Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    You may think this is acceptable to DEC standards, but it damn sure is
    not acceptable to mine.  The whole thing is disgusting!

This version of Denny's note was approved by myself and Gerry Fisher.  If
anyone has questions about the approval, please contact me by mail.

					Steve

Re: .0

Nice note Denny, I'm glad I finally got to read it! :-)

Re: .1

Hmm. I didn't find it disgusting. Thought provoking, shocking, frightening, but
not disgusting. What was it that you found disgusting? The idea of men feeling
comfortable being naked with other men, and embracing them in warm friendship?
The idea of feeling comfortable masturbating with other men? The idea that men
could be that vulnerable with each other without needing defense reactions? I'm
interested in hearing what about the situation you found disgusting.

Quite frankly it sounded to me like I might expand past some of my limits at a
workshop like that. I find personal growth often terrifying, after all I'm
pretty comfortable with the way I am now, and if I change things, I might find
that in learning about myself I will change. Who knows how I might end up!

I think I'd like to try it though...

Denny - does the book list local resources for things like that? I guess I
should just get a copy of the book.

	-- Charles

    Well Mike, I can tell you what *I* think, but I don't know if it'll help
    you be any less confused.

    I really strongly believe, way down deep, that you cannot truly love others
    unless you love yourself. If you don't accept and love yourself, you
    cannot truly love others.

    I am a man. I have problems loving myself, seeing myself as something
    lovable. Part of this comes from the fact that I find most men, and many
    masculine traits hateful. If I can come to accept those things in other men
    and in myself. I will love myself, and them better. I can see those things
    which are truly hateful and try to change those, and I can
    disassociate the hateful from the merely masculine, and love my own
    masculinity.

    This will help me love women. I already love women for so many things, and
    appreciate the feminine, and the feminine in me. I would like to love the
    strength and masculinity in myself and them as well.

    Clear? Maybe not. I'm afraid I come off sounding like one of those
    "touchie-feelie" therapists that we all make fun of. But the subject is
    real, and very important to me. I think I do a pretty good job of accepting
    myself, but I have a deep-seated distrust and basic dislike of men. I would
    like to get over that, since after all, I am one.

    	-- Charles

    Charles, I hear stuff like that all the time.  I just don't see it -
    how does loving yourself (much less loving men) help to love others? 
    For purely practical reasons, it's obviously a good idea to accept
    yourself.  Again, for purely practical reasons, if you're satisfied
    with yourself, you'll be more likely to snag comfortable relationships. 
    But love is a strong word.
    
    Speaking of strength, what's the deal with "strength and masculinity"? 
    Why not just "strength"?
    
    As the Yalies used to say to Ann Landers, this is a serious inquiry.  I
    like your notes and I have a recurring rash of misandry myself.
    
    Ray

This note was written, based on the orginal ".0" and I saved it in case this
note was revived.  Same story is told below, with a different slant.  Both
prove NOTHING.

What do I think about .0 ???  Here's my 2 cents...

I think it's rubbish.  If that's what it takes for someone to be able to love
women, well... I just can't buy it.  Let me illustrate with still... another
story.  Like .0 it has nothing to do with being able to love women better, nor
does it have any thing to do with violence against women.... but like .0 said,
let's try a different slant at it with a similar story as .0, but a bit
different.  Read with an open mind, as in .0.  Then compare the two...

Moderators:  I have used no "bad" words here, only implications, which .0 used
as well.  This should show how I see .0's workshop as a place for legal orgys,
nothing more.


    
Sue said, at the end of the workshop, "Men will be able to relate to women when
they can love sheep."  The truth of her "tao" is now evident to me.

The story on "men loving women - men loving men" is based on pure conjecture.
Let's try another story and see how it is also... unrelated to violence.

Liberating Male Hangups
by Dr. Sick Shrinkhead
from "Men on the Western Skyline"



Life, at it's best, is about lovemaking and getting off, while sharing this
experience with perfect strangers.  The time is right; all energies are drawn
for the "big one."  Pain and fear and humility dissolve under the gentle
massage of "doing it."  After all, a climax is a climax.

At first we were embarrassed, but after doing it repeatedly, the strangeness
vanished.  Sue Vibrator's solution was that we all learn from each other and we
must have.

About Sue:  Sue is not a virgin.  She is compact, strong, and has a desire to
have sex with an alien.  While a noted liberal, she is as free from old fashion
sex as anyone.  I found her to be open, loving, and horny throughout the
seminar.

