Many guys who discover this website have a basic question that they've had
for a long time: "How come I like some guys so much?". It seems a
dilemma in a society so terrified of "homos". After all - "homo"
has historically been a term that is the
king of the insults - so having same gender affections must be a grave
weakness & character flaw, right? Actually - it's a completely normal
response to deepening male/male bonding impulses. Denying the
WIDESPREAD NATURE of these feelings is a giant social deception! And
WIDESPREAD NATURE of these feelings is a giant social deception! And
did I mention that: "Denying the
WIDESPREAD NATURE of these feelings is a giant social deception."?
Why repeat myself? It's because most guys have been brainwashed over a
it out on this chart:
To repeat: The astonishing irony is that most guys experience same gender affections toward certain other guys. Did I say "most"? I actually meant, "MOST".
If you subtract 38% (the percentage reporting themselves as totally straight) from 100%, - you find that you are left with 62%. Last time I checked, 62% was not a minority. So then: almost 2/3rds of everyone who may hurl the "fag" slur is doing it as camouflage! How's that for a mind job?!
The real question I think most people should ask is why everybody isn't selectively "Bi".
Men experiencing love with men (IS) the general condition of being a guy -- not the exception. Boys often have male heroes. They don't desire to be conquered or dominated by their male hero, -- but to BOND with their heroes; - to become great friends with a "connection".
A man who is comfortable with his own body and not put-off by a healthy male physique usually discovers by the age of 13 that prolonged physical contact with his buddies can produce a good feeling (empathetic/sexual response). This response is the majority male reaction to close contact with either gender; -- & men who follow thru with the natural inclinations with their peers end up bonding very tightly to the guys whom they respect, admire & appreciate the physical attributes of. The innate desire to bond with strong role-model peers & be in sync with the most masculine guys is a natural bonding attribute of being male. It is a natural part of being a guy and the guys who don't experience this to some degree are outside of the statistical norm!
The fact is: Men seek to bond physically with men. It has always been. It will always be. How does this bonding manifest? Sexually - (whether acted on or suppressed). This is the reason why it's so important for guys to have role models with honest, empathetic & gentle emotional centers. Natural sexual response to other guys is one way this manifests itself -- and the bonding that takes place is intimate & rarely spoken openly about. It does not naturally involve AnalSex and most of these very same men find that notion to be repulsive. And rightly so.
The masculinity-debasing "gay spectre" has caused many men to be more discrete than ever. Men of good conscience (who would never bitch-a bro) do not want to be associated with the arse-phukk crowd. And (to add more confusion), -- guys outside of the peer group are generally clueless as to what goes on within it. And those within it aren't talking. So, are they hypocrites? Why not just announce their "gayness" to the world? Because they're not "gay". These guys REJECT the fundamental stereotypes, spectacles & stigmas that society overall associates with the word "gay". The "gay" community continually & loudly associates itself with the intersexed & transexuals (GLIT is the acronym). And the "gay" community is on a quest to debase masculinity by putting men in skinny-jeans, and high-heels. This is self evident at ANY ANY ANY event hosted by the so-called "GAY" community. Most men of good conscience find those traits to range from distasteful to absolutely morally-repugnant.
Effeminate or sissy guys are often excluded from the bonding that occurs within groups of "tough guys" -- so while a "sissy boy" with male/male attractions is led to believe that he's part of some "minority" -- the fact is that the number of guys rubbing cocks is far greater than sissy-boy is clued into. Sissy boy is excluded from group activities - not because he's into guys ... but because he's a "spineless bitch-be". His lack of social-balls excludes him from rubbing his with other guys. And so he joins the "gay-support-club" & decries the "homophobia" of the "jocks" (absolutely & ironically clueless as to what lots of the jocks do in private with other jocks)!
The fact is: Most jocks aren't homophobic. They're "freak-o-phobic"; --And "gay-little Colon" wagging his "penetrated gay'd colon" in everyone's face represents the reason WHY the jocks don't welcome his type. And society generally doesn't perceive the dynamic -- and women simply don't understand the masculine-mindset at all. And, since "little-gay-Colon" is welcome to hang out with the girlths; --Their collective bitchy-voices resonate through society denouncing the homophobia & hypocrisy of all the "jock-o men" who reject 'little-twisted-gay-Colon" because he's really a "nice person" (even though he's part of a group bent of debasing masculinity & dipping it in disrespect & a flood of diseases).
