The Scriptures Don't Condemn Homosexuality - Has Moved

Delving further into the topic, this situation is the product of three separate factors. As before, the main points will be highlighted in bold.

The most obvious one is the Syrian civil war. This war had its origins in the 2011 Arab Spring, when anti-government rebellions were occurring in many Middle Eastern countries. In the case of Syria, these rebellions escalated into total war. Now in its seventh year, the war has torn apart Syria, leaving few places untouched. Many of its residents fled for their lives, and most went to the European Union for asylum.

The second factor is the sexual fluidity of the developing world, which includes Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. Unlike the United States and Europe, most same-sex activity isn’t stigmatized there. Nor is such activity considered an anomaly. The contact is usually non-penetrative, and thus is not even considered full “sex”. Thus, those activities aren’t labelled “homosexuality” in those countries, and men there feel freer to have sexual contact with other males. In those countries, such contact are just activities that males do, and don’t constitute as signs of a deeper condition.

Only anal sex is stigmatized, because of its gender bending nature, where the penetrated male is acting like a woman. As such, “homosexuality” usually refers to the LGBT version of same-sex activity tied to drag and gender-bending behavior. It’s also used as a synonym for the anal sex that LGBT activism lauds so strongly.

And on top of that, there’s one more nuance. Within anal sex, the developing world establishes a dichotomy that allows men to keep some dignity during the act. During the act, the penetrated male is considered  “homosexual”, since he’s a male who’s “acting like a woman” during sex. Meanwhile, the penetrator isn’t considered “homosexual”, since he’s taking the man’s role. In these prostitution arrangements, the refugees usually penetrate during anal. This is why, even as they have anal sex with other men, they feel no conflict in not identifying as “gay”.

This leads to the third factor: the presence of LGBT activism in Europe. To be clear, their sexual concepts haven’t reached the extremes of the United States - yet. That’s why in Europe, communal nudity is still acceptable, briefs have never been stigmatized, and their cultural masculinity is somewhat closer to natural masculinity.

Nevertheless, LGBT leadership and media do have substantial influence in Europe. Their advocacy of anal sex has made an impact within the European Union. The patrons of the refugees approach them with their sexual ideas in mind, which is why they usually ask for anal.

The documentary shows us the product of all three factors. All of them have combined into a dangerous and horrendous cocktail, which has created widespread teenage male prostitution in Greece.

As such, it’s hard to overstate the largest irony of this situation - that of all places in Europe, it is happening in Greece. In ancient times, Greece openly displayed a model of homoeroticism that shunned anal. In Athens, anal was punishable by death, and the same likely existed in other cities. Both the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance take their inspiration from the homoeroticism of Ancient Greece. This blog has likewise been influenced by their model of male-male eroticism.

Yet 2000 years later, anal now flourishes in the very place it was once prohibited. Acts that once were the hallmarks of Greek homoeroticism - frot, intercrural, mutual masturbation - now take a backseat.

Still, this situation yields several truths that we must learn. These give further proof that modern sexual philosophy, which slanders homoeroticism as inherently abnormal, has no leg to stand on.

Firstly, we can see that same-sex desire is truly universal. Think about the mixture of cultures that this situation has brought together. In this documentary, the refugees who sell sex mainly come from Syria. One youth from Afghanistan was also interviewed. However, there are other refugees that come from other parts of the Middle East and South Asia. Meanwhile, the patrons come from Greece and other parts of the European Union.

In all likelihood, most of the patrons have never set foot in the Middle East and South Asia. The refugees have certainly never gone to Europe before. Yet, once they enter each other’s company, their contact quickly turns to sex. So is same-sex desire a product of particular cultures, or is it something that is deeply rooted in every man? And by “same-sex desire”, I’m not referring to the desire for anal sex. That is definitely the product of culture.

Secondly, we see that the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy is total nonsense. By and large, these refugees don’t identify as “gay” at all. They don’t identify with “gay” culture, and don’t seem to have any interest in it.

Meanwhile, most of their patrons likely don’t identify as “gay” either. If the local “gay” community knows nothing about this topic, it means that those patrons have little connection to the “gay” community. In their everyday lives, they likely identify as “straight”. Yet, they’re having sex with male refugees.

If you didn’t get the point, let me be more direct. The refugees aren’t “gay”. The majority of patrons aren’t “gay” either. Yet they’re having sex with each other, and male-male sex is considered very “gay”, at least in the U.S. In the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy, only “gay” males are supposed to be having sex with each other, which clearly isn’t happening here.

Within the dichotomy, it’s odd if one of the sexual partners isn’t “gay”. The fact that neither partners are “gay” throws off the whole system. Furthermore, this arrangement exists separately from the local “gay” world, and the two barely interact.

Obviously, the dichotomy cannot capture what’s happening here. In fact, in most news coverage the terms are barely used, because they carry no real meaning in this story. At what point will we admit that these terms don’t work?

Thirdly, it’s also clear that the LGBT anal sex model doesn’t work, and will never work. Think of this: in their own countries, these refugees probably never had anal sex before. Through their sex work in Europe, they’re likely encountering anal for the first time.

Thus they are different from Europeans and Americans, who are enculturated to associate anal with homoeroticism. Historically, no such association existed in their country. As a result, they unwittingly act as informal judges on how good anal sex really is. Because of their inexperience, they are more able to judge anal sex on its own merits.

As such, their judgement has been overwhelmingly negative. In this video and other media output, I’ve yet to find any migrant who speaks positively about doing anal with their patrons. All of them speak about it with shame and disgust.

Also, keep this in mind - these refugees aren’t necessarily opposed to male-male sexual contact. Otherwise, they wouldn’t consider it as a viable option for money. I doubt most American men would allow themselves to sell any sex to other men, no matter how low they might sink. It would be too threatening to their self-image and their social standing. Meanwhile, such obstacles don’t exist for those refugees, because they came from a more sexually fluid world. The Middle East in particular has a substantial history of homoerotism.

However, they strongly detest the form or type of sex that they often do. It doesn’t matter that they usually act as “tops”, which is considered an ideal role in anal sex. Even so, to them, it doesn’t make anal any less disgusting.

All three conclusions strike body blows to modern sexual philosophy. All of them would raise too many questions that the philosophy wouldn’t be able to answer. That’s why U.S. media has been quite silent on this topic, even as it constantly makes headlines in other parts of the world. There’s no way to cover this story without harming modern sexual philosophy and the sexual labeling system it sustains.

To be clear, while it does yield important lessons about human sexuality, this is not a positive story. I feel sorry for those refugees. They are trapped in a predatory sexual arrangement, where they must do whatever their patrons ask just to get money. Indeed, it is a humiliating experience, and their disgust at their predicament is justified.

So the question is, what is the solution for them? Honestly, I’m not sure, and that’s what saddens me most. In many ways, their lives have been changed forever. They will never be the same people who left their homelands for safety and security. Even if the civil war stopped today, that would not give a solution to the torment suffered by the refugees.

I think that the best we can do is create a world that can better welcome them. That must include the sexual realm, where refugees need not encounter acts that disgust them. Their revulsion against anal sex is justified, and there’s no reason for them to do it if they don’t want to.

Thus, if you want to help create that change, please read further on this blog. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others.

The situation of these refugees are horrendous, and I assure you, they’ll never be the same again. However, as bad as their situation is, it has yielded something that can be quite good. In its own way, their predicament exposes the folly of modern sexual philosophy.

Through their story, we have seen that the labels of “gay” and “straight” are nonsense, and that same-sex attraction is universal. They have also acted as unwitting judges of LGBT anal sex model, and have shown that it will never work. I can’t think of another story that encapsulates the sheer claptrap of our sexual concepts, save for the story of footballer Aaron Hernandez.

Searching elsewhere on the internet doesn’t yield better results. On the Yahoo Answers forum, “straight” girls were asked if they’d ever date “bi” guys. Most reaction was negative, and that’s putting it lightly. One responder said, “Probably not. I think it would just freak me out knowing that I'm competing with 2x more people.” Another said no, explaining that “No, I don't have a problem with gay relationships (I respect theirs, they respect mine), but I do have a problem when it applies to my own significant other simply because I'm not comfortable with it...(thinking about would turn me off if when we have our special night times)”. Yet another said, “Sure i guess, if i loved him. But it would be kind of weird knowing that he's kissed others guys before or done...other things. Blech.”

Elsewhere on Yahoo, one girlfriend wrote an entire article on finding out her boyfriend was “bi”. Simply put, she considered it the nightmare of her life. She did realize that her boyfriend didn’t love her any less, but regardless, said that “I absolutely have a problem with him having sex with anyone but me...I have a problem with him thinking of anyone else but me.” The fact that her boyfriend likes guys too makes her “want to scream and cry all the time.” As she explains, “I have lost so much sleep and shed so many tears simply because the image of anyone else, man or woman, touching the love of my life scares the living hell out of me.” She still wants to be supportive of him, though she admits she feels hurt, confused and scared.

As you can see, the stigma against male bisexuality is real and widespread. So what is causing it?

What Causes The Stigma?

From what I see, there are three reasons why male bisexuality gets so much short shrift. To identify the first reason, we’ll turn back to the words of Amber Rose.

As said before, she said she wouldn’t be comfortable with dating a “bi” guy, and she supposedly doesn’t know why. Personally, I also don’t think Amber Rose is ignorant of why male bisexuality repulses her. She knows why. We all know why. It’s just that we can’t say why, because the “gay” establishment would go ballistic if we did. That’s why everyone must feign ignorance about why male bisexuality turns them off.

Let’s think of the inverse situation, where men find female bisexuality a huge turn-on. In fact, most men like if their woman has a thing for other women. To them, it increases the possibility for a threesome, where he’d love to watch his woman make love to another girl. That’s why on most porn sites, female-female videos exist alongside male-female videos, while male-male videos are put in their own category.

As such, remember that most female-female porn heavily involves the genitals. It usually features mutual masturbation, vaginal insertion with a dildo, oral stimulation of the vagina, tribadism and other vaginal activities. Anal insertion is decidedly minimal.