A "Sex Workshop" consists of about ten men, naked together, wearing cowboy hats
and knee high boots.  An optional "kerchief" may be worn around the neck. 
People look at themselves and make jokes, shoot water guns, and talk about
cheating on their spouses.  This course is offered widely in the West, but is
being introduced to the South at this time.

The benefits of this group are unknown, but it's fun and good for a good laugh
at the bar.  But as a man, I wondered if it was legal.  I was use to being
naked in the locker room, but not outside in the middle of a pasture.  

Sue suggested exercises which had us all doing rope tricks with our "ropes." 
She was amazed that as men, we had no problem with that.  There were short
ropes, long ropes, skinny ropes, and fat ropes.  It was quite interesting to
see men swinging their ropes in various directions.  I remember getting 
familiar with rope tricks at about age nine.

You couldn't have more fun than this, except for in the state of Nevada were
prostitution is legal.  Sue soon had us worked into a frenzy, humping our ropes
uncontrollably!

Dick Bentit gave Sue a gift wrapped rubber baseball bat, official size, which
she accepted and to our amazement, made the whole bat disappear!  Then she
focused on the ten militant penises, their generals, and realized that this army
was at her command.

While women fear sex, we discovered that men fear audits by the IRS. While
women are more comfortable with nudity among their own sex, heterosexual men
are more comfortable with nudity among women too.

The first day was fun.  We had beer and pizza and told distasteful jokes.  I
can't remember when I had a better time.  

The second day was a bit awkward and embarrassing.  We were still naked with
our cowboy hats on and our knee high boots.  Sheep were brought in, and we drew
lots to pair ourselves up with these fluffy beasts.  I got a black and white
one.  First, we check to make sure that the sheep were all female.  Sue got
herself a nice, off-white, goat.  While she made the goat smile, we all were
"greased down."  Condoms were optional, but no one wanted to be a weenie and
use one.

After watching a ten minute film on "Sheep and the Men that love them,"  we
were instructed to insert the sheep's hind legs into the knee high boots. We
then relied on the film, Sue's help, and our on manly instincts.  What a
wonderful, free, experience.	I noticed a sense of closeness, amazing and
unique for me, steadily increasing among us that second day.  I was loving
sheep and did not feel ashamed.  My confidence is boosted.  Orgasms came in
waves, a domino effect, with one man's groans likely to set off the ejaculation
of a man next to him, or possibly even his sheep.

Meanwhile, our bronze goddess, with her goat active between her strong thighs,
stood in the animal kingdom above us, gyrating in beautiful ecstasy at the
sight of her ten admirers, who lay at her feet absorbed in a myriad of
sensations and fantasies. I sensed that every man in that room would now be a
better lover for it.  Love of self, of men, and of women, of sheep, now seemed
so obviously connected.

What does all this mean?  All I can say is, I'll never look and sheep in the
same light, nor laugh at a man standing nude with his Stetson, Dingos, and
rope, standing at attention.

As I hugged other men, I could smell the wonderful aroma of sheep.  This gave
me a "warm fuzzy" and I was at peace.  Pleasure was all around me, because I was
standing on a ranch full of sheep.

Sue said, at the end of the workshop, "Men will be able to relate to women when
they can love sheep."  The accuracy of her insight is now clear to me.

That an all-male workshop could be run by a feminist sheep herder without a
hint of conflict is one demonstration. 

We came away with a sense that we had shared an experience with a significance
that went beyond our small group.  The dream of male liberation glided in from
the previously impossible heights to become a tangible reality right in our
midst.  This reality, and the freedom which it offers, is as near as the
nearest pleasure, or sheep ranch.

So far, some of the responses to this article have come from
men who find the ideas in it disgusting.  I have to admit I
find the strength of their response confusing.  If it doesn't
seem to interest you, why do you attack it?  An alternative
might be to think, "Boy, I wonder why some men find this sort
of thing useful, certainly doesn't seem useful to me..."

Of course, if your reaction is disgust, you have every right
to say so and I accept that position, it just confuses me.

re .4 (Mike Z)
>	Why shouldn't the men just start off with women?
>
>	Wouldn't *that* help them relate to women?

Certainly we have to keep women in mind.  But if we know how
to relate to ourselves very well, I do think it will help us
relate to women better.  For instance, if a woman asks us why
we act or feel a certain way, if we aren't in touch with our-
selves it will be more difficult to relate that information
to them. 

re .6 (Ray)
>    Charles, I hear stuff like that all the time.  I just don't see it -
>    how does loving yourself (much less loving men) help to love others? 