There IS something seriously wrong with "twisted-little-gay-Colon". It's not that he likes guys. It's because he's a freak. And - political-correctness be screwed: Everyone knows that "twisted little Colon" is fukk'd-up! He failed masculinity 101 and has morphed -what should have been the general-androgenizing effects of testosterone -- into a faux-femininity & an endless series of passive-aggressive personality spikes that make such a "man" into a vindictive, irrational bitch'be: A 24/7/365 case of self-aggrandizing, flamboyantly-faux-feminine PMS. And he wonders why "the guys" don't want to hang out with him!
Meanwhile - in the core group of guys - there are various levels of sexual expression going on all the time. Everything from story telling (accounts of the hott date) to "circle jerks" to 1-on-1 cock-rubs when privacy allows it. Group dynamics often vary based on who the leader-type personalities are & how close their ideals match the unspoken needs of the group. If the group leaders ignore/dismiss sexual needs among the guys -- then a 2nd layer of bonding happens and the main group often is oblivious to the hookups occurring in private between buddies. These dynamics are reasons why men who occupied different social strata within a group of guys have vastly different perceptions about group interactions. However - the facts are that over 33% of the guys are interacting sexually with other guys regularly. And amazingly - almost everyone pretends like such things would NEVER HAPPEN (which is precisely what guys not part of such a core group -believe)!
It's a mind job built on misinformation and the fear of admitting the truth is the fear of being associated with the sissy ... the girlie-boy ... twisted-little-gay-Colon (due to modern social broadcasts)! And over the last 30 years -- this fear of association with any social force that would effeminize masculinity has escalated to levels that threaten the fabric of young men's socializations practices. After all -- when peer-empathy, tenderness & physical affection become the signals of the "queer", - what is left for men to build interpersonal relationships on? Violence.
The universal truth & the universal unspoken need of virtually every guy entering puberty is to be able to get close & cuddle with the buddy of choice. They want the wrestling match to turn tender. There - male aggression is privately mutated into male tenderness & shared intimacy. It's often the very-core of the most extreme friendships. Men who cannot relate to these feelings are among a MINORITY of men. The statistics are clear & well established since the late 1940's with the publication of Kinsey's research.
Of course - anecdotes - no matter how true they happen to be - always raise
the eyebrows of certain skeptics. Well -- let's filter the critics.
First -- discredit all women. They have ZER0 experience with male
sexuality from our perspective. What do you care what a woman thinks about how
men experience sexual motivation? Tell aunt Tillie to go to hell.
From what I can tell: Woman constitute about 51% of the perceptual problem
about bringing up boys.
So why is modern society so "phuckingly inconsistent" with the use of terminology. I believe it's ignorance from extremely poor public education systems at large. Sexuality is commonly broken into (2) or (3) classifications: Straight, Bi & Gay. However, it is common to see behavior that is CLEARLY BIsexual to be labeled as "GAY". WTF! BrokeBack Mountain is but one example of this gross misapplication of terminology.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to understand any principle where the defining language is inconsistent, uncertain or "slang based"; -- Which is precisely why sexuality is such an incomprehensible mental-clusterphuck. So, let's eliminate the modern attempts to define it in (3) bullshit categories; -- & then return to a time when there was NO MYSTERY: 3000 years ago in Greece.
In ancient Greece it was common knowledge that "almost everyone" drooled over the thought of doing the naked nuzzle with a virile Greek buddy. It was also common knowledge that most of these same guys - who wanted to hook up with their hott Greek buddies were generally presumed to want to hook up with hott Greek women eventually. In other words: If you were male -- everyone presumed that BIsexuality was the rule (because it was ... and still IS).
However, there were men who - for whatever reasons of nature/nurture were either SOLELY fixated on women -OR- on men alone. The latter group - were considered eunuchs (born that way). What set them apart was their lack of having any desire for women (not because they desired men -- because almost all men loved men). However, an "intact' eunuch could function with social-pride within Greek Culture -because externally -- there was no visible difference between a eunuch or any other guy. And so (to cite a Hebrew story) - Potterphar rises to the head of the temple guard; -- An example of eunuchs in high places trusted with lofty matters. Often - such men would marry - but only for appearance's sake. As Emperor Justinian said: "When a eunuch takes a wife - a satire is not difficult to imagine". The "CLOSET", was not for men who loved men; -- but for men who did not love women! (Are we thinking yet?)
there was another attribute that was often associated with certain eunuchs:
Over-the-top, effeminate behavior - even to the point where such men feigned
being women (offering their arses to take the place of proper female anatomy).