Meanwhile, when most people imagine male-male sex, what form does it usually take? Isn’t it usually anal? Isn’t that the act that “gay” guys trumpet as the highest fulfillment of male-male love? As such, it’s also a highly effective act for STD transmission, and has high risk for physical injury. We’re not even talking about the optics of having direct contact with feces. Most female-female acts don’t have the same risks.

Thus, I think that’s why Amber Rose won’t date a “bi” guy. That’s how we can reconcile her earlier remarks with also saying “I think it’s amazing when a guy is bisexual and he’s comfortable with it.” While she doesn’t oppose male bisexuality in principle, it poses a health risk that she’s not willing to tolerate. It seems that she’s turned off by the spectre of anal sex and its risky nature.

Furthermore, I think that’s a huge reason why male bisexuality disgusts a lot of women. Under the LGBT anal sex model, a man would have his penis in his girlfriend’s vagina one night, and up a man’s anus on another night. First of all, the optics of that scenario certainly look revolting. But the risk of STD transmission is nothing to dismiss. Most women know about the STD wasteland that is the “gay” community. They don’t want to be touched by it, which is why to them, male bisexuality poses a clear and present danger.

The other reasons might not be as blatant as the first, but are still influential enough to be considered. In the previous subheading, a few of the women didn’t say that the idea of men having sex turned them off. Instead, they felt threatened by the idea that their boyfriends could be attracted to people other than them. It’s bad enough if they are attracted to another woman. It’s ten times worse if they’re attracted to another man.

Thus, the second and third reasons are closely related to each other, and both concern concepts of masculinity and male sexuality. The second is the result of radical feminism - that females should have total monopoly over male sexuality. Or put another way, females should be the only source of male sexual satisfaction. The alternative - that a man gets sex from men and women - threatens the woman’s power over her man’s sexuality, which is unacceptable to the tenets of radical feminism.

A prime example comes from the pages of the Man2Man Alliance. During 2007, they received an angry email from a feminist named “Dee”, who was offended by their discussion of Ancient Greek bisexuality. Alliance founder Bill Weintraub gave her a reply confirming that the bisexuality was recorded fact. The reply also cited a New York Times article from a female columnist, who argued that “that men need deep emotional connections with other men, not just their wives”.

In response, she fired back a reply that was more angry than the first. In the words of Mr. Weintraub, it was a “truly dreadful feminist rant”. In her closing sentence, she said “women are more than baby factories, personal attendants, cooks, maids, and the occasional arm candy for social gatherings. Women are a world of undiscovered countries, full of hidden treasures, pleasures and passions, waiting, wanting to be explored and enjoyed and delighted in.” This is despite the fact that Man2Man Alliance wasn’t disputing any of that, and that it wasn’t the issue at hand. They were simply saying that men need male company as much as they may need female company.

There were two things revealed by this correspondence. Firstly, it appeared that she was ignorant of that Greek history. However, in later correspondence, it became clear that to her, it didn’t matter if it was actual history or not. The idea of bisexual intimacy was offensive to her, whether it was historical or not, whether women of the past approved of it or not.

Secondly, it’s noteworthy that in their correspondence, they really weren’t focusing on sex. From what can be gathered, the spectre of male-male sex was a side issue. What really offended her was the emotional aspect of male-male intimacy. She felt threatened by the idea that a man could form an emotional bond with anyone other than a woman. It was that aspect that set off her angry replies.

This adds a special nuance to the second reason stated. It may not matter if closely bonded men actually have sex. In Dee’s case, the emotional bond was what’s considered the real threat. This is why bromances are increasingly being considered threats to women, even though they’re supposedly nonsexual.

The third reason is that in American cultural masculinity, desire for men (too) cancels any claim of being masculine. This has deep ramifications on both men and women. Because of this, men might avoid any kind of same-sex activity, because they don’t want their masculine identity impugned upon. Meanwhile, this view could affect female attitudes in two ways. On one hand, it gives one more reason for female opposition of male bisexuality. On the other hand, even if some women don’t oppose male bisexuality, this belief opens them up to censure. Under this idea, they might be harshly ridiculed for dating illegitimate men. Thus, whether they oppose bisexuality or not, women are often encouraged to dump men who might like other men too. It doesn’t matter if sex actually happens or not.

Another Version of Male Bisexuality

Our sexual concepts don’t allow us to imagine an alternate form of male bisexuality, like the following scenario.

~~~~

David has a girlfriend named Julie and a friend named Brandon. One night, David takes Julie out to the skating rink, and they have the time of their lives. They have their biggest laugh when both take a tumble on the ice, since it’s only their third time skating. Eventually the night comes to an end, and David drops Julie at her house. They kiss each other good night, and David goes on his way As Julie knows, David is sleeping over at Brandon’s house tonight, as is his custom.

When David gets over there, Brandon gives him a hug as he lets him in. They get down to business - and play video games. It’s Mario this time. In between trash talk, their conversation drifts into all kinds of topics - summer break from college, jobs, sports, their neighbors’ annoying habits. When they stop the game to get snacks, they can barely keep their boners down as they describe their girlfriends’ curves. It looks like it was too much for David, because he ends up losing the next go kart race.

At 1 in the morning, they decide to turn in. As they start taking off their clothes for bed, Brandon complains that his back has been paining him lately. So David decides to massage it, then progresses into a full body massage. He works on each new part that Brandon uncovers. Eventually, Brandon lets David take off his briefs, so he can work on his upper legs. He doesn’t bother with putting his briefs back on, since he sleeps naked anyway. David takes off his boxers, climbs into bed, and they turn off the lights. At this point, the only thing they’re wearing is their chain necklaces.

During the night, it gets a little cold. Brandon turned down the thermostat to save up on heat. Rather than adjusting it, they decide to keep each other warm. David adjusts himself and lays half draped against Brandon. Just then, he notices his firmness of his pecs. Those workouts are doing well for him, he thinks.

After a few minutes, they both adjust and David is now completely on top of Brandon. They are now penis to penis, chest to chest, face to face. Slowly but firmly, David rubs his manhood against Brandon. Their members now begin to swell. Their hands begin to explore each other’s bodies, as they grope each other’s butts, legs, and backs. Now Brandon is joining in on the rubbing, and its speed is increasing. They don’t think a thing about condoms, because they don’t need them.

Brandon finds David’s lips, and presses his own into David’s. Their necklaces bang against each other as sweat starts dripping from both of them. They now make out with all abandon, as they furiously grind their penises together like sticks of wood. They can feel the end coming, as they grunt and pant with each rub. Finally it happens, as they make each other shoot like there’s no tomorrow, with all the moaning and groaning that goes with it. With the milky evidence strewn all over them, and with a final passionate kiss, they fall asleep in each other’s arms.

After a few hours sleep, they wake up and go for round two, with the exact same result. They take a shower together, during which they give each other handjobs while admiring each other’s physiques). David makes breakfast for them both. By noon, David has to leave, since he has work later. Plus, he and his girlfriend will be meeting for dinner in two days. But before going, they make plans to meet up again next week, at David’s house.

~~~~

That’s my amateur attempt at writing male-male erotica. I’ll admit that it’s short, but I designed it for a purpose. If this made you feel a little hot and bothered, then the purpose was accomplished.

The point is, this is my picture of male bisexuality. I think it’s kinda hot. I daresay that you described this scenario to women, they’d get turned on too, like this one did. After all, it’s a sort of bisexuality that doesn’t involve anal or threaten relationships with women. In fact, they might even like to watch sometime. I’m sure Julie would.

However, you probably noticed a number of differences from the popular conception of bisexuality. These deserve to be explored, which we will do in the next subheading.

What Really Is Male Bisexuality?

I’m sure you saw some discrepancies between what I wrote, and what you likely imagine male bisexuality to be.

First of all, there was no presence of anal at all. Nobody was getting rimmed or fisted. Nobody was felching or penetrating anybody else. Given that anal is so welded to “homosexuality”, that’s already a big difference. But there’s more.

Furthermore, there was no spectre of gender bending. Nobody felt any need to assume a female role, through behavior or otherwise. Neither did they feel compelled to assume some hypermasculine identity, though that’s no knock against guys who are naturally macho. In their own way, both guys were undeniably masculine.

Most of all, there was no mention of the words “gay”, “queer”, or “LGBT”. Neither felt out of sorts with what they did, nor did they feel that it was an abnormal experience. They simply did what came naturally.

In many ways, this blog isn’t merely advocating for male bisexuality. As exemplified in the above story, it’s also advocating an alternate model that most modern people don’t know about. It is a model that the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance has worked tirelessly to promote. This can be called a frot-centric model of male bisexuality. It is one that accepts homoeroticism as normal, natural, and harmonious with heteroeroticism. It also recognizes that homoeroticism poses no threat to masculinity, which is why it doesn’t label itself as “gay” (aka abnormal), but simply male. As such, this model is entirely focused on the male genitals.

Meanwhile, the LGBT version of male bisexuality is a decidedly anal-centric model. Unlike the frot-centric model, this one believes that homoeroticism is abnormal, aberrant, and in total conflict with heteroeroticism. Because that kind of eroticism is supposedly abnormal, it is also considered an inherently gender-atypical trait. This model also tries hard to ape heteroeroticism, since it believes heteroeroticism sets the standard of “normality”.

For these reasons, the only real male-male sex in the LGBT model is anal sex. It imitates vaginal sex between men and women, and brings the supposed gender-bending potential of homoeroticism to full bloom. That’s the reason why some “gay” men call the anus a “boypussy” and “mancunt”. In their view, the male anus is the natural counterpart to the female vagina. That’s why the penetrated male is considered to be “acting like a woman” during sex.

Now we arrive at the crux of this subheading. The Greek prefix in bisexuality - “bi” - means “two”. The prefix thus recognizes a clear distinction or difference in whatever it’s describing, to the point that two things must be recognized as such. So in the case of bisexuality, the word means that someone is erotically engaging with two distinct genders. The genders are different enough that they must be recognized as unique.

So this is my question: is the LGBT version of male bisexuality legitimate? That is, should it be counted as valid bisexuality?

