Bill Weintraub

Bill Weintraub



I've recently been in correspondence with a man who lives in another country, a "third-world" country in which much of the traditional culture is still in place.

He's an interesting and provocative thinker.

First of all, he believes, as we do, that Masculinity is biological -- not cultural.

But he then divides men into two groups.

Not "gay" and "straight," for these are labels, which like us, he understands to be false.

But into masculine-identified men and feminine-identified men.

He says that in his culture, and that throughout history, it's been the norm for masculine-identified men to have sex with other masculine-identified men.

Let's repeat that :

It's the NORM for MASCULINE MEN to have sex with other MASCULINE MEN.

Indeed, it's the norm and has been the norm not just for these men to have sex, but for these men to spend most of their time together.

For example, I said to my foreign friend that in the Alliance we believe that traditionally, cross-culturally, and historically, it has been normal and natural for masculine men to love other masculine men.

His response :

I'd say, it's rather been the norm. Even today in societies where same-sex relationships are tolerated as long as men get married and produce children (e.g. parts of Afghanistan) men tend to prefer other men for sexual bonding, while sex with women is treated more for procreation. In Afghanistan there is an old proverb among the macho pathans that "men are for pleasure and women are for procreation". This is exactly what the ancient Greeks believed.

So it seems men become heterosexuals only because of social pressures and conditioning. That would explain the intense pressures in the western societies to be heterosexual.

What does he mean by that ?

"Men become heterosexuals"

Does he mean that men are born with no innate sexual desire for women ?


What he means is that masculine-identified men become EXCLUSIVELY heterosexual only because "of social pressures and conditioning."

So, he argues, human beings have undergone a process of forced "heterosexualization."

Which is not normal :

If you look at mammals as a species in the wild, you will find that there is only sex for procreation --- which by itself does not characterise heterosexuality. Most mammalian males if they mate, do it only a few times in their lives. And a big segment does not mate at all.

And there is no bonding with females at all --- well barring a few exceptions (1%).

Male-female mating is extremely short --- sometimes as short as a few seconds. After which the male and female depart abruptly without as much as a 'goodbye' or a parting kiss --- which are characteristic of masculine behaviour in the west. The male and female usually never see each other again. I wouldn't call that heterosexuality.

And then, there is no evidence of a presence of sexual repulsion towards other males --- even in the few males who do develop what can be remotely termed as a bond with females.

On the contrary, latest research (by the likes of Bruce Bagemihl) reveal that male-male sex is a near universal concept amongst mammalian males (from 90% in some species to 100%).

Stallions Nuzzling

In other words there is no heterosexuality in nature. At least not in mammals. There is some heterosexuality in some other species --- like in birds and insects (where it seems to be the norm if we are to believe the fruitfly study!), but humans are mammals not insects.

Again, when he says "there is no heterosexuality in nature," he doesn't mean that there's no "heterosexual" -- that is, male-female -- sex.

Or "heterosexual" desire.

He means that among mammals, the sort of exclusive heterosexuality which is the ideal in present-day Western culture is an anomaly.


What my correspondent maintains is that over the last 300 years, there has been a progressive heterosexualization, which is unprecedented in human history :

If there is no heterosexual society there would be no homosexuals. And no heterosexuals either. Male-male sex is isolated only because in the western society, its spaces and its customs are completely heterosexualised (i.e. made mixed gender with pressures to be heterosexual). But heterosexual spaces are themselves unnatural --- and it was only through financial and technological power brought by industrialisation that the western society could create such an artificial unnatural heterosexual environment.

"An artificial unnatural heterosexual environment."

Is he right?

I think he is.

In the message thread titled THE FALLACY OF THE FEMININE I gave this example of a warrior culture facing the challenges of AIDS in northeast Uganda :

The Karamajong cattle herders traditionally interacted little with communities outside their region. Sexual promiscuity was unheard of: girls remained virgins until marriage; warriors, though polygamous, stayed within the bounds of marriage; HIV/AIDS was kept at bay.

Drought and hunger are recurring features of life on the semi-arid grassland of Karamoja. Competition for water and pasture to feed the herds, regarded as a source of wealth and status, have produced a culture of raiding and warfare in which men are noted for their bravery and social standing.

That's a typical warrior society.

And we need to understand that the people we think of as the Greeks and the Romans -- people like Socrates and Plato and Cicero and Julius Caesar -- were no more than three or four centuries removed from living the way the Karamajong do.

For example, I've talked about the mythic Greek and Roman culture heroes Castor and Pollux -- Spartan fraternal twins whose mutual devotion was legendary.