I'll give my 2 cents on this too, if it's ok.  

My thoughts are that, if we don't find ourselves (or men in 
general) as humans worthy of love (our own love or the love of
others) then we may internally feel that women will also think
we are not worthy of love.  Since most (if not all) humans
crave love, our feelings of vulnerability surounding this 
desire for love will grow as our capacity for self-love
decreases.

These feelings of vulnerability will get in the way of fully
expressing our love of others, for fear that they will not 
return that love.  But as we gain confidence in our worthiness
of love, both as individuals and as men, we will lose some of
our fear that a particular woman will not love us (because, if
I am sure I am lovable, and she doesn't love me, then I feel
very confident that someone else will).

Perhaps you already have this confidence.  If so, maybe working
towards a greater capacity for self-love and the love of men in
general is not very important for you.  

Personally, I realized several years ago that working towards 
a greater capacity for both types of love was very important for
my own growth.  But then, I'm very clear on why I need such work.
I was neglected by my father and physically abused as a child
by my brother, which then carried on to abuse in school from other
guys my age.  To me, men seemed to be the bad people in the world,
the rapists, the war-mongers, the deserters of the family...

I've had to do a lot of work to accept the traits I have as a man,
both physiologically and culturally, as well as to value these
traits in other men.  As I've done so I believe I've gained a clearer
perpective of women as humans, rather than putting them on a pedastle
and thinking they were "above all that."

But this is my own personal story.  Some of you may not feel any need
to work so hard at learning to love, and the struggles of men like me
may seem strange indeed.  I would ask, however, that rather than
condemning something that seems strange or even disgusting to you,
that instead you ask the men involved why such struggles are important 
to them.

You may find some interesting differences, or even some startling
similarities.  In the end, the person who will benifit most is 
yourself, by expanding your experience and understanding of other
humans.

    For myself I have no trouble hugging the men in my family or other
    close friends (male or female) now. In fact in some ways hugging a
    man is more comfortable as it is totally non sexual in nature. The
    idea of doing it naked and "getting the genitals" in the process 
    seems counter productive as it brings sexual stimulation in to a
    relationship where it doesn't belong.

    As for men hating their bodies and not taking care of them, this is
    counter to my experiance. The men I know like their bodies and have
    no trouble taking excellent care of them. They treat their bodies tender
    when appropriate. They take advantage of their bodies strengths
    when appropriate as well.

    I also have trouble with the idea that by loving men we can love women
    better. For many men it is the traits that make women different from
    men that make them loved by men. This is true physically as well as
    mentally and personality wise. It is much more logical to believe that
    if men want to love women better they will have these sessions with
    a woman partner not with other men.

    The value of the group masturbation eludes me. Everything I've read
    before indicates that this is adolescent behavior that healthy men
    outgrow.

    Quite frankly the whole point of the session in .0 appears to be
    designed to influence homosexual or bisexual behavior. Not necessarily
    to turn people into homosexuals but to move them a bit farther on the
    Kinsey scale.

    			Alfred

    This sort of thing happens all the time.  You see discussions on this
    on tv shows, like Donnahue.  In my opinion, they're all scams.  Any
    body can put together a group of people and con them into doing
    abnormal, (abnormal:= not what the norm does), activities, like having
    circle jerks, and con them into thinking that they had some religious
    type of experience.  This is the art of "selling."
    
    If they do it with 10 people, and get 9 to say that they learned
    something or felt better for it, or got over being embarrassed, or
    whatever, then they can spout that 90% of the people surveyed came away
    with having a richer life for it!  
    
    Bull Droppings.
    
    -dwight
    
    PS:  I agree with Alfred's last paragraph.

    re .5	I'm with you, Charles. Nice thoughts.

    Sigh. I had hoped for better. Unfortunately, my cynical alter ego is
    saying "I told you so."

    A careful reading of .0 shows NO encouragement of homosexual or
    bisexual behavior. Although I confess that I used a somewhat
    controversial title because I thought it would provoke exactly what it
    seems to.... sexual fear. Loving people is an emotional experience, an
    intimate experience. A person chooses to extend that emotional
    experience to a physical experience in some cases. It is always a
    choice.

