Ground ZER0 in the "UNgay" Paradigm Shift!

UNvirgins...

Quick Links:

Intro (reopens site)
G0Y? Eh?
No-Apology
God Hates:
I Believe
Beautiful-Hide
G0YDAR
Male|Mail
Links!
0ur Groups
Literature
Peripheral View
Support Us
It Happens
Prejudices
UNvirgins
The 'LINE':
Flame
'n Fags
Head's up Dad!
GYM-g0ys!
Make'n L
0ve
Pedastery?
Peeps 101
Terr0rists
BrokeBack
'Da 'Scene'
Aesthetics 101
Empathy is G0Y

 

 






When did you lose your's?"

Ah, loss of "virginity". Technically, the question can ONLY be posed to women. It has a grossly skewed meaning in the "gAy-male" community as an inquiry about being Arsephuk'd the 1st time.  And in the same sloppy loss of language precision (predicted by Mr. Orwell in "1984"); --The term has come to mean (in mixed gender relationship types) -when a person 1st had sexual intercourse. As I've already noted: The term is technically meaningless when used referring to men.  You may as well ask a man when he had his 1st "period" or ask a woman when she had her 1st nocturnal emission. But, this is the result of more MTV than properly enforced grammar use. 

However, while I'm discussing fractured thinking, - I wanted to address something that I see as just as big a folly. It involves the thought process of men who are in denial of being attracted to other men.  You see, recent studies conclusively connect what is called "homo-phobia" with "homo-eroticism".  In other words: Men who claim the loudest to be against same-sex intimacy are statistically prone to be the very ones who experience same-gender attractions! "Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much..."; -& so does the research evidence.

Coupled to this fascinating dynamic is the hypocrisy that claims to be "anti-same-sex" when in fact, the person making the claim has actually engaged in same-sex intimate activity. The list of such "reprobates" in mere "Christendom" alone is staggering! Even leaders in so-called "ex-gay miseries ministries" have been known to permanently hop off the bandwagons that THEY CREATED (The Founders of Exodus International are just a couple of examples)!  Of course, while fundamentalists of all religions make highly visible targets regarding such hypocrisy; -- they're certainly not alone! Conservative politicians making similar claims constantly get nailed doing the deeds with their own! 

Then there are the guys who, when they were younger, played around sexually with other guys.  Now that they're more "mature", they have somehow reached the conclusion that they've "grown out of 'it'".  Sure. You once liked vanilla, but you discovered cherry and miraculously - you only like cherry now (not vanilla ... shudder).  Sure. Ah-ha. N0T!

So, let me clear up a few misconceptions:

  • If you're a guy, then the concept of "virginity" has nothing to do with you - unless you remove it from a woman. She loses her's, but you never had "it" to lose.
  • If you're a guy and looking at fit, handsome dudes gives you wood or if you've ever emptied your balls through your seizuring penis while fantasizing about a guy or actually in another guy's "bubble of privacy" then you're a guy who finds some guys erotically stimulating.

Now, here's an interesting (& sometimes troubling FACT). You cannot undo history. If you once emptied your "man-sauce" with another dude (whether in fantasy or reality) then the event is historical and a FACT. You can "denounce it", "renounce it", & even if you bed every woman who ever has lived & will lived; --You cannot change the fact that you like vanilla (eh, got off with another dude who was providing [directly or passively] the sexual imagery to get you off).  You can cover the earth with cherries & then pop every one, & you'll still be a guy who knows what makes a guy good-look'n-sexy.

G0YS suggestion is simple & a complete solution: Understand what constitutes genuine moral-posturing regarding attractions toward gender, -& then accept yourself in that light.  Quit running from the lies that have molded sections of society into a "group sociopath" gathering. 

"Love works no ill". That really is the guiding message - whether you hook up with men or women or enjoy both. Such relationships are not to be taken lightly, and each person is to be treated with honest, appropriate respect based on the reality of who they are.  As a 1st century lawyer once wrote: "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he allows.".

A well known Hebrew Rabbi once said: "Such as a man thinks in his heart - so is he."  If you happen to be a guy who can "see" the awesomeness in masculine traits; -Then g0ys suggest that you embrace that as the ability to simply see (& fully appreciate) what God has made. After all, if a man has a set of positive traits & a stunning physique as well; --Where is the "immorality" of another man being able to see those things & experience the full impact of another person's depths? Those who assert that "such attractions are immoral" fail to explain what "resulting harm" would make them so.  As long as respect is present and both men realize that being with a man doesn't make either any less of a man (nor a proxy for a women) - then the relationship remains balanced.  As long as appreciation of sexual traits does not constitute a trigger-point to use another person in a way contrary to nature (I.E: Men lack a vagina & the anus is NOT a adequate substitute - so to anally penetrate a man violates nature & happens to be a gateway for pathogenesis. [Anally penetrating a woman is ALSO the same sort of violation.]).  However, acts that do not violate nature (thus lead to no harm) are generally acceptable. (I.E: Frot, Fellatio, & other forms of genital contact.).  This form of contact should never be made casually. G0YS suggest you restrict to FROT until you are sure that the guy is as attractive on the microscopic level as he is on the macro.

What is amazing is that the term "BEST FRIENDS" originally implied a level of intimacy in friendship that evoked the superlative use of the term "BEST". The unspoken message of having a "BEST FRIEND" was that the intimacy between the two was reserved for the two - hence the term "BEST". It was the pinnacle of friendship -expressed verbally in terminology that defied any description of the precise nature of the bond - because it was a privacy - reserved for the other person who made "BEST" a real function of the relationship. 

In the 18th century (far before the concept of "homosexual" had even been thought-up), it was not unusual for "BEST FRIENDS" to spend the night in the same bed. Diaries recovered from that time period often describe the gently erotic nature of such friendships, -so those who would insist that such "bed-sharing" was merely plutonic are stopped dead in their assertions due to evidence to the contrary. 

By the late 20th century, the term "BEST FRIENDS" had been neutered. Sharing a bed or a tent with a "BEST FRIEND" was punctuated by the denial of anything "happening" during the night. Of course, statistics show that at least 37% (& maybe as high as +70%) of tent sharing events result in skillful pelvic exercises w. testosterone-related-Unstressing maneuvers during the night.  For the vast majority of such buddies, AnalSex is the farthest thing from their thinking while 'with' their "best friend". However, the stigma of being labeled a "phag" coupled with the stereotypes of buttphuck & effeminacy -keep most guys tight-lipped about any of the dimensions of their "BEST BUDDY" experiences. 

G0YS abound. We have the answers to these issues & keep the important discussions - on point.  G0YS isn't a "minority" movement. Our posturing & ethos is an appeal to the majority of men who have lived under the lying paradigm of "Straight OR Gay" for far too long.  There is a different way to see the world & yourself: G0Y!