Castor was killed by two other heroes, Idas and Lynceus, during a cattle raid.

And then Pollux -- Polydeukes in Greek -- and his father Zeus -- took revenge on Idas and Lynceus for the death of Castor.

Heroes rustling cattle?


Here's a picture of the Athenian culture hero Theseus capturing a bull.

Theseus and the Bull of Marathon.
Notice how prominent the genitals are on both Theseus and the Bull.

The Karamajong, according to allafrica dot com, "have produced a culture of raiding and warfare in which men are noted for their bravery and social standing."

Men gain status by stealing cattle.

And of course by warding off thieves.

And that sort of cattle raid is apparently still common among the Karamajong.

Notice that the Karamajong are not promiscuous, and that they have a warrior society in which men and boys spend most of their time together.

How do I know that ?

Because the girls are virgins at marriage -- which means they're being kept separate from the adolescent boys.

Who of course are overflowing with testosterone and are spending all their time together learning how to be warriors and sometimes going on raids.

Under such circumstances, these masculine-identified males will naturally form sexual bonds.

Clearly such patterns persisted among the Greeks and the Romans, even as they ceased being pastoralists and became farmers and city-dwellers.

Their societies became, arguably, more sophisticated and more complex than that of people like the Karamajong.

But men still spent most of their time with men.

What's striking about both the Greeks and the Romans is the identification of the homosocial with masculine and the heterosocial with feminine.

That is, both the Greek and the Romans viewed men who spent most of their time with men as masculine and "hard" -- which they meant in a good sense.

Whereas, men who spent too much time with women became "soft."

The Roman word is "mollis," and by that they meant soft and specifically *effeminate* : unmanly, unwarlike, and unfit to rule.

So we can think of Greek and Roman society as having been only very partially "heterosexualized" -- if at all.

That ancient and magnificent world collapsed under the strain of two events :

Repeated invasions of barbarians from what is now eastern Europe and Russia ; and

The explosion of Islam out of Arabia.

The northern barbarians conquered Romanized Western Europe.

And then the Arabs cut the Mediterranean world in two.

That was 15 centuries ago.

What happened in the interval?

Sts. Serge and Bacchus, same-sex lovers

Well, John Boswell, who was chair of the history department at Yale until his death from AIDS in 1995, argued that for the first thousand years or so of Christianity in Europe, the church still honored and celebrated, as the Greeks and Romans had, "same-sex unions."

He wrote a very erudite book, titled Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, full of citations from Greek and Latin and medieval languages, to back up his claim.

And then he died.

His book was attacked by the "gay" left, which at the time didn't support "gay" marriage and which was suspicious of anything connected to Christianity or the church.

But I suspect he was right.

Because significant segments of society would not yet have been "heteroseuxalized."

And the old patterns found among the Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Teutons, etc., and the Arabs, whose society was very homosocial, would have persisted.

Heteroseuxalization came much later.

Because heterosexualization was dependent upon changes wrought by the industrial revolution.

If my correspondent is correct, I and every other Western man born in the 20th century have lived our lives under an enormous lie.

Let me repeat that :

If my correspondent is correct, I and every other Western man born in the 20th century -- not just every "gay" man but every "straight" man too -- have lived our lives under an enormous lie.

The fact of the matter is that 'straight' actually means 'masculine'. It is only that the west has for long propagated 'heterosexuality' as masculine, so that today it is seen as being synonymous with 'straight'.

Again, the real meaning of 'queer' is feminine, although it is used interchangeably for 'gay'.

You should also know that the word 'homosexual' and later 'gay' was originally used for feminine-identified males who were believed to be feminine on account of their desire for men.

That's correct.

What does that mean for me -- and a lot of other Masculine-identified Men who Love Men ?

Throughout my life I've identified as Masculine.

And as a Warrior.

And throughout my life I've been told that I couldn't be Masculine -- or a Warrior -- because I'm "gay."

Suppose that's a lie.

Not just in the sense that "gay males can't be masculine."

But in the much larger sense which my correspondent has suggested.

That "straight" actually means not heterosexual -- but MASCULINE.

In which case I'm straight.

Not "gay."

Because EVERY masculine-identified man is -- straight.

Regardless of his sexual desires.

The divider is not exclusive desire for women or for men -- which does not exist -- but masculinity or effeminacy.

And masculine men in general have been cut off from their same-sex needs and desires by an enforced heterosexualization of society, which pressures many of them to say "yes" to a girl when they'd rather say "no" ; and "no" to a boy when they'd rather say "yes."