    The article is not advocating sexual experiences between men. It
    describes a seminar which used a sexual technique for a breakthrough
    somewhat like using shock therapy. Something out of the ordinary is
    needed to jolt a person into a new look at reality. The negative
    replies, to this point, only show the normal irrational fear of
    affection, emotional and physical, that exists in our culture and the
    normal American sexual prudence. Don't confuse the techniqe used to
    show the problem with the problem description. If this note goes down
    the sexual rathole then I'll ask that the whole note be deleted.

    The real point of the article is that any person cannot be expected to
    act in one manner towards one segment of a population and act in a
    totally opposite manner towards the remainder of the population and
    maintain that duality in a stress free manner. If I learn to behave
    towards 50% of the people that I deal with in an aggressive manner, no
    affection, no intimacy then that behavior will bleed into my behavior
    with the other 50%. It may be to a lesser degree but it will be there.
    I firmly believe that a lot of  the stress in male/female relationships
    is due to different views of the world that are conditioned rather than
    inherent. I believe that women are allowed to look at both men and
    women with affection, love and intimacy where men flip flop between two
    behavior patterns and sometimes get them confused unintentionally. 
    
    That is the key point. Men move between two alternate realities. Think
    about the last time you experienced a different culture whether Indian,
    southern Black, English, French etc. I made mistakes. People got upset
    with me as I did with them because our common experiences were
    different which led to different interpretations of my actions. As I
    learned from them and our views of reality became closer then the
    harmony grew.
    
    Improvement will only come when there is only one reality. Love one
    another.


    Dj

    I found humor in .7  Hope I was suppose to.
    
    It reminded me of s story of three GI's walking through the hills of
    France, noticing a sheep caught in a fence the first GI stated,
    
    Wish it was Gloria.  The second GI thought for a moment and said,
    
    Wish it was Maria.   The third GI pondered just a little longer then
    said,
    
    Wish it was dark.  (oh, well)

    -1

    Yep... it was presented in a humorous light, to parallel with the
    original note.  It makes about as much sense to me.  It's amazing how
    we justify such outrageous events.

    -dwight

    Hey, Denny, don't let it get to you; you must have gone into the
    seminar knowing that one of the reasons you were there is that men
    traditionally don't know how to handle non-standard behavior from other
    men.  That's all you're seeing here; the traditionalists don't like
    your experimentation and they're trying to force you back into your box
    by sensationalising and ridiculing your experience.  Don't let them.
    I liked the first version of the note better, personally, though I
    understand how in this forum changes were required of you.  Thanks
    for making the effort to fit the guidelines.  As you say, the idea
    was using sexuality as a technique to break down barriers, not as the
    end-goal of the experience.
    
    Charles made several good points in discussing that goal.  I, too,
    find much that is distasteful in the traditional male role models
    and I have found it affects my view of myself.  There is a dualism
    involved when engaged in such a behavior as, for example, being
    protective.  I will defend myself and my loved ones.  Humans being what
    they are, this requires effective posturing...deterring the actual need 
    to defend by appearing ready for it.  From one side I am satisfied that
    my defensive protective posturing is justified, effective, and
    successful, and that my loved ones are protected.  That is a good
    thing; I am content.  But from another side, the posturing macho
    protective male IMAGE is anathema to me, because it is representative
    of a whole host of other behaviors I find unjustifiable.  The conflict
    I feel internally between these two views leads me to distrust my own
    motivations and my own behavior.  In this particular example, I find
    myself resenting other men, because they're the ones I'm posturing
    against, defending against.  Everything in this situation leads either
    to distrust of myself or distrust of other men.  And I can't pretend
    that it doesn't affect me in other ways.
    
    When I feel such internalized conflict and distrust of other men, it
    predisposes my whole outlook to being suspicious of other men's
    motives, jealous of my turf, over-protective of my dignity, and
    contentious in my dealings with others.  I find that these reactions
    are 'safe'...they are effective in surviving the world we live in;
    and they're a good first cut at taking care of myself and my
    responsibilities.  But they cannot be the last word on how I treat
    other men.  I have learned that some men deserve more understanding,
    they have the potential to be much closer friends to me, we have the
    abilities to share insight, feeling, and love as men...who understand
    men like no woman ever can.  (Just as I expect women to understand the
    lot of women better than I will ever be able to do.)  Using sexuality
    as a shock technique to break down barriers on the way to building that
    kind of closeness is scary.  I don't think I'm ready to try that.  But
    I envy the men who can.  And I can well see how learning to love men
    will only deepen my understanding of who I am and what is important to
    me, and enable me to share my love for women more effectively, too.
    
