Bill Weintraub

Re: FROT Vs. fraud

3-30-09

Thank you Yury.

Guys, I was surprised, when, in correspondence with Yury, he mentioned that people in his orbit, including the psychiatrist he describes in this post, were putting forth a discredited theory of the "etiology of homosexuality":

One psychiatrist told me that (there have been studies showing that) many men in college have same-sex feelings, and that it's probably because they didn't have enough contact with their fathers when they were infants/children, that they weren't held enough by their fathers, etc.

Like I say, I was surprised that people were still putting forth that theory.

The theory being that "poor parenting," and specifically an absent or weak father combined with a dominating or smothering mother -- would make a boy "homosexual."

So -- the idea was that "homosexuality" was a developmental problem and a manifestation of what the neo-Freudians called a "psychosexual block."

In the neo-Freudian scheme of things, people who were "psychosexually blocked" were "neurotic" -- that is, mentally ill.

Even though Freud himself had said that "homosexuality" was NOT evidence of mental illness -- and could not be treated.

The neo-Freudians -- who essentially emerged after Freud's death -- persisted nevertheless in trying to treat -- that is, cure -- "homosexuality."

And by cure, I do mean cure.

Their "therapeutic goal" was to eliminate not just same-sex sexual activity, but same-sex sexual desire itself, and replace both with opposite-sex activity and desire.

And for a very long time the neo-Freudians ruled the psychiatric roost and effectively dictated public policy regarding "homosexuality."

By the early 1970s, however, their efforts had been by and large discredited, and their theory of "homosexuality" as mental illness was rejected by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1973.

What the APA did specifically in that year was remove "homosexuality" from its list of "personality disorders" in what's known as the "DSM" -- The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which is issued by the APA, and is supposed to guide American psychiatrists in their work.

The DSM is tremendously powerful.

First off, a psychiatrist who ignores the DSM and treats something as a mental illness that isn't in there -- risks losing his licence, and also risks getting sued for malpractice.

And second off, insurance companies won't pay for treatments that are not de facto authorized by the DSM.

Which means in practice that:

If, in 1967, I went to a psychiatrist and said I'm a homosexual and I want you to cure me -- he could say, Sure thing, that's possible, and I'd be glad to undertake to do so.

He could say that, as indeed my psychiatrist, who was very establishment, did, because "homosexuality" was in the DSM.

But if, in 1974, I went to the same psychiatrist and said, I'm a homosexual and I want you to cure me -- he was supposed to respond that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness and that therefore he couldn't treat it.

So -- I say, taking a deep breath -- the idea that "homosexuality" is a mental illness is something that was started in 1869, and finished in 1973.

It had a run of only about a hundred years.

It did immense damage in those hundred years, and that damage persists.

But -- the idea of "homosexuality" as illness is "the medical model of homosexuality" that you often hear me refer to, and that model or paradigm shifted in 1973.

That's why I, and any other historian of science and culture, can speak of dominant paradigms and paradigm shifts.

Because paradigms shift -- all the time.

At one time, for example, the paradigm was that only white men could be elected president.

And then there was a paradigm shift -- and all of a sudden, black men can be elected president.

So: cultures CHANGE.

And you need to understand that.

And you need to understand that change can be swift.

How many people in November 2007 could have predicted that a black man would win the presidential election in November 2008?

Very few.

Cultures CHANGE.

And the change, to repeat, can be rapid.

At one time anal was a denigrated and minority act among males who identified as "homosexual" or "gay."

In 1975 there was a paradigm shift and it became the majority act among those males.

Some people put the shift to anal about a decade earlier.

BUT -- I lived that history, I was a witness to and a participant in that history, and I saw what happened, just as I witnessed the paradigm shift in 1973.

The shift to anal occurred in or about 1975.

Had it occurred earlier, HIV would have taken off earlier.

Because HIV had been present in America for at least decades, and maybe a century or more.

It's true that bathhouses proliferated in the 1970s.

And that bathhouses are particularly efficient in spreading disease, which is why they should not exist anywhere in the West.

However, given how promiscuous gay-identified males were even before the bathhouses became so numerous -- and most major cities had at least one bathhouse or the equivalent prior to 1970 -- if anal were commonplace in 1965, we would have seen many many cases of AIDS in 1970.

That didn't happen.