Think about it. The anal-centric model makes a shallow intellectual acknowledgement that men are different from women. However, the acknowledgement stops there, and doesn’t carry over into actual behavior. When it comes to sex, it doesn’t recognize fundamental differences between the male and female anatomy. Instead, it views the male anus as just another vagina.

As a result, in the anal-centric model, no real difference exists between male-male sex and male-female sex. Just as men penetrate female vaginas for sexual pleasure, men must do likewise with male “boypussies”. So during sex in the anal-centric model, the penetrated male effectively and momentarily becomes a woman. The model ignores that anuses aren’t vaginas by any stretch of the imagination. It also ignores that the penetrated male has a penis too, which would give much more concrete pleasure.

So by extension, the model recognizes no real difference between men and women. It effectively views men and women as one gender, with very miniscule differences between them. It says that male-male sex should be identical to male-female sex, despite the differences in the anatomies involved.

So in truth, the LGBT version of male bisexuality isn’t really bisexuality. It’s a extremely ersatz form of bisexuality. In fact, it should really be called transposed monosexuality. I use the word “transposed” because it blindly transfers the mechanics of male-female sex into sex between men, even though men don’t have vaginas.

By contrast, the frot-centric model counts much more as valid bisexuality. It recognizes that, as Leviticus 18:22 says in its proper context, men cannot have sex with men as they would with women. Since their anatomies are different, men and women must be addressed in different ways, sexually speaking. For women, the focus of sex is pleasuring the vagina. For men, the focus of sex must be pleasuring the penis. This is why the model’s ultimate act is frot, which consists of rubbing two penises together, like what happened between David and Brandon.

So if you’re a man who’s interested in behaving bisexually, don’t model your behavior on the LGBT version. Frankly, their version of male bisexuality is a sham and pure quackery. Instead, imitate the frot-centric model that the g0ys and Man2Man Alliance advocate. In so many ways, you’ll be better off if you do.

But now, we move onto another important question.

Why Pay Attention to Female Opposition to Male Bisexuality?

We must pay attention because that disapproval is a huge reason why, if they’re with women, men avoid sexual activity with other men.

With their boyfriend/husband has sex with other men, women are encouraged to automatically break up with them. This encouragement comes from “gays” and “straights” alike. In some cases, it doesn’t matter if the man never acts on his desire for other men (too). The fear is that the man might leave them for another man, or give them an STD. Because most men don’t want to break up so rashly, they’ll avoid male-male sex even if they desire it.

To be clear, this opposition isn’t entirely bad. As said before, the LGBT version of bisexuality guarantees STD transmission. Female fears of male bisexuality do have some validity. So this disapproval helps to keep the STD epidemic under some control.

The problem is that this taboo makes no distinctions. It also punishes healther forms of male bisexuality. Any spectre of male-male attraction is considered a good reason to break up the relationship. So in trying to deal with a real threat, women throw out the baby with the bathwater.

To make things worse, the taboo is growing even as you read this post. It’s not just male-male sex that’s being opposed by females. Right now, women are being told to be wary of any closeness between men. A recent psuedoscientific study claimed that bromances (which are supposed to be nonsexual) deeply threaten male-female relationships. As an article on the study put it, “These heterosexual millennial men cherish their close male friends, so much so that they may even provide a challenge to the orthodoxy of traditional heterosexual relationships”.

Never mind that this orthodoxy never really existed before now. Originally, the word “heterosexuality” was defined as “abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex", and was a disease to be cured. It was abnormal because it involved obsessive desire for the opposite sex. So clearly this supposed historical orthodoxy is nonsense, but that’s besides the point.

The point is that at present, even emotional intimacy between men is becoming taboo. Very shortly, girlfriends/wives might demand that their men distance themselves from other men, or cut them off completely. In the near future, having a girlfriend or wife might become mutually exclusive with having male friends.

In making this claim, this study makes a fundamental mistake. It asserts that male-female relationships are interchangeable with male-male ones. To be clear, while they are important, they are not interchangeable. Both help to make a man whole. If you drive a man to suppress his desire for other men, as the Man2Man Alliance explains, “you no longer have a Man...you have a eunuch -- at best.”

So on a fundamental level, the conclusions made this study are quite evil. They refuse to recognize that men need male company too. They falsely declare that male-male relationships totally conflict with male-female ones.  They induce women to try sabotaging the bonds that tie men together. In sum, and in so many ways, it denies reality.

Furthermore, the taboo encouraged by the study is totally unprecedented. Male-male relationships have never been considered so dangerous to male-female ones. We’ve never faced a reality where men must choose closeness with other men or closeness with women. We have no idea how it will affect male quality of life, which is in dire need of improvement.

However, I can assure you that if this taboo becomes more rigid, the results will be disastrous. You cannot isolate men from other men without murdering their souls. This blog is intensely interested in preventing this from happening.

So if you’re a girlfriend or wife reading this page, read the following very carefully.

Accept the reality that is all around you. Most men have desire for other men in some form. In all likelihood, that includes your boyfriend or husband. Under the right circumstances, and with the right guy, most guys would unashamedly have hot, sweaty, passionate sex with another man. Most guys would happily fall asleep naked in each other’s arms, and give each other intense pleasure whenever they pleased. It is a natural, normal, and permanent fact of male sexuality.

Take it from a guy who knows. I’ve been hit on by “straight” guys more times than I can count. It doesn’t really matter if they’re with women or not.

Understand this too: if your man is attracted to other men too, it doesn’t necessarily mean he loves you any less. It also doesn’t mean that you are somehow deficient in loving him. Same-sex intimacy and opposite-sex intimacy are simply two separate spheres, and until recently, they weren’t considered conflicting. There are just some things men get from other men that isn’t possible with women, just as the inverse is true for women.

The solution isn’t to punish your boyfriend/husband for those desires. You also shouldn’t bully, blackmail, or subjugate them because of those feelings. Your role should be to ensure that those desires are expressed in healthy ways.

Help steer your man away from the anal-centric model that is popular in the “gay” community, and from any party that would pressure him to follow that model. Instead, guide him towards sexual practices that are non-penetrative (and thus much more safe), and philosophies that help him explore that intimacy in sensible ways.

This page of the g0y movement might be especially helpful. Though it’s geared towards parents (and particularly fathers), the principles therein can help anyone who knows a guy who’s into guys (to any degree). Ultimately, the end goals of this information are to

Create an environment where, if the man wants to open up, same-sex desire can be discussed without fear of judgement and punishment

Guide those same-sex desires away from the anal-centric “gay” model, and to more healthy and satisfactory modes of exploration

And chances are, without the involvement of anal, you might find male-male intimacy extremely pleasurable to watch.

There will be more links below. Please read through them, so that you can better help the man in your life. I’m sure that he will appreciate your support.

Conclusion

As mentioned before, societal discussion of bisexuality has a huge imbalance. For women, bisexuality is somewhat expected and even desirable. Meanwhile for men, bisexuality carries a huge stigma. That stigma is so bad, women might avoid them entirely because they like men too. Even “bi” women like Amber Rose might openly avoid “bi” men. At first glance, it might seem hard to understand why such a discrepancy exists.

However, this blog has shown why male bisexuality is so stigmatized. It has shown that on one level, women are repelled by the spectre of anal in LGBT bisexuality. On another level, it threatens a key belief of radical feminism - that females should have total control over male sexuality. On yet another level, it conflicts with the standard of American cultural masculinity.

To provide a solution, this blog showed a different model of male bisexuality. It told a story where its characters didn’t do anal at all, and enthusiastically had sex without harming themselves or relationships with women. Through that story, it showed that other forms of male bisexuality exist, which both men and women might find arousing.

To that end, this blog also explored with the LGBT anal-centric model counts as real bisexuality. In short, it does not. It’s a phony and fraudulent form of bisexuality, and should be called transposed monosexuality. As such, it also showed that the frot-centric model is a valid form of male bisexuality that should be followed.

It should be noted that ironically, the frot-centric model was the historical form of bisexuality. Even if its some of its participants seldom progressed to frot, their behavior reflected the core model tenet that sex is about genitals. It is the form that is still dominant in the developing world, and is mostly intact there today. Meanwhile, the anal-centric model has been widespread only for a short time. Thus, no precedent exists for the anal-centric model, and can be dropped as quickly as it was adopted.

This blog also explained why it focused on female reaction to male bisexuality. Simply put, their reaction is a huge reason why boyfriends/husbands avoid same-sex intimacy. It has also shown that the taboo is now affecting the emotional aspect of male-male intimacy. To that end, it encouraged those women to push their men toward the frot-centric model, so that they can enjoy their desires in healthy ways.  

If you want more information on this frot-centric model, there’s plenty more information just waiting for you.

Please read further on this site, to further your necessary education. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others.

And to develop your attraction into action, please see these guides from

the g0ys

the Man2Man Alliance

As with the blanket condemnations of same-sex activity and masturbation, these prohibitions ignore inconvenient parts of the Bible that give other impressions. Among them are:

1 Samuel 19:24, where one day, God makes King Saul prophesy naked to the prophet Samuel. He remained nude all day, until people started asking “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (New International Version). If nudity was so transgressive, why did God make Saul strip off his clothes? Especially while speaking the sacred words of God?

2 Samuel 6:20-23, which described King David dancing naked within sight of (and possibly among) slave girls  He did this to celebrate the arrival of the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. Interestingly, he is never condemned for his nudity. Instead, his wife is punished for harshly criticizing his joyful spirit. If nudity is so bad, why wasn’t David reprimanded for his nude display?

Isaiah 20:2, in which God orders Isaiah to parade through Israel naked and barefoot, to convey an important prophetic message. Granted, the message being sent - of the Egyptians’ future poverty under Assyrian captivity - was quite dire. Nevertheless, if nudity was so offensive to God, why would God use it to convey his message?

All this suggests that nudity in itself can’t be evil or sinful. Yahweh wouldn’t use it if nakedness was so inherently bad.