    DougO

    re my own .15- Sorry Denny, I was treating you as the author of the
    piece in .0, and upon rereading I see that was a careless error.  My
    apologies.
    
    DougO

     While a first reading of the base note terminated prematurely, I went
    back and read the whole thing.
    
    o I do not see the need for sexual intimacy with a large group of men
    (strange or otherwise) in my life to become "adjusted."
    
    o I was interested in the description of how things might have been
    under different circumstances- the male strutting, the egos, the
    aversion to displaying emotion, etc.
    
     That the ingrained behaviors did not occur is indeed noteworthy, IMO.
    I do think the cause and effect may be a bit out of whack. It seems to
    me that a guy who would willingly engage in sex with a group of other
    men is going to have a slightly less than traditional outlook on life
    anyway.
    
     Personally- I'm not really disgusted by this. Big freakin' deal. If it
    makes them happy, who cares? They aren't hurting me. I'm not interested
    in the method, but the results might be worth exploring.
    
     The Doctah

    To the author of 421.0 ...
    
    The subject matter here -- men loving men -- is worthwhile and
    important, but the means by which you are trying to foster this
    discussion are backfiring, and understandably so.  I think you are
    defeating your own purpose via the "shock treatment" route.  Sadly, I
    think many men reading this -- men who might otherwise want/need to 
    get closer to other men but don't quite yet know how -- might be MORE
    reluctant to act on those needs.  What you have dished out is pretty 
    overwhelming.
    
    If engaging in pseudo-sexual activities succesfully makes it easier for
    some men to be affectionate (physically and emotionally) to other men
    in our culture, that's fine.  I have no problem with that.  But most
    men can't handle this.  Therefore, through this topic you are just
    pouring more fuel on the fears and not fully tolerating a large group
    of men out there who, while desiring greater male/male bonding, need to
    go about it at their OWN PACE.  In some ways, it could be viewed as a
    disservice to them.
    
    I have attended several mens personal-growth workshops, support groups,
    and so forth, and one common need I find in men revolves around becoming
    more intimate with the male species.  There is a great need out there
    for men to stop fighting and competing with each other and start loving
    each other.  But quite honestly, a lot of men, through years -- no, 
    centuries -- of conditioning, find it difficult even to begin to share
    ANYthing.  One simple hug (fully clothed, that is) or even a caring hand 
    on one's shoulder, can be a monumental and frightening undertaking.  
    Men with these needs/fears deserve respect and understanding; they don't 
    have to be pushed off the deep end!  Personally, I am glad I approached 
    this problem in myself at my OWN pace.   My parents never taught me how
    to love, so I had to learn on my own.  Fortunately, with the assistance
    of other patient, understanding men (and some women) the work has paid off. 
    Sharing, hugging, and being close (intimate, for lack of a better word) 
    with BOTH men and women is certainly worth the "price of admission."  
    In many ways, I really didn't know what I was missing.
    
    It's too bad the focus has been shifted to sexuality ... again, 
    an important topic with a lot of men, and it deserves better.
    
    Regards,
    Paul
    
     

Okay, I think it is time for another perspective, here.  And I'm just 
the kinda guy to do it.  ;-)

First, the theory is that there seem to be large numbers of reports 
from men and women who express the feeling that something is getting 
in the way of their love making and relating.  This is _not_ saying 
that their love making and relating are bad, just that it seems 
blocked from getting better.  In particular, often women express a 
dissatisfaction with their men's inability to make love and relate in 
ways that might be outside the definition of "traditional 
masculinity."

Please don't ask me for studies to prove the last paragraph; just 
listen to people around you and see if I'm full of it or if I'm 
tapping into something that is kind of a universal concern: how can I 
get closer to my partner and how can I get a deeper, more intimate 
relationship.

Now, the theory is that both men and women who rely to heavily on 
roles are not free to express themselves and to have flexible, dynamic 
sexual/intimate relationships.  In short, being a "real man" is 
getting in the way of being a "real lover."  The flip side is also 
true: being a "real woman" is getting in the way of being a "real 
lover."  But this article is about men, so I'm going to focus on us.