The first cases of what eventually came to be known as "AIDS" were reported in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports in June of 1981.

It takes about six years, on average, for HIV infection to progress to frank AIDS.

1981 - 6 = 1975

Anal took off in 1975.

That was a paradigm shift, and the paradigm shift which enabled AIDS and so many other disasters in the lives of Men.

Paradigms shift, cultural models change.

"Homosexuality" was removed from the APA's DSM in 1973.

That too was a paradigm shift.

So -- Yury's pyschiatrist was wrong.

And if, in the US at least, he'd tried to "treat" Yury on that basis, he could have been sued and/or forced out of his practice; and he would not have been compensated.

So: there is NO RELATIONSHIP between family structure and same-sex needs and desires.

NONE.

ZERO.

ZIP.

Both my late lover Brett, who was gay-identified, and my present husband Patrick, who is bi-identified, came from families with strong, present, hands-on dads.

And both Brett and Patrick are attracted to and have sex with Men.

Me, specifically.

End of discussion.

Or it should be.

When I was emailing about this with Yury, he sent me a passage from Mary Renault's The Nature of Alexander, which is on the reading list.

And I'm glad that Yury's doing the reading -- so should you all.

But -- in that passage, Renault, who was writing in the 1960s, in effect attributes Alexander's feelings for Hephaistion and other Men to Alexander's mother, Olympias.

Well, it's true that Olympias was, by the standards of her day, a very strong person and personality.

But she was also a 4th century BC semi-barbarian queen -- and I mean both barbarian and queen in their actual sense.

To compare her to an early 20th century Viennese hausfrau, or a 1950s American mother, is really goofy.

But it's not surprising that Renault, as fine a writer as she is, indulges in that sort of goofiness.

Like I say, she was writing in the 1960s, the same era when I sought out my psychiatrist, and the same era when the medical model held absolute sway -- not just in psychiatry, law, and penology, but throughout the culture, including the arts, high and low.

There were, to their credit, a handful of folks who rejected the model -- including writers like Gore Vidal, Allen Ginsberg, and James Baldwin -- and activists like Jack Nichols.

But most writers and other artists, including middle-brow artists like film-maker Alfred Hitchcock and high-brow artists like choreographer Martha Graham -- not to mention all the dime novelists -- routinely incorporated neo-Freudian ideas about the "etiology" of "homosexuality" into their work.

The absent or emasculated father and dominating or emasculating mother were very very common.

That's because "the medical model of homosexuality" was a dominant paradigm, and like any and all dominant paradigms, it dominated all discussion of its subject.

Just as analism does today.

But just as the medical model was toppled, SO WILL BE ANALISM.

That's inevitable.

No culture lasts forever.

And analism will be no exception.

Now, I should add that in Renault's book, when faced with the blatant "homosexuality" of Alexander's father, Philip II, who was notorious for his many love-affairs with both males and females, and who was assassinated, tellingly, by a jilted boyfriend -- Renault attributes Philip's behavior to his having been a hostage in the Greek city-state of Thebes -- home of the Sacred Band of Thebes -- in his youth.

Actually, of course, that's a tad closer to the mark.

But what Renault's doing there is simply using a second theory of "homosexuality" -- known as "situational homosexuality" -- to account for something which did not and DOES NOT need accounting for.

Both Philip and Alexander lived in a time and place when it was common, and normal, and indeed expected, that guys would have passionate romantic and sexual relationships with other guys.

And they did -- with great gusto.

What makes Philip unusual is that he didn't follow the Greek model of Fidelity -- instead, he played the field.

And, not surprisingly, it cost him his life.

Because -- you weren't supposed to do that.

And in the ancient world, if you did something you weren't supposed to do -- I'm talking sexually, and I'm talking both anal and infidelity -- it could easily get you killed.

So -- Alexander, in his attachment to Hephaistion, was actually a rather ordinary Greek man -- except that in Alexander's case he was a Macedonian who'd been educated by a Greek -- Aristotle -- and had grown up in a semi-Greek culture -- which may or may not have had Dorian Greek -- the Spartans were Dorian Greeks -- roots.

Translation: the Dorian roots of Macedonia are debated.

Second part of translation: be that as it may, it was among the Dorians, according to Jaeger, that same-sex love was most openly and joyously celebrated and indeed exalted.