This demands a reassessment of the Genesis account. The story never specifically says that Adam and Eve felt ashamed because of their nudity. If anything, the shame resulted from disobediently eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, instead of being purely physical covering, the fig leaves might have been a vain attempt to hide their error.

A more curious part happens when God asks the couple, “Who told you that you were naked?” (Genesis 3:11, English Standard Version). Evidently, even though Yahweh knew that the couple had sinned, he still was not offended at their naked state. In fact, he was more concerned with why they became so ashamed about their nudity. This certainly doesn’t suggest that the shame came from God. It must have originated elsewhere. Apparently, that shame came from the Devil, since it didn’t come from God, Adam or Eve.

As such, Christianity also ignore contexts showing why nudity was frowned upon in certain situations, like in the first three scriptures mentioned in this article. Evidently, nudity is frowned upon when,

the nudity is involuntary, as it was with Noah in Genesis 9:20. Because of his drunkenness, it clearly wasn’t his choice to be naked.

the nudity would be a distraction from sacred service, as it was with Moses in Exodus 20:26. As the verse describes, if he went up the altar on stairs, his penis would have been involuntarily exposed in an upskirt fashion. That would have been a huge distraction and also quite embarrassing.

the nudity resulted from poverty or disadvantage, as it was with the possessed man in Luke 8:27. Because he was possessed by demons, he couldn’t work. So with no income, he also had no house or clothes.

Most of all, there is no law anywhere in the Bible that specifically prohibits public or communal nudity. Try as you may, you won’t be able to find it. It doesn’t exist in the Mosaic Law, anywhere else in the Old Testament, or anyplace in the New Testament. When surrounding civilizations were very liberal with public nudity (like the Ancient Greeks), this is a glaring omission.

If something so pervasive isn’t prohibited, it can’t be inherently sinful. As with same-sex activity and masturbation, Christianity has gone “beyond what is written” with public and communal nudity. This becomes much more clear when we study the history of Christianity itself.

Inconsistency With History of Christianity

From its beginning, Christianity had a rather uncontentious relationship with nudity. In keeping with Jewish mikvahs of the day, early Christian baptisms were done nude. Jesus himself was likely baptised naked. These practices lasted until 700 AD at least.

Though the Catholic Church became squeamish about depictions of nudity, they were apparently less restrictive with actual nudity. Good Christian men and women still swam naked during medieval times, and sometimes did so in mixed company. They either didn’t restrict it because that was too extreme even for them, or they couldn’t for fear of laity backlash.

When indoor pools arrived in the late 19th century, they usually required men to swim naked. Christianity had no conflict with having their flock splash around nude. In fact, many proponents of the early nudist movement were Christian clergy. This included clergymen Isley Boone, Henry Huntington, and Dean Inge. Furthermore, a fair number of those pools were owned by the YMCA, which felt no conflict in making good Christian men swim naked.

In the past, Christianity was rather loose even with outdoor nudity, at least with men. Good Christian men freely swam naked in public as the circumstances allowed (and even when they didn’t quite allow it). In YMCA boys camps, it was regular practice for boys therein to swim naked. According to this story from the 1970s American South, these practices continued well into the 20th century.

In other words, the modern Christian squeamishness about nudity is historically unprecedented, and is very young. It seems that it emerged after the 1980s, and like so many other things, is linked to developments in “homosexuality”.

Before the 1980s, Christian doctrine on same-sex activity specifically prohibited anal sex. While it’s true that Christianity condemned “homosexuality”, that word also carried a different meaning before that decade. Prior to the 1980s, “homosexuality” mainly referred to gender inversion and primary same-sex attraction. In most cases, general same-sex activity wasn’t included in the definition. That’s why in 1960s Canada, tales of mutual masturbation among Catholic boys were unimportant to the local priests.

All that changed during the AIDS epidemic. The plague helped “homosexuality” adopt a behavior-based definition, which now included all same-sex activity possible. Rather than reassert their historical condemnation of anal, Christianity went full throttle with this new definition. Their condemnation continuously widened in scope and sharpened in tone, until any engagement in same-sex activity was grounds for major scandal.

This likely was when Christianity became intolerant of all public nudity. Under the old doctrine, situations of public nudity weren’t considered that serious, especially if it was same-sex in nature. Even if homoeroticism occurred in those arrangements, as it often did, it likely wouldn’t be anal. Thus, the conduct wouldn’t run afoul of Christianity. Plus, under the conventions of the time, sex was strictly defined by penetration. So in that case, the conduct wouldn’t have even counted as full “sex”.

Under the new doctrine, where any same-sex act was “homosexuality”, public nudity became problematic. Situations involving such nudity were now exceptional breeding grounds for atrocious sin. While mixed-gender public nudity was bad enough, same-sex nudity was much worse. In the face of the new “homosexuality” doctrine, the homoerotic potential of these environments simply couldn’t be tolerated. As a result, there was no way that Christianity could tolerate public nudity that contradicted their new sacred cow.

And before we go further, let me be clear - I’m not saying that nudity and sex aren’t linked. While they definitely aren’t the same, it’s undeniable that nudity can be sexually arousing. The problem isn’t whether or not the two topics are linked, but what we think about that relationship.

Christianity’s discomfort with nudity signals equal discomfort with sex itself. It reveals that Christianity doesn’t view sex as a gift from God, but some base activity that must be tolerated for reproduction. It shows that Christianity cannot accept that Christians are sexual beings, with needs that must be satisfied sexually, whether or not they are married. If they did so, they would have to accept that some sex outside marriage must be tolerated.

As such, there’s no reason why Christianity should condemn public and communal nudity. There’s no Biblical basis for it, and it has no historical precedent.

However, the link between nudity and sex yields a relevant question - if nudity and sex are related, wouldn’t nudity lead to sexual immorality (or porneia)?

What About Sexual Immorality?

Given that nudity and sex are related, the Christian taboo against public nudity appears to make sense. After all, according to mainstream Christian teaching, all sex outside opposite-gender marriage is grave sin. When public nudity supposedly makes temptation stronger, it makes sense to restrict nudity as much as possible.

Of course, this blog has shown that modern Christian doctrines on sex are very off. In its proper context, the Bible doesn’t condemn most same-sex activity. Instead, it only condemns anal play. So if men want to socialize naked among themselves, or women want to do so, there’s little reason to stop them. If public and communal nudity leads to homoerotic behavior, Christianity cannot condemn it if no anal is involved.

However, the Bible does condemn opposite-gender sex outside marriage. Meanwhile, the nudist movement has always involved mixed-gender nudity. Thus, on the surface, Christian condemnation of nudism seems to make sense. It appears to create the perfect environment for that forbidden behavior to flourish.

In that case, we must remember lessons from recent history. To put it bluntly, societal condemnation of homoeroticism directly caused the modern prevalence of unmarried opposite-sex activity. While extramarital opposite-sex contact rose during the 1960s and 1970s (because of the Sexual Revolution), it really skyrocketed during the 1980s. This happened while occurance of same-sex activity simultaneously plummeted, as this link shows in detail. This strongly suggests that, when homoeroticism became unacceptable, the opposite genders turned to each other to fulfill their sexual needs.

By extension, this also suggests that in past years, most people didn’t engage in extramarital opposite-sex contact because they didn’t need to. They were already getting plenty of sexual pleasure from their same-sex peers. Thus, if homoeroticism became allowable again, the temptation of extramarital opposite-gender sex would likely decrease. It would be easier for men and women to be naked together without getting sexual. Real-life examples show that this was the case before, and can be so now.

The g0ys have numerous examples of this. In one story submitted to them, the writer said, “[When a guy] can hook up regularly with a guy; - the need to split a female's clit is not a 24/7 plight. In other words ... when a guy is able to have regular sexual release [with other men], he's much better able to control his passions around females.” In another story, its writer explains “I didn't talk about it (sex) nearly as much as some of my friends did - & I eventually figured out why. Dave [a friend he had sex with] & I were taking the edge off each other. My other buddies -- they weren't getting any & your own hand doesn't ‘count’ as ‘doing the deed’”. And those remarks came from a man who was Kinsey 3.

Danny (who wrote the experiences in YMCA boys camps) is another example. The camp story is just one part of a larger history of his homoerotic life in youth, where the contact was always mutual masturbation and oral. In looking through his story, something curious emerges. Up until the age of 15, and despite having access to females, he had much more sex with boys than he did with girls.

By his own count, he had sexual contact with 30 to 50 boys before he was 16. He had his first same-sex experience when he was 10. During the same time frame, from what can be gathered, he only had full intercourse with girls twice.

To be clear, he didn’t lack desire for girls. He says plainly that “from the very beginning, I knew I liked both boys and girls.” At present, he only has sex with his wife. He was more active with boys “partly because I really liked boy-sex back then, and partly because boys were more willing to experiment.” Elsewhere in his website, he says that at 11, he quickly realized that “girls aren't easy like boys”. Thus, it was much easier to pursue pleasure with other guys, and there were plenty who were ready and willing.

It’s worth noting that his homoerotic escapades ended soon after his first anal experience at 16, which was very traumatic. While he might not say it explicitly, I personally believe that it was upsetting enough to turn him off male-male sex completely. That should really make you think about the role of anal sex in “gay” life, and whether it’s really beneficial.

Nonetheless, the point is this: when there aren’t strong prohibitions against same-sex activity, and when anal isn’t pushed as a necessity, most guys will seek sex primarily from other men. In such an environment, sex with guys is easier to get and less risky. Since there’s no risk of pregnancy, it allows the men to focus completely on having fun.

In such an atmosphere, it’s less likely that men will pursue women just for sexual gratification. When they’re already getting satisfaction from guys, it’s easier for men to socialize with women without constantly angling for sex. Their needs are already being taken care of. It becomes much easier for guys to delay having sexual experiences with women, perhaps even until marriage. It’s probably the same with women towards men.

So from what I see, it’s possible for men and women to socialize naked and not end up having sex. Everything described above suggests that extramarital opposite-sex contact prevails because we denigrade same-sex activity so harshly. If we allowed men to pursue homoeroticism without punishment, men could more easily relax naked with women who are also nude. In such a case, even if they are naked around each other, sex won’t be a priority.

