

    Who actively have sex with other Men.

    And who tell their parishoners -- NOT to.

    They tell them it's a sin.

    Even as they do it themselves.

    That's deceit.

    And it's disgusting.

    "Deceit leads to death-in this very sad epoch of human history"

    Is this a sad epoch in human history?

    It's sad for Men -- because of shit-heads like this Catholic blogger, who seek to destroy Masculinity.

    But of course that's not the reason the Church thinks this is a sad epoch.

    The Church thinks this is a sad epoch because in the West, and in particular in the EU, people have turned away from the Church.


    Because for those people, this is not a sad epoch.

    They have material prosperity, and, in the EU, a social safety net which protects them and gives them, not least by any means, universal access to health care.

    A healthcare which has become increasingly sophisticated at easing human pain.

    Their lives are good enough, in other words, in this world --

    that they needn't worry so much about the next world.

    And the Church has suffered as a result.

    As human suffering decreases, the suffering of the Church increases.

    Which tells you a lot about the Church.

  6. Then there's this: "death by condom."

    It's a neat turn of phrase, but it's not accurate.

    What's going on is not so much death by condom as it is HIV infection due to "condom campaigns."

    Condom campaigns tell guys to "use a condom every time, every time."

    But what studies have shown, and what we've discussed ad nauseum on this site, is that slippage + breakage + inconsistent use + incorrect use + disinhibition = MSM HIV infection.

    Let's go through those one-by-one:

      • Condoms fail -- that's the "breakage and slippage" part -- and, as we've documented in the MSM HIV Timeline, they fail more often during anal penetration than during penile-vaginal sex because the anus, which is not self-lubricating and is far less elastic than the vagina, is harder on the condom;

      • Guys don't use condoms consistently; and, in terms of HIV infection, and given how efficient anal is in transmitting HIV, inconsistent use is almost as bad -- arguably worse -- than no use at all;

      • Guys don't always use condoms correctly -- according to the FDA, there are six separate steps which must be followed in order to put on and use the condom correctly -- mess up on any one of those, and the condom doesn't protect; and

      • Condoms disinhibit -- that is, condoms encourage guys to have more partners, be less selective in their choice of partners, and to do the highest risk "sex" -- in this case, anal.

    So -- it's not so much "death by condom" -- which misleadingly suggests that any time you use a condom it'll fail and you'll die --

    as it is the incessantly parroted instruction -- or regulation -- to use a condom every time every time, a regulation which, as I said, seeks to obviate morally-based primary behavior and cultural change, change which would actually stop the epidemic.

    And save human lives.

    Without denying the Men living those lives their God-given right to live fully and completely as Men.

So: just those two little paragraphs from the Catholic right contain a world of lies.

Nicely packaged, but lies and deceit nevertheless.

Of course we've talked about the Catholic right and it's brand of deceit before, most notably in the post titled sex, lies, and the catholic right.

And it's a post I strongly encourage you to read and/or re-read.

In that post, we learned about a blogger we called "commited [sic] Catholic," and his many lies.

This particular deceiver claims to be "same-sex attracted"; and then uses that claim to preach an anti-same-sex love message.

He's bright, and very nasty.

And his work, as is so often the case with these people, is probably underwritten by the Church.

Having found our sites, he wrote to me, and gave me the standard hardline Catholic pitch:

the Church also teaches against masturbation, whether solo or with another - so I would encourage you to take a look at the way Christian authors have synthesised the Greek ideas you appear to revere with a more humane understanding of love and affection and the place of sexual desire in flourishing

Nevermind that Frot isn't masturbation.

We get his drift -- if it isn't hetero-reproductive, it'll take you straight to hell.

But this is the part I love -- his admonishment that we look

at the way Christian authors have synthesised the Greek ideas you appear to revere with a more humane understanding of love and affection and the place of sexual desire in flourishing


Don't you just love that?

As we just discussed, their idea of humane is to consign Men who Love Men -- to Hell.


That's where you go.

And in this life, when the Church has had the power, it's introduced them to that Hell by burning them at the stake.