So: culturally, Alexander was in large measure a Greek -- maybe even a Dorian Greek.

(And I have to say, just parenthetically, that to me Alexander looks Dorian -- he looks like one of the Dorian athletes Pindar describes about a century before Alexander was born.

But -- I don't know whether Alexander's contemporaries thought he looked Dorian.

For one thing, given the resentment the Greeks naturally felt towards their Macedonian conquerors, what we might call "the Macedonian-Dorian question" would have been controversial then too.)

Clearly, however, Alexander thought of himself as Greek.

And he behaved that way with Hephaistion.

For example, he kept a copy of the Iliad under his pillow, and when he started his campaign against the Persians, he had his ships land at the ancient site of Troy, and he and Hephaistion ran nude around the alleged tomb of Achilles.

The Lion Hunt
This pebble mosaic was found at Pella, Alexander's capital
Some people believe the figure on the right is Hephaistion

We can think of Alexander and Hephaistion running nude around Achilles' tomb as a grand gesture.

And of course Alexander was famous for such gestures.

For example, when the Persian Queen Mother mistakenly prostrated herself before Hephaistion, thinking him to be Alexander, Alexander said to her, in essence, Not to worry, and then added, gesturing towards, or perhaps laying an arm upon, Hephaistion, "This too is Alexander."

That's both a grand gesture and lovely statement of devotion; but I have to say I don't think such were rare or unusual among same-sex lovers in ancient Greece.

They were expected to, and they did, look out for each other, often in very grand ways.

So -- while Alexander was an extraordinary man, his devotion to Hephaistion was not, in the ancient Greek context, extraordinary.

It was what was expected.

Alexander, in that respect, was an average member of his culture.

A culture in which guys -- openly and often extravagantly -- loved other guys.

So: Olympias did not "make" Alexander "a homosexual."

First of all, of course, because he wasn't "a homosexual" -- he married twice and had at least one son.

But secondly because it wasn't in her power to do that.

As I told Yury, in the early days of Gay Lib a joke used to go the rounds:

First woman: My mother made me a lesbian.

Second woman: If I ask her, will she make me one?

That joke had staying power because it sent up the neo-Freudian establishment in two ways -- it belittled the power of mothers to affect same-sex desire, and it celebrated that desire.

So: neither mothers nor fathers have the power to make their children into "lesbians" or "gay men."

That's not what happens.

Men and Women have same-sex needs and desires by virtue of being born -- and they choose to act on them.

And of course, as we've discussed at length, it's not just Men and Women.

Same-sex love, affection, intimacy, and sex are found throughout the animal kingdom, and are particularly common among mammals.

For example, more than 55% of sexual contacts among bison, we're now told, are same-sex -- which means they have more same-sex contacts than mixed-sex contacts.

Do all bison have dominating mothers?

Giraffes, bonobos, dolphins, whales, manatees, walrus etc etc etc

Same-sex needs and desires are common in the animal kingdom, which includes, ultimately, human beings.

Now, in the course of my correspondence with Yury about this, I repeated to him what the classicist Robert Graves had said about the Freudian notion of the Oedipus complex, on which the neo-Freudians had based their "medical model of homosexuality."

Graves:

The Freudian theory that the 'Oedipus complex' is an instinct common to all men was suggested by this perverted anecdote [the tale of Oedipus, who by accident murders his father and marries his mother]; and while Plutarch records (On Isis and Osiris 32) that the hippopotamus "murdered his sire and forced his dam", he would never have suggested that every man had a hippopotamus complex.

I then asked Yury, why would Plutarch not have suggested that?

Yury's response, as is typical of Yury, was very intelligent, but in this case more than I wanted.

Yury said:

I think Plutarch would "never have suggested that every man had a hippopotamus complex" because it would be an illogical leap and generalization from an 'isolated incident' in 'nature' or 'art' to all of 'mankind'. So while Freud's culture could grow to support his fanciful constructs built upon selective readings of myth, literature, life, and people's suffering; the structure of Plutarch's culture did not influence him or others to make such a blind supposition.

And Yury's response is fine -- more than fine.

The answer I was looking for, however, was simply that in Plutarch's culture and time same-sex affection, intimacy, sex, and love were so commonplace, so ordinary and unremarkable, that no one sought to explain them.

Again: Such behaviors were part of the warp and woof of ancient culture, so common that they didn't merit an explanation.