Throughout adolescence, young adulthood, and even as I got older, I had intense friendships with straight-identified guys where I was sure I could feel a sexual longing from them.

I put that down to wishful thinking.

After I met Patrick I knew that wasn't true.

Because he validated for me what virtually no other straight-identified guy would do.

He admitted that all the time he'd been fucking women, he'd also wanted to rub cocks with another guy.


30 years.

And then we put our hard cocks together and rubbed.

And I knew he'd told me the truth.

Patrick's unusual for a "straight-identified" guy, not because he likes to rub cocks, but because he's HONEST about it.

And in so being, he's defied "heterosexualization."

My correspondent tells an interesting story about horses -- specifically stallions.

He says that stallions bond -- naturally.

And that once they're bonded, they become extremely difficult to control.

Wild Stallions

So that the people who use horses in his country as working animals prevent such bonds from forming.

Instead, they pair male and female horses, and in effect force them to become a couple.

I have already mentioned that male-male bonds are considered a menace and the trainers prevent male horses from developing intimacy by not putting them together. Sex between males in horses is a well known fact (a horse breeding site also talks about this). But it is the way they are forced to bond with female horses which is more telling.

When they put the male horses for the first time with a female -- the horses react extremely negatively, even in an hostile manner. In the case I'm describing, the male horse had not eaten for a week when forced with the female. He must have been still young. I don't know if he had a male buddy before that. Then slowly he learned to adjust with the female. He had no other option, plus they trained him through rewards and punishments. And finally, he developed an intimacy with the female so much so that today he is inseparable with the female.

Isn't it how they treat humans? Does it tell us anything about human [exclusive] heterosexuality and how is it made possible? Doesn't the society use various mechanisms to psychologically keep men away from men sexually so as to keep them from forming intimacy?

Doesn't the society punish and reward men in order to train them to bond with women? And then claim that heterosexuality is natural / normal?

Is that what society does ?

Remember, my correspondent is not saying that men don't desire women.

He's saying that EXCLUSIVE heterosexuality among masculine-identified males must be culturally constructed.

That left to their own devices, men will form strong sexual and social bonds with other men.

And that such bonds will not interfere with their ability to marry women and have children.

Which we know to be true both historically and from our own experience.

What about the status of men in a heterosexualized society?

And what about the status of "gay men" in such a society?

The heterosexual society cares only for women. It sees men only as a problematic group that comes in the way of what is called women's rights.

Gay men are one of the most ardent supporters of heterosexualisation. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated/ negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

Gay men (when I say gay men I mean effeminized and anally-receptive males and those who penetrate them) derive immense power from the heterosexual society. In fact they owe the heterosexual society their existence.

Again, my correspondent's analysis makes sense to me.

Women and feminine-identified gay males form a natural alliance -- whose purpose is to contain and indeed injure masculine-identified men and their masculinity.

I originally titled this post "saying no when you want to say yes."

What can we do to help straight-identified men in this heterosexualized culture to stop saying NO to other men when they want to say YES?

And what can we do to stop gay-identified masculine men saying yes to anal when they want to say no?

This is what I told my correspondent :

We can tell our fellow masculine-identified men that they can relate sexually to their fellows without any surrender of their masculinity or manhood.

And we can use these sorts of slogans and arguments :

"What MAN doesn't want his Masculinity heightened and his Manhood honored?

ALL MEN seek an increase in Masculinity.

ALL MEN desire an honoring of Manhood.

These are UNIVERSALS among MEN."

How is Masculinity heightened and Manhood honored?

Through Man2Man sex, specifically through Phallus to Phallus sex.

Man + Man = MORE Manliness

Phallus + Phallus = MORE Manhood

In our experience, that explanation is EXTREMELY powerful for men.

They respond to it.

And we emphasize that Man2Man sex honors Man2Man aggression.

We emphasize the combative, though affiliative, aspect of phallus to phallus, expressed through what we call natural male sex aggression.

My correspondent said to me:

"I admire your fighting spirit which is the hallmark of masculinity."


Fighting and Masculinity are intertwined.

Moreover, Men enjoy Fighting.

And they don't have to fight to the death.

There are playful forms of fighting and wrestling among men, as well as the more formal training in combat sports like wrestling, boxing, and martial arts, which satisfy their need for aggression and raise their testosterone and adrenaline levels.

Fighting gives them a rush.

And it excites them erotically as well.

Men like to fight.

Men who've not learned to fight may be fearful of fighting.

But once they've learned -- that fear vanishes.