That's their idea of humane.

When it comes to "love and affection and the place of sexual desire in flourishing" the Greeks were infinitely more -- humane.

If one can bear using that word after a creep like "commited Catholic "-- who spends his life in dread of his own normal and natural same-sex feelings -- has used it.

He also claims that the Church's "humane" approach was the result of Christian authors "synthesizing" Greek ideas.

Well, I guess "synthesize" is one way to put the banning and killing of Greek -- actually Hellenist -- teachers and writers by Roman Catholic emperors like Theodosius and the bending out of recognizable shape of Hellenistic philosophy and ethics.

Which is what the Church did.

That was particularly true in the realm of Manly Love -- but it was by no means the only area.

As Gibbon puts it

The ruin of Paganism, in the age of Theodosius, is perhaps the only example of the total extirpation of any ancient and popular superstition; and may therefore deserve to be considered as a singular event in the history of the human mind.

~ Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (XXVIII)


"The ruin of Paganism" -- that is, Hellenism, was, says Gibbon -- "a total extirpation" of a *popular* -- note the word "popular" -- "superstition" -- that is, a religious belief-system;

and as such, he says -- and remember that he's writing in 1776 -- was "a singular event in the history of the human mind."

A singular event in the history of the human mind.

That's how radical and far-reaching was this "total extirpation."

And of course it wasn't only the temples and Hellenistic thought which were, in Gibbon's word, "extirpated."

It was also the great religious-athletic festivals, which had been celebrated for more than a thousand years, in which Men came together to exalt their Manhood through the strenuous physical struggle of one Man, naked and unfettered, against another:

a glorification and hallowing of the Male's inherent aggression and attraction towards other Males --

-- which had its roots in the palaistrai found in every Greek town.

That's what was destroyed.

To say that that destruction was the result of a "synthesis" of Greek thought by Christians, is -- bizarre!

It would mean, for example, that the Hellenist dictum that the Love of Man for Man is more faithful than that of Man for Woman -- which is stated plainly in Plato and other Hellenist writers -- could somehow have been "synthesized" into the notion that such a Faithful love was damnable and subject only to condemnation.

It would mean also that the yearning for moral beauty and moral heroism -- which the ancients believed lay at the heart of the Love of Man for Man -- and which they said would be discovered through a Strife of Valour -- was also deserving of damnation and condemnation.

These two paintings represent the physical aspect of the Strife of Valour.
But it must be understood that the Strife of Valour was primarily about Virtue in the sense
of moral heroism: the willingness to sacrifice self in service to friends, country, or an ideal.

It would mean that the Love of Achilles for Patroclus -- which, according to both Pindar and Plato, had earned both Heroes an immortal place on the Isles of the Blest -- was damnable.

It would render meaningless and false this sort of Hellenist thinking, given voice by the character named Pausanias in Plato's Symposium:

of every action it may be observed that as acted by itself it is neither noble nor base. ... For when the doing of it is noble and right, the thing becomes noble; when wrong, it becomes base. So also it is with [male-male] loving; and Love [Eros] is not in every case noble or worthy of celebration, but only when he impels us to love in a noble manner.


To do the thing basely is to gratify a wicked man in a wicked manner; 'nobly' means having to do with a good man in a noble manner.

"wicked" here of course means anal.

And the speaker goes on to link what we would call analism with promiscuity:

By 'wicked' we mean that vulgar lover, who craves the body rather than the soul; as he is not in love with what abides, he himself is not abiding. As soon as the bloom of the body he so loved begins to fade, he 'flutters off and is gone,' leaving all his speeches and promises dishonoured : whereas the lover of a nature that is worthy, abides throughout life, as being fused into one with the abiding.

~Symposium, trans by Lamb

The Catholic view would mean that Plato was wrong, and that no matter how Good, Noble, Right, and indeed Abiding, the doing of a thing -- in this case, the Loving of one Man by Another -- might be, it would still be wicked, and still subject to condemnation and damnation.