And of course such same-sex behaviors had, at least for men, divine sanction and approval: Zeus, Poseidon, and Apollo -- the three most important male gods -- all had boyfriends -- as had lesser deities like Herakles.

So this was not something which needed explanation.

Now, ancient authors did commonly debate the merits of same-sex vs opposite-sex love, and same-sex love, as we've seen, via Boswell, usually won the debate:

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

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, Same-Sex Unions in PreModern Europe, 74.

Of course, it wasn't just that same-sex lovers were more faithful;

they were also seen as being more MARTIAL -- more War-Like -- having more Fighting Spirit -- attributes which mattered mightily to MEN -- and Women too -- in the ancient world.

Here's more Boswell -- and yes, I repeat this material a lot because I want it to sink so deeply into your skulls that it becomes reflexive for the way you think of same-sex, Manly, Love:

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.

Boswell 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

So -- our present-day insistence that same-sex love is in some way deviant -- and make no mistake, the idea of sexual orientation carries within it the notion of deviancy --

sexual orientation is, as I often say, "homosexuality's evil twin" --

our present notion that same-sex love is deviant is WRONG.

It was not shared by the founders of the Western world, it's not seen among other animals, who, to quote one authority, "don't do sexual identity, they just do sex" --

and over time, there will be another PARADIGM SHIFT -- and the idea of sexual orientation will disappear.

As will the primacy of anal, which is a heterosexualized model of sex between males.

So: over time, both the idea of sexual orientation and the primacy of anal -- will inevitably disappear.

It's our task to help that process along.

As Yury said:

FROT is Fortifying, Real, One-on-one, and True. While our society is in a state and stage of transition, we have an opportunity to break free from the evils of analism, heterosexism, and hypocrisy. Of course this would be a hero's journey which would require much courage, sacrifice, and self-discovery. It would be a profound rite of passage for both the individual and the group, our civilization and its members. Yet it would also be necessary so that people don't repeat the same scripts and hear the same messages over and over again.

Yury's right.

"We have an opportunity to break free from the evils of analism, heterosexism, and hypocrisy."

That's correct.

That opportunity has always been before us, but Yury's correct that society's current "state and stage of transition" affords us a particular opportunity.

Such a breaking-free, says Yury, will "be a hero's journey which would require much courage, sacrifice, and self-discovery."

Once again, this will be a Hero's journey, in which --

"Courage and Sacrifice" are required.

That too is right.

In his last reply to Frot & Army, Alliance Warrior and former Soviet soldier Viktor Marchenko said

Men in West need to tough up and am not afraid to say this! There is too much comfort in Western world. Maybe need hard times to make men in West less comfortable. Maybe would be good thing and make men in West change to be better all over. Am not saying this to be asshole or mean. Am saying this for own good to Western men. Look at men of Roman Empire! Roman men came to have too much comfort and they became weak and fearful and not full of courage. Romans had to recruit foreign men for army to defend Empire because Roman men were too comfortable and would not do this. They grew weak and afraid and SAME thing is happening in West to men! In end Romans lost everything and will be same in West if nothing changes soon.

Viktor says, "In end Romans lost everything and will be same in West if nothing changes soon."

Fact is, while most of you still have your creature-comforts -- as Men -- you've *already* LOST EVERYTHING.

You can't LIVE as you wish and you can't LOVE as you wish.

You may have a wide-screen TV and an SUV -- and multiple pairs of Nikes too.

But you CANNOT LIVE LIKE A MAN.

In that regard, you're more enslaved -- and in your own mind too -- than the lowest ancient slave.

And your creature comforts, and your fear of losing them, which the present economic crisis has heightened almost beyond belief -- are what control your lives.

You are NOT men.

At best you're males and enslaved males at that.

Yury:

this would be a hero's journey which would require much courage, sacrifice, and self-discovery.

"courage, sacrifice, and self-discovery" -- all three frighten you.

Until you defeat your fear -- you'll not be men.

Won't happen.

Yury:

It would be a profound rite of passage for both the individual and the group, our civilization and its members. ... necessary so that people don't repeat the same scripts and hear the same messages over and over again.

Right -- and extremely well-said.

It's a profound and *necessary* rite of passage which you could begin today.

If you only had the balls.

Well, use em or lose em.