This workshop is operating on the theory that the traditional male 
gender role has us men more uptight then we need to be.  It also 
operates on the premise that the less uptight we men can get about 
everything, the more we will be able to open up to our spouses and the 
more we will be able to open up to new ways of expressing ourselves 
sexually with our spouses.  To undermine portions of the traditional 
male gender role (not all of it), this workshop attacks the portions 
of the gender role that restrict how we are taught to view our bodies 
and how we are taught to relate--physically and emotionally--to other 
men.  This workshop tries to eliminate the isolation from other men 
that seems so prevalent in our society.

And if you don't think that isolation from other men is socially 
enforced, then I challenge you to spend one weekend with me and my gay 
friends.  I'll take you out on the town, and I'll act naturally with 
my boyfriend, and check out the treatment we get.  It is not okay for 
men to touch each other (hold hands, give full-body hugs, kiss, touch 
each other's heads, placing hands on each other's hips, full-body hugs 
from behind, placing your head on another man's chest, and so forth, 
none of which are inherently "sexual").

The theory of the workshop is that if men undermine portions of "what 
we can and cannot be to be real men," then they can break through "how 
a real man is with his woman" to new ways of expressing yourself and 
becoming intimate with your spouse.  Instead of being firmly locked 
into a gender role, men can respond to what the situation requires; 
for instance, if the situation requires that the man be needy and 
vulnerable, then the man can do that, despite what the male gender 
role says about how men aren't supposed to be needy and vulnerable (or 
that they are only supposed to express that in certain ways).

As a gay man, I have always wished for heterosexual men to be able to 
enjoy the nonsexual physical contact that I see gay men enjoying.  The 
types of physical contact that I mentioned a few paragraphs is common, 
and it is nurturing and strength building to have that kind of 
physical support from other men.  In my experience with heterosexual 
men, most don't get a fraction of the physical contact with other men 
that gay men do, and I'm not talking about sex, I'm talking about 
expressed affection.  

I also notice that many of my heterosexual female friends express the
opinion that gay men are easier to be around and to relate to than
heterosexual men.  There's something about undermining the traditional
masculinity edicts on men being physical with one another that opens
up new and deeper relationships between the sexes.  I think the
general idea is that gay men do not relate to women with a gender-role
script or with a personal agenda; that frees us up to respond
dynamically to the emotions, thoughts, and needs of the woman while at
the same time expressing our emotions, thoughts, and needs.  Relating 
isn't so stiff; it flows; it's more fun.

On one final note, I think that this workshop would be useful to gay 
men, too.  I say this because, although a lot of gay men are used to 
having passionate sex with one another, I think that we--like 
heterosexual and bisexual men--struggle with relaxed, affectionate 
physical contact.  I know gay men who perform all sorts of sexual acts 
but who won't kiss or cuddle or be physical in the ways I described 
previously.  I know there have been times when I have flinched when 
a man will come up behind me and give me a full body hug.  To put my 
head on another man's shoulder still requires an act of courage for 
me.  Not all the walls between men come tumbling down when they are 
gay and have sex with each other; there is an emotional component that 
doesn't always get worked by gay men.  It is a little known fact, but 
gay men and heterosexual men are more alike than either group likes to 
admit (in my opinion).

That's my take on it.


							--Gerry

PS  There's a great song by Prince about this topic, how our roles get 
in the way of us getting closer.  It's called "If I was Your 
Girlfriend" and it's on the "Sign of the Times" album.  

[Prince talking to his female lover:]  

If I was your girlfriend,
Would you remember to tell me all the things you forgot 
When I was your man?  
If I was your best friend
Would you let me take care of you?
Let me do all the things that best friends, 
Only best friends can do? 

If I was your girlfriend,
Would you let me dress you?
I mean, help you pick out your clothes 
Before we go out?  
Not that you're helpless. 
Sometimes, sometimes, that's what being in love's about.  

If I was your one and only friend, 
Would you run to me? 
If somebody hurt you?
Even if that somebody was me?
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.  
Please!

Would you let me wash your hair?
Can I make you breakfast sometime?
Or can we just hangout?
Go to a movie and cry together?
Cause to me, baby, that would be so fine.
Maybe you think I'm being a little sensitive
But I want to be all of the things you are to me
Surely, surely you can see...