In Greece (as in many other cultures) - analsex was grossly illegal. These
eunuchs - a group of men that might be considered "TRANNY IDENTIFIED"
today - were the brunt of public scorn, ridicule & generally outcast
-considered NON-men (literally). The shape of the shame generated by the
Greek equivalent of the modern term "queer" - would not have been that a guy
loved guys (everyone did), -but a "queer" in Greek thinking was a "man" who
played the female role. Again - the issue was not that certain
"girlie-men" happened to love men. In their case - they were detested because they
resembled (by looks &/or actions) female frauds. Such men were seen as dishonorable
-often presumed criminal because of the bizarre behaviors involving female
impersonation (possibly being mistaken for being an actual woman -- especially
by drunken men) & complicity w. the act of analsex. It was that group - more than any other that
motivated society to define a "MAN" as "one being able to copulate with
women". This explains why many eunuchs of honorable dispositions married
women -- if only to escape being classified by implication with the
gender-bending, butt-phuck, criminally associated class of misfits (the ancient
equivalent of the early 20st century use of the term "queer"). Such
persons today are the basis & core of "gay stigmas", -but because society has
lost it's mind, -sexual attraction for one's own gender is now lumped
into the stigmas against "gays". How it could be that humanity is so
phuck'd up in the 20/21st centuries about sexual classifications is a long
story - mostly involving the cultural effects of sloppy religious theology
over the last few centuries + the loss of understanding the term "eunuch" &
the various kinds.
Yeah, society can forget a lot in 3000 years. Especially when powerful, organized religious forces that drive crusades, persecution, torture & executions - change thousands of years of common law practice (ancient beliefs that named the likes of analsex as a perilous tort) & make new 'laws' that instead, name mere "same-sex affections" as the capital offense. Ironically, the very "Scriptures" that the giant Roman-Catholic church claimed to esteem, -predicted their precise folly; --Condemned the murderous behaviors of "crusades"; --& called such "religion" a 'doctrine of demons' - that would actually destroy it's followers! Scripture wasn't the source of the problem/s. Those who misrepresented it, were! Got history lessons?
If you only consider the crusades by themselves in light of historical facts about the atrocities committed by the "Catholic Church", - the fact that there is a Catholic Church today - tells us the sad truth that people (overall) will not use moral-measures to condemn a tradition of barbarism -- but will instead attempt to canonize the hypocrisy. In other words: No matter how many people were hurt or killed by the "movement" -- those remaining in the "movement" will generally attempt to justify it & hope forgetfulness/ignorance will eventually cover the atrocities committed by "the movement" with an ignorance of the facts! Again, the same Scriptures given lip service by such "churches", -when examined: actually name & condemn such behaviors! Jesus himself described the actions of such men "men dressed so nicely & respectably" & taught that Hellfire awaits them (the real fagots)! God, it turns out, is no respecter of Noble Titles - but weighs each man by the same scales of justice & demands repentance by all -especially religious leaders!
Ironically, it's only been within the last 500 years or so that this religious assault on same-gender-affection has taken place and the last century where it has escalated. Prior to that & within the records of the Catholic Church itself is evidence of same-sex unions! Imagine that! You don't hear that reported on the evening news, do you? EWTN? TBN? CBN? Not a chance!
So, what is the truth? The truth is simply what it is. The Greeks knew it 3000 years ago. Men generally love both genders. Because of physiological & emotional differences -- loving men differs from loving women. Analsex is a tort - regardless of gender because of the extreme perils (both physical & pathological) involved. Physical intimacy with women can produce children & therefore, from a legal standpoint (& moral) is a much more binding form of relationship.
The "modern GAY MALE" movement today is generally controlled & represented by the types of (intact) eunuchs that ancient Greek culture (& others) would consider shameful, complicit w. criminal behavior & dishonorable for a man to be a part of. And this is precisely why so many men shun the "gay logo" today. A "prejudice" that keeps a man out of a wild hyena pack (even though he saw a tame-one, once) is not a bad thing.
G0YS is a movement of thoughtful men who have decided to stand apart because we've seen what the "gay male community" represents itself as; -- & other than same-gender-attractions, -G0YS find that we have little in common with "gAy", -& we have just as much against many of the things that "gAy" embraces, extols & actively promotes. G0YS know & accept what the Greeks did 3000 years ago: It is natural to love other guys without casting your ethos to the wind, - nor making the scarab into a role-model.
What's the whole point? What am I trying to get across? Well -- I'm attempting to get the reader to realize what that chart on the page top means. It means that society is living one big astigmatic lie about sexuality! You don't need to believe it too!
THE TRUTH IS:
TRY REALITY - IT'S FRESH!