You'll either find your courage and use it -- or you'll have no courage left to use.

Right now, Courage calls upon you to Donate.

Why?

Because of the economic crisis, donations have all but vanished.

Why?

Because you're scared -- you're frightened -- you think you might lose everything.

I have news for you, and like I just said -- you've ALREADY lost everything.

That you don't donate tells me just how profound your loss has been.

The one thing you haven't lost is your cowardice.

That's not surprising, since, as Viktor points out, your cowardice is being propped up and supported by your comfort.

Nevertheless, your cowardice in the face of this emergency is not lost -- upon me.

Find your courage -- look high and low for it and don't stop till you've found it -- and Donate.

If you don't, it'll tell me all I need to know -- about you.

Donate.

Begin your own voyage of "courage, sacrifice, and self-discovery" --

And help make possible, as Yury says, this "profound rite of passage for both the individual and the group, our civilization and its members. ... necessary so that people don't repeat the same scripts and hear the same messages over and over again."

Those scripts and those messages are, among other things, analist -- "if it's not anal it's not really gay" -- and heterosexist -- "real men don't love other men."

Those two stupid scripts and inane messages, whether you understand it or not, are KILLING YOU.

They're stupid, they're inane, they're childish, they're dumb --

but because you won't raise a hand or your voice against them --

they're DEADLY.

They are ruling your lives, they are running your lives, they are ruining your lives, and they are KILLING YOU.

What you gonna do bro?

Same old same old?

Keep that up, and before you know it -- you'll be DEAD.

And you'll deserve it --

because you weren't willing to LIVE.

FIGHT BACK.

While you still can.

Thank you Yury -- and Viktor.

True Warriors.

Bill Weintraub

March 30, 2009

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

Brian Hulme

Re: FROT Vs. fraud

4-8-2009

I agree with Yury. We must grasp the opportunity to break free from the evils of analism, heterosexism, and hypocrisy, and he is also right it will take heroes to do it.

In the 1960's Women found heroines to Liberate themselves from the social injustices present.

In the 1970's Gay-identified Men and Lesbians found the heroes and heroines to Liberate themselves from what they felt were the social injustices of the time.

Are we ready for MAN's Lib?

Masculine And Normal, Liberated, from society's restraints.

(Because he is a true Warrior)

Love

Brian

Michael Plante

Re: FROT Vs. fraud

4-15-09

A fine post, Yury, and very telling, as usual.

You know, it always surprises me just how many excuses people, especially so-called experts, will make to deny reality; especially when it comes to same sex relationships. Instead of accepting the fact that it is a natural phenomenon no more strange than an attraction to the opposite sex, they just hide behind a thin veil of excuses and bogus, out-dated research. "oh, you're attracted to your own sex because your father never hugged you as a child," "you're attracted to your own sex because you're mother was strong and smothering," "you're attracted to your oen sex because there was no one around of the opposite sex," that's just a small list, but you get the idea.

So many excuses, and not just for human same sex attraction, but also for animal same sex attraction. "Oh, those goats are mounting each other as a display of dominance," "That Bison mounted the other one because he was confused," again, another small list, but you get the idea. Of course, this kind of thinking stems from the belief that animals are little more than breeding machines. They exist only to eat, sleep and fuck, and they obey the law of nature, the survival of the fittest. Of course, anyone with even an inkling of true understanding about the animal kingdom knows it is far more complex then that. Animals, just like us humans, do not fit neatly into the ideal of survival of the fittest. They tend to do some things that seem counter intuitive, at least from a human perspective, to the whole notion of evolutionism. That's what drives researchers crazy about same sex pairings in the wild, they have no idea why they would do it, because it doesn't fit into their neat little evolutionist category. Frankly, I'm no expert, but as far as I can tell, same sex attraction in the animal kingdom seems to function for the same reasons human same sex attraction occurs; to strengthen bonds and insure a stronger animal society as a result, and, it's just nice to have someone of the same sex you know you can be intimate with.

The one thing I never hear these so-called experts say, and the one thing I am dying for them, and everyone else on the planet, to say is that, "you are attracted to your own sex because it is perfectly natural for you to be attracted to your own sex," and that you should "embrace this value with all your heart and soul." That's what I want to hear; no more excuses, no more lies, just the plain, simple and liberating truth.

Again, great post Yury, it's nice to hear from such an insightful young man and warrior.