In other words, to allow men and women to mix without temptation, the solution is not to keep them clothed. Paradoxically, even today, no amount of clothes can curb extramarital opposite-sex contact. Instead, the solution is to let same-sex activity flourish again. When men are getting satisfaction from men, and women from women, it’s less likely that they will madly pursue each other for sex. Instead, sex would be a fringe benefit and not an extreme need. Even if naked in each other’s presence, they’ll be better able to keep their sexual urges under control. It allows men and women to socialize on much deeper, substantial, and fulfilling levels.

Of course, that is a description of a world that doesn’t exist now, at least in the United States. So, given our current state of affairs, should Christians avoid going to nudist hotspots?

Personally, I don’t think so. It might be harder to avoid extramarital opposite-sex contact, but it wouldn’t be impossible either. Besides, there are many nudist hotspots where the opposite genders can mingle naked and yet not have sex. Thus, I still encourage Christians to be nudists if they so choose.

At the same time, this is one more reason why the Christian condemnation of same-sex behavior must be abandoned. This is also why our obtuse sexual labeling system of “gay” and “straight” must also be destroyed. These phenomena deny the true nature of human sexual behavior. In doing so, it creates all kinds of ills that can serve as pretexts for more bonds of slavery.

Conclusion

In exploring the topic of everyday nudity, this blog had a blind spot. While it did a good job of addressing how society harms its existence, it didn’t pay much attention to the role of religion. Yet, Christianity plays a big role in why more people avoid everyday nudity.

This post has disproved their arguments against it. It has shown that the Biblical base for condemnation is very flimsy. It has also shown that the Christian taboo against everyday nudity is very young. As a result, in the face of all this, there’s no reason for Christianity to restrict their parishioners from experiencing public and communal nudity.

And while we’re at it, there’s one more point to consider. Through their logic on nudism, aren’t the Christian clergy denying the value of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice? After all, Jesus died as a random sacrifice for our sinful state. Because of it, Christians should live without needless guilt and self-condemnation, since our sinful state is all but forgiven by God. We’re just waiting for that forgiveness to be exercised on a more tangible level. All we must do is follow God’s laws to the best of our ability.

Meanwhile, Christian clergy say that nudism is disallowable because we’re still sinful. Avoiding nudity is a way to respectfully acknowledge that Adamic sin still affects us, as they say. Otherwise, as “Got Questions” says, “public displays of nudity dishonor God by pretending an innocence that no longer exists.”

Yet, the Bible says that through Jesus’ sacrifice, God “has reconciled [Christians] by Christ’s physical body through death to present [themselves] holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation” (Colossians 1:22, New International Version). When God views humans as holy even while still sinful, why should we presumptuously reassert our sinful state by avoiding public nudity? Aren’t we refusing the generosity of Yahweh, and insisting to wallow in our own muck? Who are we to slap away the kindness of God?

In saying this, this blog isn’t denying reality. While it has acknowledged that nudity and sex are linked, it has also shown that problems arise from what we think about that relationship. To be clear, the churches have a legitimate concern about extramarital opposite-sex contact, and how nudism could encourage that. Indeed, in our sinful state, the temptation of sexual sin is real. However, the solution isn’t to keep their parishioners clothed. Instead, the solution is to let homoeroticism (excluding anal) overflow. When it does, the tempation of extramarital opposite-sex contact (which is Biblically unlawful) becomes far less appealing.

The truth is, Christianity has been used as a tool to put millstones around people’s necks. The same goes for our modern sexual concepts. Neither of them have to be so nettlesome for you.

Thus, I urge you to read further on this site, to explore another way to think about same-sex activity. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others, because that’s the only way progress will be made.

