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:
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 masculine 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. AnalSex is rightfully shunned and most men find that notion to be repulsive beyond disgust. 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.
I had a neighbor named "Don" - who was
almost 4 years
younger than me. When he hit puberty - he began to hang out more with us
"older guys" - probably because he had an aggressive-friendly personality that
we all liked. He was fun to wrestle with & actually fit into the group
well considering his age difference was outside of the 1-2 year span that most
guys in our clique occupied. Well - I was in my next to last year of
a wrestling match in my bedroom turned into me subduing Donny's thrashing with
a body massage that quieted him down over a 10 minute span of responding to
his holds & punches with firm rubb'n on his bod. He had quite a body for
his age - muscular little studmuff'n. Once I got him subdued - it was easy to
get him undressed with the massage leading the charge. First the shirt -- then the socks, & finally pants.
He wore these snug size 28 jock-briefs that contoured pretty good to him &
left little to the imagination. After I'd been rubb'n on him for a half
hour or so - I pulled my shirt off (because it was warm) & stripped down to my
briefs. I cuddled up beside Don & wrapped him up in my arms & nibbled on
his neck some which made him laugh & thrash around a little bit -- while I
continued the massage. Some more time passed & I eventually got
positioned where I could see his sexy undies. It was unmistakable - the
material hugged the contours of an erection & the material was dark at the tip
of his penis - where he'd been leaking precum. I pretended not to pay
any attention - but I moved the focus of the massage down onto his lower abs &
inner thighs -- making sure to gently brush by his balls when working his
upper legs & grazing the tip of his erect penis with the heel of my hand when
slowly rubbing his abs. Pretty soon, Don was so
erect that his penis was
against the fine waistband of his jock-briefs. He was so
turned on that he was shaking some. I said -
"This is gonna feel really good.", as I gently began to
stroke him up & down the length of his erection - thru his jock.
I'll never forget his gasp & red faced groaning-sigh as he reflexively arched his back & his
overwhelmed penis began to convulse into orgasm beneath my stroking fingertips
- pumping Donny spunk through the thin material of the briefs & out onto his
upper thigh in a translucent, slick pool of manhood-initiation. Our
friendship was made cock-solid that day. Don & I usually ended up
wrestling when we'd get together. After that 1st time -- Donny would
always have a raging hardon
visible in his shorts as soon as his pants came off. The briefs soon came off
too. Donny - like most guys had an interest in women & eventually got
hitched. However - he learned early - as have lots of guys - that having
a close friend that unconditionally accepts & loves you - can have
tremendous sexual benefits without any x-gender confusion of compromised
masculinity; -- while mutually
providing very fulfilling sexual releases - that men need to regularly
have. Anal-sex never entered our minds. That would have been
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.
Identifying the cause of confusion/s:
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-clusterfuck. 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?)
Additionally, 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 "TRANS IDENTIFIED" today - were the brunt of public scorn, ridicule & generally outcast -considered NON-men (Literally: "Semi-Viri"). 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. Clement of Alexandria said they lived "lewder lives than the most uncontrolled heathen." Does this description sound like any group of people you can think of today? 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, , 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 its mind, -sexual attraction for one's own gender is now lumped into the stigmas about "gays": ! How it could be that humanity is so fuck'd up in the 20/21st centuries about sexual classifications is a long story - mostly involving the cultural effects of a gigantic religious whore called "Catholicism" & the hell-inspired theology it & its bastard offspring have oozed like a pus-filled boil over millennia (combined w. the loss of understanding the term "eunuch" & the various kinds). In Greece, when people discussed the "problem of men who had "sex" with men", - what was SPECIFICALLY being referenced was always ANALsex. Physical relationships between men that did not involve ANAL-penetration were simply NOT considered "sex". Read that until it sinks in. You must remember this distinction whenever you read ancient Greek commentary on the issue of "SEX" between men: ANAL was ILLEGAL. However, the mutual JO or frottage --even fellatio were NOT considered "SEX" per'se. Otherwise, reading Greek cultural excerpts about M2M intimacy will seem schizophrenic! For more on this subject, click.
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 WELL DOCUMENTED ATROCITIES (Say: "Well Documented") 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 knew 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!