It's what Naked Wrestler has said:

Finally, and understanding that connection, we work to return to men this word :

And what we have learned, is that Men respond to that one word like nothing else on earth.

In certain respects, Warrior is more important to men than husband or father.

We all know that men bond during war.

We know that very often men who've been through battle will say that they loved their fellow soldiers more than their family.

This is such a universal of male experience that it has to be rooted in biology.

Human males, like chimpanzee males, BOND to ward off and defeat groups of other males.

To kill them if need be and gain resources and reproductive advantage.

That's why that word "Warrior" has such power.

Men want to be WARRIORS because biologically it speaks to their genetic success.

And because sociobiologically it fulfills their NEED to BOND with their fellow MEN.

Their fellow WARRIORS.

Spartan Hoplites



I know what our guys care about.

And it's not complicated.

They hate effeminacy.

They love Masculinity.

They want to be WARRIORS.

For there can no question of the power of the Warrior archetype.

Men respond to it.

As one of our true Warriors said to me:

"Right now m2m is the 'other' to both the straight and gay cultures. Masculine men, however, can defeat effeminacy. Getting men to remember and to reconnect with the value of the warrior will be their salvation."

He's right.

I've said that The Way of the WARRIOR is the Way of SALVATION.

That's the Truth.

I thank my correspondent and all the guys who over the years, have helped me see and stay true -- to that TRUTH.

Additional recommended reading :

Sex Between Men : An Activity, Not A Condition

Includes an in-depth discussion of heterosexualization.

Natural Masculinity and Phallic Bonding

In which my foreign friend makes these points :

If a positive social environment is denied to a man, or if it is hostile, the natural masculinity will not grow to its full potential. Rather it could be seriously throttled or suppressed.

Masculine male groups and bonds play an extremely important role in the development of physical, mental, emotional and social aspects of natural masculinity. As such they are an important part of the positive environment that all masculine identified boys should have. An otherwise masculine identified man who is deprived of membership in a masculine male group / bond during his growing years will be less than 1/4th naturally masculine than if he had such an opportunity. Masculine identified boys have a natural tendency to seek to join male-only groups, and it's their natural right.

The masculinity of men flows from their group. It's like their natural masculinity combines and gets manifold when masculine identified men unite. The camaraderie, mutual understanding, support, playing together, learning the ways of the world as a male, dealing with roughs and toughs of life together --- they all help to develop the natural masculinity that exists within him.

. . .

An intimate sexual relationship between two masculine men is equally helpful for the mutual development of their natural masculinity.

The social classification of "sexual orientation" which is actually a social mechanism to isolate male-male sexual behavior from heterosexual spaces and group it with the third sex under a combined 'homosexual' label, takes away this much needed right from a masculine identified boy who is strongly in touch with his same-sex feelings.

The heterosexual society has artificially engineered such a strong hostility for same-sex desires in the straight space that such a boy will automatically psychologically keep out of this group. He may linger on the margins of this space by hiding and suppressing his feelings, which is very stressful.

Thus, in effect, he will not get the chance to hang around with the guys as an 'equal', to play sports with them, to grow with them like normal boys should. Thus he will not know how to relate with masculine men --- or how to relate with others as a masculine man. He will have an underdeveloped masculinity --- something which in nature he is entitled to.

Bill Weintraub :

This is absolutely true; and it's what Naked Wrestler refers to as the "fag sports thing":

Teenaged boys who are masculine and want to participate in sports, but who are "strongly in touch with their same-sex feelings," hang back from participation for fear that an erection will give them away and expose them as "gay."

In reality, teenagers get erections all the time, and guys understand that.

But to a kid who has strong same-sex feelings, the erection seems like a potential betrayer, and so he hides and suppresses his feelings.

And very often isolates himself from other masculine males.

Not good.

My foreign friend :

Just like association with masculine identified males is essential for a masculine identified male, and enhances his natural masculinity several times, association with feminized males can seriously deplete his natural masculinity, even pave the way for an unnatural development and effeminacy.

Thus when a masculine identified young man associates himself with the gay group --- psychologically made to believe he is one of them --- he will find himself a misfit in the strongly third-sex gay culture. But since there is no other social space for him, he will force himself to relate with the gays.

The entire experience will subdue his natural masculinity and make him more effeminate. Although he will still be 'macho', compared to the anally-receptive pathics.

Bill Weintraub

July 14, 2006

Updated :

December 30, 2017

March 11, 2023

© All material Copyright 1997 - 2023 by Bill Weintraub.
All rights reserved.