As you can see, the Bible has little problem with going naked. If the Scriptures don’t have a problem with it, neither should you.

~~~~

This is part 6 in an ongoing series on everyday nudity. Please see these other parts:

Part 1: “Same-Sex Activity and Everyday Nudity: How One Affects The Other”

Part 2: “Happy Two Year Anniversary!”, which makes more remarks on same-sex nudity

Part 3:  “‘The Curious Decline of Communal Showers’: This Blog’s Comments on a Video Essay”.

Part 4:  “The Innate Male Need for Communal Nudity: A Photo Essay”.

While we’re on the topic, let’s establish some other ground rules.

Because “gay” porn is so pervasive, and because much of it features anal, that porn might inform your expectations on same-sex activity. Throw all of those away, because they will be useless for this. The content here will explain non-”gay” homoeroticism, which bears little resemblance to “gay” homoeroticism.

“Gay” homoeroticism is focused on results only. It’s driven by the mantra that relationships exist for the sake of sex. It is focused on getting sex by hook or by crook, particularly anal. It’s also focused on getting as much sex as possible, in the shortest time possible. Contacts are made solely on the possibility of speedy sex. For those immersed in “gay” homoeroticism, they establish what they want quickly, and get down to business immediately. Once the deed is done, there’s no perceived obligation to develop the contact into a relationship.

Non-”gay” homoeroticism is entirely different. For that kind of eroticism, sex exists for the sake of relationships. It’s focused on making the journey enjoyable, rather than obsessing over results. It’s much more playful and casual, and doesn’t force things if it doesn’t feel natural. It thrives on spontaneity and fluidity. If two men have sex, the purpose is to bring ultimate closeness to the relationship, and expressing affection in the rawest sense possible. As such, sex is not a guaranteed outcome of these relationships.

That’s not meant to be discouraging. While sex isn’t guaranteed, most guys are attracted to guys on some level. So the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor.

Think of it like tending a field. When you put seeds in the ground, you’re not going to see produce right away. Farming takes patience and effort. It will take time for the seeds to grow, and you can’t stand on the sidelines. You have to pay attention to your crop, constantly watering it and caring for it. It won’t be in vain though. In a short time, you’ll start seeing buds sprout up. Those buds will soon turn into shoots, and before long, full produce will abound all over the field.

The point is, like farming, non-”gay” homoeroticism takes time and effort. Because sex happens in the context of relationships, you’ll have to take time to develop them. Plus, there’s no way to predict how long the process will take. It could take a few days or a few months, depending on the circumstances and the people involved. However, if you put in the effort, you’ll see some measure of results.

Lay The Groundwork

This first point is important. If you’re looking for a friend to get close to, you might think of exploring the “gay” world and community. I don’t recommend that. If you do so, be very careful. It’s not necessarily because of the people in there, as much as the underlying culture.

Remember what I said before. In “gay” homoeroticism, relationships exist for the sake of sex. Additionally, as far as the “gay” world is concerned, only anal sex is real sex. If you’re looking for a stable relationship without anal, you probably aren’t going to find it there.

There are LGBT-identified men who don’t conform to “gay” culture, and who might completely avoid anal, but they might also be few and far between. Furthermore, as long as they exist in the “gay” world, its culture will always exert some influence on them. Even if you find a “gay” man who initially doesn’t do anal, voices in that world will cajole him to do it, and those voices might win out.

I’m not saying to avoid LGBT-identified men completely. Again, I’m saying to be careful, and be discerning. If you find a “gay” man who isn’t interested in anal, you’ll have a double challenge. Not only must you teach him that same-sex activity is natural and normal, you’ll have to get him away from “gay” culture and its obsession with anal. Be prepared for that.

Otherwise, you can look among whatever “straight” friends you have. They’ll be better able to meet you where you are. I realize that such a suggestion seems crazy. In that case, remember what this blog said before - that at least 50% of people carry same-sex attraction inside them. This means that every other man you meet can experience same-sex attraction, and that’s a conservative estimate.

Thus, looking for a homoerotic friendship doesn’t require an expedition. It’s more like looking through your own backyard.

The thing is, “straight” guys usually don’t make it obvious if another guy strikes their fancy. They don’t act like some “gay” guys who practically announce their interest. That’s partially because they don’t want to be labelled “gay”, with all the stereotypes that come with it. However, that’s also because of the relationship’s nature - it’s a friendship that grows more intimate (and more erotic) with time.

So whether with existing or future “straight” friends, carry on those friendships as you otherwise would. Go out with them, talk with them, exercise with them, play games with them and so forth. Visit each other’s homes, discover your friend’s likes and dislikes, and go on adventures together. It’s during these times that your friends will signal if they want to get closer, and where you can signal the same.

For beginners, here’s a handy way to signal interest while weeding out your pool of sexual partners. This comes from the G0ydar article, but I’m repeating it here because it’s effective. In normal conversation, make it clear that anal turns you off. You don’t need to mention it in terms of “gays”, because their community and anal are so welded together, most people will make that connection on their own. You also don’t need to make a big deal of it, but instead just casually mention your opinions. Say something like “I love my friends too, but it doesn’t mean I want to enter him”, or “I can’t see how anyone would want to play with someone’s butt...too filthy for me”, or anything that puts anal play in a critical light.

Two things will happen. Guys who also dislike anal (whether “straight” or “gay”) will make a mental note of that and will relax in your presence, or might even seek out your company. They’ll know that if they end up getting close to you, nobody will get penetrated. At the same time, “gays” who adore anal will take your remarks personally and will keep their distance from you.

If that seems confusing, know that most guys aren’t firmly opposed to getting close to another guy. They’re opposed to the spectre of anal in same-sex activity. Because anal is so associated with same-sex intimacy, they prefer skipping that intimacy completely. Meanwhile, anal is one of the most sacrosanct topics in the “gay” community. Even a mildly critical remark will make some “gays” go ballistic.

However, if you’re looking for “straight” guys to respond “I want you now”, you’ll probably be disappointed. Signs of attraction are more subtle than the brazen displays common in “gay” homoeroticism. You just need to pay attention, and to tune up your powers of observation. If you know what to look for, it won’t be hard to see who wants to get sexual.

Touch is one of the strongest indicators of attraction. When a guy feels comfortable enough with another guy, he won’t limit the contact to chatter. If a guy touches you at times that are unnecessary - like when you’re just talking - it’s definitely a sign of friendliness. If those touches become noticeably frequent, consider the possibility that he’s interested. If those touches become longer in duration, or become varied in location, the probability rises that he’s interested in more.

Horseplay is another indicator of attraction. Guys usually rough play with guys they really like as friends. They often do so with guys they’re familiar with, though that’s not always the case. As the Man2Man Alliance aptly put it, attraction feeds healthy male aggression, and vice-versa. It’s an innocent pretext for prolonged physical contact while learning each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Pay attention if the horseplay becomes regular. It’s definitely a sign of attraction, and might signal that he wants to fool around in other contexts.

Exhibitionism also signals attraction. I’m not necessarily talking about stripping completely naked in front of you. I’m speaking of more subtle forms. For example, if the opportunity arises, he might take off his shirt in your presence. Or he might talk about his latest exploits at the gym, and show off the latest body parts he worked on. Or he might find some reason to lift up his shirt and expose his abs. Or as a joke, he might flash his penis or butt at you. Through these actions, he’s trying to make you notice his body. If these are frequent occurrences, it’s a pretty good indicator that he’d like to show you more, much more.

As it turns out, sex talk could be a sign of attraction in itself. That would include discussing masturbation habits, descriptions of one’s sexual experiences with girls, or trading sexual fantasies. It’s a blatant expression of one’s horniness, and that he’d like to share some of that with you. If that talk becomes frequent, or if physical contact is made during it, he might want sex to be more than a conversation topic.

If you’re interested too, feel free to reciprocate as you see fit. If a guy touches your shoulder while talking with you, respond by touching his arm sometime later. If he playfully tackles you one day, do the same thing to him on another day. If he shows you how he worked on his arms, talk along similar lines (if you work out too). If he takes off his shirt around you, maybe do the same thing sometime later. Be sure to be subtle too, and your friend will get the message loud and clear.

Of course, these are only a few signs, and there are more that aren’t mentioned here. Sometimes, it might not be any kind of sign. It might just be a sexual “vibe” you perceive from a guy, and if you do discern one, it’s probably accurate. Plus, while all these are likely signs of sexual interest, it’s up to you to tell if those really are sexual signals. Just exercise your powers of perception, and as you use them more, they will guide the way.

Lastly, you might feel that all of these sound like everyday male behaviors. Indeed they are normal male behaviors, and that’s the point. I’m not identifying them so guys can start curbing them. Instead, I’m showing how natural same-sex attraction really is. Because it’s natural, it’s impossible to completely eliminate, and it will find some way to express itself. Whether observers realize it or not, guys may often express their same-sex attraction through these behaviors. As such, while this isn’t always the case, these actions can be the first steps to sexual interaction. When same-sex attraction is impossible to suppress, there’s no logical reason to restrain it so strongly.

Continuing to Up The Ante

When you perceive that another guy likes you, you probably won’t be satisfied with leaving it at that. You’ll want to capitalize on it, and develop it into actual sex. The aim is to steadily develop the intimacy of the relationship, so that sex becomes a natural outcome. How you proceed depends on the guy involved, and the circumstances you’re working under.

Guys might differ on the method of escalation. For example, there are some guys who they will engage in explicitly sexual escalation. In this case, it’s perfectly clear to both friends what they’re heading for. Your friend might respond quickly to physical contact, and that response would be unambiguous expressions of affection (hugs, caresses, groping, kissing). As time goes by, you’ll feel more comfortable expressing your affection more openly. As a result, the inevitability of sex becomes ever clearer. It would be hard to disguise the behavior as anything but sexual.

Meanwhile, other guys prefer less obvious ways. They prefer having sex with guys “accidentally on purpose”. As such, they increasingly express their affection for you while doing these activities. Sex happens within this context, where while those activities generate genuine fun, they are also thinly disguised conduits for eroticism.

For example, two guys might sleepover one night, and both strip down because they say that they sleep naked. While feigning sleep in bed, wandering hands might lead to each other’s penises, and a mutual masturbation session begins. Or two guys might wrestle, and because it makes them hot, both might progressively strip to their underwear or total nudity. In that case, penises might end up enmeshed against each other, and a frot session begins.

Guys might also differ in how much they participate in the escalation. Both friends might equally participate in it. With them, the escalation becomes mutual, where both engage in a “tit for tat” exchange. One might take off his shoes, while the other takes off his socks. Another takes off his pants, while the other takes his shirt. One might massage a guy’s back, and the other reciprocates by massaging his upper legs. In that case, you don’t have to do that much, because you two are both doing the work.

Other guys might be more passive. Blatantly seeking same-sex intimacy might be too “gay” for them to do. That doesn’t mean that they don’t want sex as badly as you do, because they probably do. In fact, they might blatantly signal that they’re into you. It’s just that, given the rules of cultural masculinity, they can’t see how they can openly seek same-sex intimacy and keep their dignity. However, they also don’t rule out receiving affections from another guy, or being led by him into potentially sexual situations. While he might not want to take the lead, he’ll be more than willing to follow.

As a result, he’ll rely on you to take the driver’s seat, and be the one who moves the escalation forward. You’ll have to be the one who comes with ideas, and the one to make the first move. He’ll likely put up some resistance for the sake of appearances, then quickly relent and follow your lead.

For example, at that same sleepover, you might ask if you can sleep naked on his bed, because that’s what you’re used to. Your friend might raise some concerns, but ultimately let you do it. A few minutes later, he might quietly do the same thing. Or during wrestling, you might decide to take off some clothes, while your friend decides to keep his on. A few minutes later, he might take off some clothes too, and match your state of undress.

As you can see, there is no uniform approach to escalation. It completely depends on who your friend is. You’ll need to be nimble, adaptable, and discerning. You’ll need to perceive your friend’s positions, and read whatever signs that they give you. You’ll know how to proceed from there.