Is it really necessary for me to go out of room when you get undressed?
We don't have to make children to make love.
We don't have to make love to [censored].
Your body is what I'm all about.
Can I see it?
I'll show you.
Why not?
You can do it because I'm your friend.
I'd do it for you.
Of course I'd undress in front of you.
And when I'm naked what shall I do?
How can I make you see that it's cool?
If I was your girlfriend you could.
Oh yeah, I think so.
Listen, for you, naked, I will dance a ballet.
Would that get you off?
Tell me what will?
If I was your girlfriend, would you tell me?
Would you let me see you naked then?
Would you let me give you a bath?
Would you let me tickle you so hard you'd laugh and laugh?
Would you let me kiss you there [censored]?
And then I'd hold you tight and hold you long
And together we'd stare at the silence
And we'd imagine what it looks like
And we'd try to imagine what silence looks like
And we'd try to imagine, yeah

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you and your spouse live up to that kind of a challenge?  [My
relationships haven't...] Do you have intimacy on that level?  If
spouses are going to get extremely intimate, to the point at which
they don't need to go to others because they can't express themselves
a certain way with their spouse, they have to break down some walls.
If the men want to get closer to their wives, they have have to be
willing to do some things that their girlfriends do, they have to be
willing to drop the "real man" stuff sometimes, when it's called for. 
At least, that's Prince's theory.  And remember, he's got 
Kim Basinger!!!  He must be doing something right.

"Will you run to me if somebody hurts you, even if that somebody was 
me?"

Wow!  Imagine the trust and intimacy that takes.  I want to shoot for 
that in my relationships.

    RE: Idea of .0 to support homosexuality

    	I guess I'll have to read it again closer. The first time I
    read it I thought it said is was done in the nude with men touching
    each other with their private parts. Either I was wrong in that
    reading, or homosexuals don't do that, or it was trying to make
    homosexual behavior acceptable. Pick one.

    RE: .21 All of those things are inherently sexual if done nude.
    I'd agree with you that heterosexual men do not get the same amount
    of physical contact for affection as gay men do. I don't see it as
    a problem though. I believe that men can express their affection for
    other men without the contact. That they can makes the times they
    do use contact that much more special and meaningful. The same is
    true of men's relationships with women BTW. I think that there is
    to much casual hugging and kissing and that devalues the meaning of
    it.

    The song by Prince sounds like my relationship with my wife. As for
    his doing something right to "get" Kim Basinger I tend to believe 
    that she's done something wrong. :-)

    ~Cliff

    I felt .0 was surely promoting homosexual activity, and was trying to
    do it under a disguise.

    If anyone wants to read the original ".0" before it was re-written, contact
    me.

    -dwight

    
    Keeping tabs, eh "Z_man"???  What was she thinking when she moved in?
    
    Hell, what does any woman see in Prince???
    
    -dwight

    All that .0 proves to me is that no matter what you "believe in",
    you can usually find some "expert" to agree with you.
    
    .0 severly confuses eros--sex with fillio--friendship and
       agape--commitment/self-sacrifice.
    
    For some reason .0 reminded me of someone else who went around
    preaching "The whole world is foobar.  We must throw off our
    'inhibitions'".  His name is Charles Manson.
    
    fred();

>    Point of interest:
>    Do you engage in these "non-sexual" touching behaviors with other folks
>    as well?
>    
>    e.g. women?

Great question!

I do with several close lesbian friends of mine.  Full body hugs and 
leaning against each other are quite common.  However, I don't 
with my heterosexual female friends.  I don't have a quick answer as 
to why.  My best guess is that gay men are used to it and there is no 
threat with physical contact between lesbian and gay friends.  

And it makes sense to me that, since I'm oriented towards men that it 
would be more fun to be physically close to men than it would be with 
women.

I do feel thankful for my relationship with my lesbian friends, 
because that physical closeness tells me that I'm capable of that kind 
of closeness with women and that it's fun to be physically close to 
people you love, regardless of gender.

I wish my sister and I were closer.  In particular, I wish we hugged 
more.


						--Ger    

It's interesting to me that a big point of contention is the idea that 
men are getting sexual with one another.  I think that you are 
correct; the workshop asks that men get sexual with one another as a 
tool to break down parts of the male gender role that make it taboo 
for men to connect physically with one another.  

Do men have to take this workshop to break down the parts of the male 
gender role that don't work well?  No.  It's just one tool that you 
can use.

I'd like to make two points: First, I think that, as Denny has already 
said, the _ways_ in which the workshop asks the men to be sexual are 
very telling.  They are asking the men to hold each other closely 
while they "fantasize and masturbate."  In other words, they are not 
asking that the men get aroused over each other; they are asking that 
the men to physically support each other while they get aroused over 
the fantasies (which, most likely, are about women).  To get the 
difference, you need to separate the homosexual act with the 
homosexual feeling.  Strictly speaking, the workshop requires a 
homosexual act, but does not require a homosexual feeling or 
orientation.