That's why the Emperor Julian, himself an Hellenist, so disliked and indeed detested the Christians.

That's why he attempted, using law and law alone, to break their hold on the Empire.

And that's why they KILLED him.

Julian as military leader
He was admired for his soldiering

Julian as Hellenist
He was killed for his Hellenism

So -- there's true morality and false morality.

And the litmus test for Men must be this: does the morality support the Love of Man for Man in its noblest instincts?

Instincts which derive ultimately from Warriordom and the Warrior Altruism which is enshrined at its core.

Such a morality must be Just; it must be Brave; it must be Temperate; and it must be spiritually Wise.

Thus constituting a Virtuous Virility:


In this post, I'll be examining some of the contemporary misperceptions -- which are basically *moral* misperceptions -- about our work and "men who have sex with men" which I've encountered recently.

And I'll look at how they compare to the Heroic, Manly -- and, above all, Virtuous -- past.

In doing that, I'll be citing the writing of a number of ancient authors, including Plato and Xenophon and Pausanias and Pindar -- and Plutarch.


We've often talked about him.

He was a Greek philosopher, historian, biographer, and, above all, ethicist, who lived from about 45 to 120 AD.

He was also a priest of Apollo at Delphi, which wasn't far from where he lived, served his native city of Chaeronea in various "magestries" -- official posts -- and, according to the Loeb Classical Library, was given a consulship by the Roman emperor Trajan and a procuratorship in Greece by Hadrian.

So he was well-respected by both Greeks and Romans, and was honored for both his literary work and his committment to civic and communal society.

Ian Scott-Kilvert, a classicist who translated some of Plutarch's Parallel Lives, says of Plutarch that

his prime object was at once to cherish and understand the greatness of the past and to re-assert it as a living ideal.

That's my object as well:

to cherish and understand the greatness of the past; and

to re-assert it as a living ideal.

As a *living* ideal on which Men -- and Women -- today can model and so enrich their lives.

Scott-Kilvert also speaks of the "moral grandeur" found in the lives of the Men Plutarch describes.

And he cites Mme Roland's remark that Plutarch's Lives "are the pasturage of noble souls."

"Moral grandeur."

"Noble souls."

In virtually all of the Greek lives Plutarch describes, the Love of Man for Man plays a role, a noble role.

That Love, which is uniquely Masculine, energizes the Men to strive repeatedly for that which is noble and morally grand.

That's what the True Love of Man for Man has done historically and cross-culturally.

And that's what it must do again.

Or it will never again be True Love.

Bill Weintraub

September 5, 2009

Once again, guys, for ease of reading, I've divided this post into several parts:

Parts I and II have not yet been posted.

I'll let you know when they have.

Bill Weintraub

September 5, 2009

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

Add a reply to this discussion

Back to Personal Stories


Warriors Speak is presented by The Man2Man Alliance, an organization of men into Frot

To learn more about Frot, ck out What's Hot About Frot

Or visit our FAQs page.

Warriors Speak Home

Cockrub Warriors Site Guide

The Man2Man Alliance

Heroic Homosex

Frot Men


Frot Club

Personal Stories

| What's Hot About Frot | Hyacinthine Love | THE FIGHT | Kevin! | Cockrub Warriors of Mars | The Avenger | Antagony | TUFF GUYZ | Musings of a BGM into Frot | Warriors Speak | Ask Sensei Patrick | Warrior Fiction | Frot: The Next Sexual Revolution |
| Heroes Site Guide | Toward a New Concept of M2M | What Sex Is |In Search of an Heroic Friend | Masculinity and Spirit |
| Jocks and Cocks | Gilgamesh | The Greeks | Hoplites! | The Warrior Bond | Nude Combat | Phallic, Masculine, Heroic | Reading |
| Heroic Homosex Home | Cockrub Warriors Home | Heroes Home | Story of Bill and Brett Home | Frot Club Home |
| Definitions | FAQs | Join Us | Contact Us | Tell Your Story |

© All material on this site Copyright 2001 - 2009 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.