As such, there are many activities that help facilitate escalation of intimacy. To me, communal nudity is among the best. Nudity creates a deep bond that can be developed into a sexual one. Plus, if you and your friends are comfortable being naked in one setting, it’s much easier to be naked in others. Most of all, if you or your friend want to get sexual, there won’t be much clothing around to stop you.

Thus, if you and your friend happen to use a communal shower room, feel free to use it naked. If the shower room has curtains, keep the curtains open, and talk with your friend in his stall while naked. If you feel up to it, you can walk up to his stall and talk to him while nude. While in the locker room, freely talk with your friend while naked, even facing him while doing so. He might not join you in being naked the first time, or even the first few times. However, when he sees that you don’t care about being naked, soon he might not care either.

If you want to do sexual stuff in that shower, make sure it won’t cause problems. A few decades ago, guys could jerk and suck each other off in a communal shower without much complaint. That’s simply not the case now, so you’ll have to be perceptive. In some showers, you can do stuff and not get caught. In others you might get caught, but nobody would care because anal isn’t involved. In yet others, you might get caught and be charged with indecency. It entirely depends on the attitudes in the establishment, and it’ll be up to you to figure out what to do. Just make sure your fun doesn’t earn you a rap sheet.

Plus, communal nudity doesn’t need to be limited to locker rooms. If you’re alone with your friend at his house, see if you can strip down your underwear or completely nothing. If he’s at your house, just hang around in your underwear, and in the future, test wearing absolutely nothing. As usual, they might not join you, and may even raise concerns. Soon however, they may relax about seeing you naked, and may let you see them naked too.

Wrestling is also a good way to simultaneously have fun and get closer. It allows heavy physical contact while testing each other’s strength. The physical contact creates a bond that’s hard to break. Plus, since it involves heavy exertion, clothes will have to come off. As layer after layer is taken off, you’ll end up wrestling in your underwear. If your friend feels close enough to you, you might end it up doing it naked. If your friend is turned on by the wrestling, a telltale erection will definitely emerge. Make it clear that the erection hasn’t escaped your notice, though in a joking way so you don’t embarrass him. Then, the door is open to mutual masturbation, frot, or other stuff.

Massage is another way to up the ante. If it’s done in a tone of mutual respect, guys usually won’t mind getting a massage from another guy. In fact, the friend might actually appreciate the favor. It signals that he trusts you enough not to hurt him. Furthermore, because of its nature, clothing will have to be removed. So as you move from area to area, ask to remove clothing that will get in your way, and he’ll comply. Eventually, he only have underwear on, and if he trusts you enough, he’ll let you massage him completely naked. He’ll inevitably get erect, at which point you can offer to jerk him off and relieve his tension.

As a way to break the ice, watching porn together is another activity that can lead to sex. One day, get a laptop and an isolated space, and turn on porn that both of you will like. Because it’s porn, both of you will get aroused. Say that the porn makes you want to jerk off (because it’s true), drop your pants and begin masturbating. He’s going to be horny too, so he’ll do the same thing either immediately or a few minutes after you. Then, see if you can trade hands, where he jerks you off and vice versa. Then the porn will become mere background noise to the main event happening between you. Next time, you might not even need porn to do it all over again.

You may or may not have noticed a running theme. All the activities mentioned involve some kind of undress. That should show you what other activities can escalate the sexual tension, because these certainly aren’t the only possible ones. Really, any activity that combines two or more of these elements,

Involves physical contact, preferably heavy contact

Requires some kind of undressing

Creates an uninhibited atmosphere

can make the bonds of friendships deeper, and bring them closer to sexual expression. It could lead directly to sex, or be a strong prelude to more private events later on. It could be a game of shirtless water tag, or a game of strip poker. It could be as simple as a round of Truth or Dare. Be creative and spontaneous. When opportunity comes knocking, open the door with all gusto.

The Risk of Upping the Ante

Now, there is something that must be said. None of these behaviors come without risk. All of them may make people try to label you “gay”. It could be observers doing so, trading rumors among themselves that you’re deeply closeted. If they’re religious or gay-identified, they might loudly insist that your actions are “gay”, and angrily demand that you identify as such. Because of this risk, you might restrain yourself from doing things you want to do. You simply fear giving anyone a reason to call you “gay”.

To be honest, there’s nothing you can do to stop that from happening. It’s simply the world we live in, where ever more things are interpreted as signs of being “gay”. Since it’s impossible to avoid, you just can’t care about that possibility. Don’t fear it either, because fear gives that accusation power it doesn’t deserve. Instead, focus on how you’ll respond to the suggestion. Your answer will determine how that accusation will affect your self-image, your overall quality of life, and how your peers view you.

When someone accuses you of being “gay”, flatly and calmly deny it because you’re not. You’re not lying. Remember what was recommended earlier - that before you started down this journey, you should abandon identifying as “gay” or “straight”. Instead, you should simply identify as a Man. So when you say that you’re not “gay”, your statement is 100% true. Keep in mind that those labels represent identities and not sexualities. Identities can be assumed or rejected at will. So for that accusation to be true, you have to agree with it first.

Plus, by denying that you’re “gay/LGBT/queer”, you’re not denying that you’re into guys (too). Make that clear in your answer . As far as you’re concerned, your attractions are not the issue, because you already know you’re into guys (too). Instead, the issue is that an unwanted identity is being imposed on you. It’s an identity that ties in with “gay” culture - drag, imitation of opposite gender mannerisms, anal - that you have no interest in. In fact, it’s an identity that totally pivots on anal, which you can’t stand. Most of all, it reinforces the notion that same-sex activity is abnormal and aberrant, which you know isn’t true.

When you disagree with it so much, why should you voluntarily take on that identity? In truth, you don’t even need those labels to define yourself. You can do that perfectly well without them.

If they insist that you should call yourself “gay”, ask them to explain the word’s many inconsistencies, like

Its contradictory meanings

How, if the word only refers to sex, a “gay” man can be validly called “straight” acting

How mutual masturbation, oral and frot are “gay” sex, but only anal is real “gay” sex

If “gay” only refers to sex, why swimming, musicals, and pop music (which are nonsexual phenonema) can be validly labelled “gay” even by the “gays”

Given all of these contradictions, how can the word “gay” only refer to sex? If it doesn’t, why should you base your identity on it? I guarantee that they won’t be able to give a good answer.

At some point, your accusers will see that they’re losing, and will give up for the time being. They probably won’t give up though, and may try again in the near future. In that case, stand your ground and stick to your guns. You are asserting who you truly are, and you don’t need their labels to do it. People around you will have to recognize that you are unique. The “gays” and the religious will have to admit, albeit begrudgingly, that you’re different.

Through such concerted action, you’ll be doing many things. First, you’ll be challenging the dominance of modern sexual philosophy. It is a very jealous system, insisting that people see sex through its own lens. Thus, most people spend their lives trying to shoehorn themselves into being “gay” or “straight”, which both represent obtuse sexual categories.

By adopting neither label, you’ll leave modern sexual philosophy in total confusion. In its mind, a person who isn’t “gay” must be “straight”, and vice-versa, but nobody can be neither. It doesn’t let people realize that there are other ways to conceptualize sex. By identifying only as a Man, you’ll demonstrate that people can validly exist outside of its labeling system and its rules. You’ll show that modern sexual philosophy doesn’t have a monopoly on sex.

Furthermore, you’ll show other guys that the word “gay” need not have power on them. For fear of being labelled “gay”, many men have hemmed themselves into a steadily shrinking box. They have driven themselves into utter misery as they ran away from wearing briefs, shunned supposedly “gay” sports, and avoided musicals like the plague. They felt like they had no choice, since they couldn’t see how any man could successfully deny being “gay”, yet openly love men or those activities. Through your example, they will see that it can be done, and that they can do it too.

Even while you’re making your friendship more intimate, a friend might suggest that the activities are somewhat “gay”. In that case, truthfully say that you’re not “gay”, and that you’re just doing what you enjoy as a Man. Or just pay it no attention, because after all, they’re involved in the supposedly “gay” activity too. When they get an erection from all the fun, call it out in jest. Say something like, “You're calling me ‘gay’ but you're the guy with the stiffy? The pot calling the kettle black, don’t you think?” They won’t be able to respond to that, at least not effectively.

Again, these are guidelines to help you. In your own life, you might find additional methods to fight the accusation of being “gay”. To do that however, you’ll need to know modern sexual philosophy inside and out. That’s why I said that you should read the “For ‘Straight’ People” page. That will give you links to see what makes the philosophy tick.

How to Have Sex With A Guy and Not Get An STD

So the escalation worked, and it seems that you and your friend will end up having sex. Most guys avoid it because they think all male-male sex is disease ridden. In truth, it’s relatively easy to lower STD risk to miniscule levels. These are simple rules that will take the risk down to almost zero.

Totally avoid anything anal. Despite anything that the “gay” leadership preaches, the anus is not a vagina. It never has been, and it never will be. Thus, there’s absolutely no reason for you to shove your penis up your friend’s butt, or vice-versa.

However, avoidance isn’t limited to anal penetration. You should also avoid any anal-oral contact (like rimming), and anal-digital contact (like fingering or fisting). The anus isn’t a vagina, so it wouldn’t make sense to do those actions anyway.

Here’s the dirty little secret of the “gay” community: most of its diseases are spread through anal play. It’s what helped drive the rapid spread of AIDS during the 1980s and 1990s. It’s probably what drove in the jump in STD infection during 2016. As such, condoms have virtually no effect on stopping STD transmission. There’s nothing to gain from playing in your friend’s anus, or him playing in yours.

By avoiding anal play, you’ve already cut down STD risk by a lot. With other forms of sex, it’s harder to spread an STD or receive one. Through that one simple action, you’ve made one large step in preserving your health and that of your friend.

Be careful with oral. Make no mistake: oral sex doesn’t come close to anal in terms of risk. However, it does have risks that can’t be discounted. This blog isn’t saying that you should avoid oral sex. Instead, it’s saying to exercise care in deciding when to do it and how.

A few decades ago, oral wouldn’t have been as risky, because there weren’t as many STDs in circulation. Those that existed were much more treatable and harder to catch. So guys received and gave oral as they pleased, and sometimes as the first sexual act done between partners. That was the case with this guy in the 1970s American South, as well as this man in a 1970s YMCA.

Unfortunately times have changed, and oral can transmit quite a few STDs. There are cases of HIV that have been spread through oral. HPV can be spread rather easily through oral, which can cause oral cancer. It can also spread syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea.

If you and your buddy are having sex for the first time, I wouldn’t recommend doing oral. You’d need to know that your friend isn’t carrying something that will harm you. Good communication is vital to facilitate oral. Ask in a way that preserves his dignity. This is a good example (taken from the g0y website): "Because I'm into dick2dick, it really isn't a big issue; --But have you had STI's or anything in the past or are still being treated -- that we might want to wait to clear up before doing more than some rod-rubbing & ball-bonding?"

Keep this in mind - if your partner doesn’t have a disease, you won’t get one either. You can’t catch what your partner doesn’t have. This is why I recommended dealing with “straight” guys, because they’re less likely to carry an STD. Since a change in quantity means a change in quality, “gays” are more likely to carry STDs, because they’re encouraged to be more promiscuous.

Furthermore, don’t be selfish. If you have an STD, let your friend know. This has to go both ways. If you can’t trust each other to be honest when it counts, you’ll be endangering your relationship. Do you want to live knowing that you infected your friend?

Plus, even if STDs aren’t a concern, that doesn’t mean the coast is clear. Even as guys go through their day, guys sweat in their crotches. As the Man2Man Alliance explains, “some dysentaries can be transmitted through eggs borne in sweat -- and the eggs go wherever the sweat goes.” It explains further, “For example: you're with a guy who's sweating, the sweat runs down his ass crack and picks up whatever fecal matter is on the exterior of his anus, and gets on his balls.” If he scratches his crotch, as most guys do, that can easily transfer to his penis.

Thus, I’d recommend doing a blowjob at a specific time - during or after your friend swims, showers, and bathes in a Jacuzzi. The running water will cleanse the penis, which reasonably ensures that the skin isn’t carrying anything unpleasant. A document from the website “Straight Talk for Boys About Sex with Males” puts it best: “there is no real difference between having a finger or a penis in your mouth, if both have been freshly washed...The penis itself has no taste unless it is not clean.” While its advice on anal is highly questionable, its information on other sex acts is mostly accurate.