Viktor Marchenko

Re: FROT Vs. fraud

5-26-09

Yury your post is great! I agree with you. Our whole society is based on fraud now. I think fraud also mean "fake" and much in society now is FAKE! Many people now try to be something they are not and society also tries to be something it is not. Have heard some people claim we live in world of "maya" (illusion) but I think it closer to fact we live in world of fraud (fakery). But I also agree with you that it also mean "sneaky" and you are right! Being sneaky and fake promote destructive elements promote cowardice, inertia, entropy, decay, violence, and fatal passivity.

When comes to psychiatrists, must keep in mind that the majority of psychology is THEORY. Theory is a GUESS and mainly an "educated guess." (maybe or perhaps not LOL). The world has many theories but seems to have FEW FACTS. All people have same sex feeling only they try to deny and hide them. Most people are bisexual and they try to hide and deny that in themselves too. This is not good thing! I do not put much faith in these shrinks because they have few fact and a bag of theories (guesses). I take what they say with grain of salt.

The Bible does teach love of man for man and even gives stories of men having frot. Look at story of King David and Jonathan, the son of King Saul. Bible says they laid in field together and "knew eachother." In Bible the words "knew eachother" is way of saying they had sexual contact! Theologians will admit this to you but they stay silent about this because they don't want to make controversy. Why do they not just speak the truth instead of claiming a lie and deception? Because they too are fakes and sneaks!

Yury I am agree with you! We have chance for great change right now! We have chance to break away from all hypocrisy we have today. Society not only fake but also full of hypocrisy today too! Yes, yes it would be a hero's journey and that is what each of us here MUST be...HEROES!! We must be full of courage, willing to sacrifice, and put ourselves on a journey of self discovery. We must look MORE within ourselves and not so much outside of ourselves. Society will not like this! Society wants us to look outside ourselves for everything BUT we need to look more INSIDE ourselves.

You are right! It is all like blind leading blind today! And the blind are leading all the rest of us off into abyss! We must wake up, FIGHT BACK! We must NOT follow the blind off into abyss!

Yury you say:

Of course most men know that most men have sex with men in secret, and it's "fraud" or naivete to say otherwise. That highly-paid psychologist I spoke to several years ago mentioned a 'butch' police officer he knew who was "gay-identified", and how that challenged his preconceptions or stereotypes or whatever. What a revelation! Men who are attracted to men can be masculine. Yet it shouldn't be news to anyone. To quote Gore Vidal, from his 1981 essay Pink Triangle and Yellow Star, "Most male same-sexers are laborers, farmers, mechanics, small businessmen, schoolteachers, firemen, policemen, soldiers, sailors...In other words, they are like the rest of the population..." And of course, most of them are 'bisexual', like the majority of the population as well.

This is also true and like you say it is naivete to say otherwise. Most men DO have sex with other men in secret. Militaries are proof of this! It is common thing for soldier to be with other soldier only no one talks about it. But everyone knows it is so and that soldier to soldier sex goes on. Vidal is also right. Most male same sexers are masculine men just like rest of people.

Yury you say:

Nature intends that men love each other, so masculine-identified men, regardless of their family background, will be the first to seek that love out in their lives. Yet the "fraud" that is perpetuated by our society seeks to silence Men and keep them shackled and tormented in their fear, which is propped up by sterile ideologies and lies. These ideologies place fervent emphasis on almost everything other than natural masculinity and Men Loving Men. Ideologies like analism, transgenderism, heterosexism, and gender feminism have contaminated our society and many of our institutions to a great degree. That's why they need to be challenged.

Nature DOES intend for men to love each other and so does teachings of Bible and Christ! This brotherly, man to man love is what is talked about, taught, and ENCOURAGED! Jesus had plenty of opportunity to condemn M2M sex frot BUT he did NOT! Think about that. Why did he not? Because frot is natural and even Jesus the Christ knew that!!

Yes society has men shackled and keeps us tormented with fear and terrorizes us with all it's sterile ideologies and LIES. And society is full of LIES today! We need not only to be challenged but to come together and FIGHT! We need to break shackles of fear and break through all lies of society! We each must be not only noble warrior but FIGHTING SOLDIERS too! WE are the ones who MUST change society!!

Your posting is very excellent Yury! Will look forwards to reading more in future.

Viktor