For more vital information on fellatio, please see this page from the g0y website, and read the subtitle “Fellatio”.

Remember that sex exists for the sake of relationships. I realize that I already said that, but I’m repeating it for a reason. This phrase will help cancel out any remaining STD risk in your sexual behavior.

Outside of anal and oral, other forms of male-male contact are quite low risk. If the anus or mouth isn’t involved in sex, semen will land on skin. If there’s no open wound, skin is an excellent barrier against most diseases.

Note however that I didn’t say no risk. Take frot as an example. Though the probability of infection is very low, frot can theoretically transmit pubic lice and genital herpes. Thus, it’s worth noting this quote from the Man2Man Alliance: “If Men into Frot become as promiscuous as males into anal have been, Frot will lose its innocence and joy and become yet another vector for STDs.”

In the “gay” world, a “gay” man might have sex with several men in one night. If two “gays” hook up for sex, they may otherwise be strangers. They might have hooked up just because they liked each other’s looks. As such, they had no relationship before sex, and may feel no obligation to establish one afterward. After sex is over, they may wipe each other out of their minds, and move on to the next conquest. That may happen several times in one night. In such an environment, even low-risk sex can be a conduit for STDs.

That’s why the above phrase is so important. Because of it, you’ll realize that sex isn’t the priority. Instead, relationships must take first place. Sex is what brings those relationships to their highest potential.

That mantra will make such promiscuity less likely. Since relationships are the focus, you’ll be more judicious about who you get sexual with. You’ll think more about who you have sex with. As a result, even if you have sex with more than one guy, your activity won’t approach the levels reached in the “gay” community. This assures that low-risk methods will remain low-risk.

What To Do During Afterglow

So you and your friend end up having sex. It might have been after an hot frot session, a good handjob, or some mutual masturbation. In the afterglow of the climax, you can’t just say nothing about it and leave. At this point, your friend will need you more than ever.

Remember the ironclad grip that modern sexual philosophy has over millions. Remember that its central message is that same-sex activity is inherently abnormal. Up until that point, that philosophy might have an ironclad grip on your friend. So after the pleasure fades away, his head might fill with fear. He’s just done the unthinkable - he just had sex with another man. In the world of modern sexual philosophy, he can no longer call himself a legitimate male. He must either repudiate the desires he’s just uncovered, or else identify as “gay” (aka “abnormal”) from then on.

If he’s Christian, he might believe that he’s just committed a grave sin. He might now believe that he is beyond God’s mercy, and must await his judgement. He might think that he is now an abomination. Under such thoughts, he might even contemplate self-harm or suicide.

You need to reassure him that there’s nothing wrong with him. You need to show him that his urges are normal, natural, and extremely common. You need to show him that his urges for men (too) don’t impugn on his masculinity. You need to show him that his urges don’t necessitate immersion into “gay” culture, or experimentation with anal. You need to show him that God doesn’t care how much he likes men (too).

Thus, you need to show him some of what you’ve seen. Show him some of the contents of this blog, particularly the Scriptural Commentaries. Show him some of the pages from the g0y website. Show him some of the content of the Man2Man Alliance, especially those showing that sex between men is simply an activity that men do. Then, when he gets the point, watch as internal relief sweeps through your friend.

For pointers, look at this story and this story from this humongous catalogue of g0y stories. They do a great job of showing how you can educate your friends. And continue seeing each other after that. You two might become each other’s support, and together you might help other men become free to pursue their own desires for men.

You two had sex because you like each other a lot. In another world, you two could do it without much afterthought. But given the power of modern sexual philosophy, that’s simply impossible right now. Through sex, you have to save others from becoming condemned in their own minds. It’s part of the altruism that natural same-sex activity helps support.

Conclusion

As you might have gathered, this guide doesn’t exist just to improve your seduction skills. Instead, it introduces a different way of life. It exposes a world where same-sex activity is just as valid as opposite-sex contact. The sex model it promotes inculcates a different mindset and outlook in those who follow it. It is one where masculinity is not a monolith, where sex exists for the sake for relationships, and where same-sex bonds are viewed as sacred.

In many ways, the values of this sex model run counter to those which dominate today. This is not to be taken lightly. Instead, it shows why it is suppressed so much. It also shows why it must be fought for. It promotes valuable principles - community, fraternity, equality - which we need so badly today.

I hope that this guide strengthens you. I hope that it is one that you will consider valuable. Most of all, I hope it is one that you will use to the full.

So because of the traditional same-sex model, the developing world has been effectively bisexual for some time. Evidently, this has been the case in Chile too. The difference is that certain young men, seduced by LGBT advocacy in their country, are increasingly including anal in their male-male interactions. They then spread it to their girlfriends and other women through sex with them. That’s what the articles and data strongly suggest. Otherwise, STDs would have always been a problem.

Chile isn’t alone. Brazil has been been having its own troubles. 2016 is the latest year for which we have statistics, so we’ll refer to those. According to the New York Times, there were 48,000 new HIV cases during 2016. There were already 830,000 Brazilians infected with HIV during that year. which means the total jumped by 5%. Keep in mind that we still don’t have statistics for 2017.

As with Chile, the largest rise occurred among the young, between ages 15 to 24. Men are disproportionately affected, which suggests that “gays” and MSM have the majority of cases. However, women are also getting affected, as they also have sex with those men. This is because, since it’s part of the developing world, dynamics in Brazil closely resemble those in Chile.

The increases aren’t limited to Latin America and the Caribbean. Even as deaths from AIDS are decreasing overall, HIV infections are rising throughout the world. CNN reported that over the past decade, there have been increases in 74 countries. The most pronounced ones happened in Central and South America, South Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Though the increase is partially attributable to drug use (particularly in Eastern Europe), the majority of new cases still occur among “gays” and MSM.

However, I’ve yet to touch the most outrageous part - the deafening silence of the “gay” media on this story.

I’m not saying this lightly. I’ve tried to find “gay” media output on this, but it’s nowhere in sight. There’s nothing on Chile in the Advocate, Queerty, Gay Star News, Out Magazine, or Pink News. These are some of the biggest “gay” outlets in the world, yet there’s nothing on this massacre. Nor is there anything on Brazil on those websites, except for a small item in Gay Star News that superficially covers it.

As for the situation worldwide, you also find virtually nothing. The exception is a video from the Advocate, which cherry picks information detailed in the CNN report. The video completely ignores the bad news, which is the continuing and escalating rise in HIV infection. Instead, it focuses only on positive developments, making the stupefying claim that “we're winning the worldwide fight against AIDS”.

After doing all this research, I had to take a break. That headline would be so funny if it wasn’t so utterly fraudulent.

We’re winning the worldwide fight against AIDS? Really? In what universe? If we were winning, rates of HIV infection wouldn’t be increasing.

Meanwhile, these outlets diligently report bias attacks that happen around the world, including in the countries mentioned. To be clear, I’m not saying that they shouldn’t do that. In this aspect, they are doing their job. However, they ignore possible factors spurring these attacks. If you believed these outlets, you’d think that these attacks are driven by blind illogical hatred for all same-sex activity.

Let me make a modest suggestion. Is it possible that those bias attacks are driven by these disease statistics, at least in part? Especially when these diseases were previously unknown, and mainly appeared when LGBT advocacy arrived in their countries? Especially when anal was previously unknown in those countries? Especially when scientific evidence shows that anal, the practice they want to increase, is mainly responsible for HIV transmission during sex?

As I did research for this post, I noticed something. More often than not, countries reporting HIV increases also reported increases in bias attacks. That’s especially the case in Brazil, where murders of LGBT-identified people reached an all-time high last year. The same has occurred in Chile, where 2017 was called the “year of rage” against “gays”. That has blatantly been the case in Russia, which has also registered a sharp uptick in HIV cases in recent years.

I’m not justifying random violence on LGBT-identified people. Nor am I encouraging blind persecution of those who have HIV. My point is, when analyzing why “gays” are attacked in those countries, we must consider these statistics. If we don’t, we might be ignoring a huge factor. Think about it. You see HIV increasing in your country. With your own eyes, you see the horror that it can cause. At the same time, you see “gay” groups openly and endlessly advocating anal sex. Available evidence shows that anal is highly effective at spreading HIV.

With all those factors combined, isn’t it logical that someday, grief over HIV may turn into anger against “gays”? Especially when behavior spreading it isn’t native to those countries? To be clear, I definitely don’t support attacks on random “gay” people. However, I also can’t blame those residents for being so upset, even if the anger is expressed in extremely harmful ways.

I also don’t think that victims of HIV should be stigmatized. They need help, not stigma. They indeed support, medication, and love. At the same time, we should be doing everything possible to end its transmission, so that others won’t be harmed. This must include changes in behavior. That’s what socially responsible movements do - analyze if its own actions are worsening the issue. If the “gay” movement refuses to consider that kind of change, they are part of the problem.

To not look so complacent, “gay” advocacy groups push the absurd demand for more condoms. The truth is, it really doesn’t matter whether condoms are used en masse or not. Condoms can tear, and because the anus is rougher than the vagina, condoms tear much more easily inside the anus. In other words, condoms give a false sense of security.

That’s not all. Because of that false sense of security, those “gay” men might do anal more than they would otherwise. This results in a paradox: by using condoms, “gay” men feel free to increasingly do something that can make them tear. This in turn increases the risk of HIV transmission. So in sum, mass condom use doesn’t decrease HIV risk, but actually increases it.

There’s only one way to surely decrease HIV transmission - stop doing behavior that spreads it. As in, “gays” must stop having anal sex (and other forms of anal play) altogether. It’s simply too risky.

There’s one more factor to consider, which wasn’t mentioned in the last STD post. As mentioned before, the new infections usually occur in young people. They weren’t born when this epidemic started in 1981. Many of them also weren’t born with the virus, but acquired it later in life. This means that on a fundamental level, HIV activism has failed miserably. Instead of staying with one generation, the virus is now being spread to a new one. HIV has become the “gift” that keeps on giving.

This guarantees that we will be dealing with this for another 40 years, at least. This means that, contrary to the Advocate headline, we’re not winning the war on AIDS. We’re not even close. Even as you read this, a new generation is getting infected, and the “gay” media is dead silent.

Does the “gay” movement not realize that through their willful ignorance, they are chaining our young people for life? Do they not see that this is morally reprehensible? Do they not comprehend how vile and nauseating this is?

Worst of all, outlets discouraging anal are struggling to spread their message. This website, the Man2Man Alliance, and the g0ys have all been censored and hindered on various platforms. I have endured many personal attacks while trying to advertise this blog on Reddit. At one point, some rogue employee(s) at Tumblr vigorously tried to shut this website down. The Man2Man Alliance has suffered similar attacks. In many cases, the “gay” movement plays a big role in that censorship and sabotage.

Yet, the “gay” movement can spread their message much more easily, even as it increases disease transmission. And they have the nerve to label us as homophobic!

Thus, I will repeat the same message I said in the past article: if you want healthy advice on same-sex activity, don’t listen to the “gay” media or the “gay” leadership. They are morally bankrupt, and apparently love anal sex more than life itself.

Instead, listen to those who don’t insist on doing anal, such as the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance. They have the intellectual integrity to explain how anal increases STD risk. They show that hierarchies of risk do exist, and that certain modes of contact carry low STD risk. You’ll be much more able to avoid STDs by using their advice.

If you’re not “gay” yourself, don’t wantonly attack those who identify as LGBT. That will only drive them further into the arms of the “gay” leadership. Also, don’t lump all same-sex activity in the same category as anal. That will only feed into their narrative, that they are the only ones championing all same-sex activity.

Instead, show them alternatives to the anal sex model. The g0ys and Man2Man Alliance will help considerably with that. I’m sure they will appreciate that their same-sex attraction isn’t as problematic as they think.

If you want to try it yourself, this site will be more than willing to help you.

Thus, I urge you to read further here, to explore another way to think about same-sex activity. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others, because that’s the only way progress will be made.