What's the difference?  That brings me to my second point: a lot of 
gay men and lesbians have had sex with members of the opposite sex.  In 
other words, we have found out what it was like to take part in a 
heterosexual act without the heterosexual orientation or feeling.  
For me personally, that was a great learning experience.  It taught me 
a lot about sex, passion, love, feelings, and orientation.  I know 
that some gay people will disagree with me, but I cherish my limited 
heterosexual experience as a lesson in how warm, supportive, loving, 
and nurturing a sexual experience can be regardless of sexual 
orientation, regardless of the presence of passion (there was none for 
me), regardless of the presence of a committed relationship (there was 
none for me).

Why is the thought of two heterosexual men being sexual with each
other so threatening?  And, if men were to undermine that threatened
feeling by, say, taking that workshop, would it open up new ways of
being with women? 

I think so.  I think that human beings are so complex that, when you 
shift one area of their being (like shifting a foundation), the whole 
house moves.  Everything is intimately connected.  Sometimes you have 
to shake one area to open up another.

No?

							--Ger

    re: .30
    I don't feel "threatened" by the notion of two heterosexual men being
    sexual with each other. 
    
    I feel "repulsed" by it.
    
    I am not being judgemental...just telling how I feel.
    
    (since no one asked, anyway.) 8*)
    
    tony

     two things come to mind when reading .0
    
     scenario:
    
     The group is masturbating in a circle; the woman is masturbating in
    the center of the circle. Another person walks into the room.
    
     New person: "What the HECK are you doing?"
    
     One of the masturbators: "Therapy!"
    
    scenario 2:
    
     The woman, after the session is over, talking to a friend:
    
     "You wouldn't believe it. Not only did I get a bunch of macho guys to
    masturbate in front of me thinking it was some sort of therapy- they
    paid me big bucks for the privilege!"
    
    <eruption of laughter>
    
     The Doctah

    I really don't note here any longer since this file has taken on
    the characteristics of womannotes II as opposed to "MEN" notes
    but the base note (unedited version) and some replies have prompted
    me to break my silence. 
    
    I see a trend here, namely the continuing emasculation
    of modern man in america. I suppose it was the logical next step.
    Men have been accused now of oppression, misogyny, etc. Fine.
    But, if that weren't enough, the typical characteristics of being a man
    are now being challenged as unsatisfactory, repressing, wrong.
    Some in wn have commented that they resent the fact that women, until
    recently, have been defined by standards set by a patriarchal
    society, that many aspects of being a woman were in fact designated
    as negative. They are, of course, correct. I find this so called
    therapy no different, only the roles have been reversed.
    
    								Hank 

    Forgive me for getting flustered and fired up here, but in my opinion
    this whole topic, the base note and most of its replies, belong in the
    sewer.  The arguments on both ends of the spectrum here strike
    me as pretty disgusting.
    
    Gerry... If your goal here is trying to get men to consider this
    "therapy" in breaking down barriers with other men and women, you are
    failing miserably, IMO.   A lot of men may want to learn how to be
    closer to other men, but your replies seem pretty destructive.  This is
    not about getting close to others, it's about SEX, SEX, SEX, SEX, SEX,
    SEX, SEX, SEX, and more SEX.  And if your goal is to foster greater
    tolerance and understanding toward gays, you are also failing
    miserably, in my opinion.
    
    To those who are staking claims on your rights to feel
    "threatened" and "repulsed," let me say you have every right to feel
    that way.  All power to you.  Let me also say that you have a right to
    cringe while watching Burt at the Superbowl kiss his son a dozen times
    on the lips on national television, and you have the right to feel
    threatened when a man puts his hand on your shoulder or, worse, shakes
    your hand more than 6 or 7 times, and you have a right to feel ashamed
    when you touch your private parts when you're in the bathroom.  My
    point is this:  While I respect your "rights," I also happen to know
    there are a lot of men who have these type of fears, and who really 
    want to find ways to change their conditioning (not to please women or
    anybody else, but to simply become the type of men they want to be).  
    Irrespective of all your snide remarks, the need in a lot of men to 
    get physically and emotionally closer to others is indeed REAL.  Your 
    remarks (and Gerry's) in my opinion only serve to make men with such 
    needs feel more shame.
    
    Now that I've pissed everyone off .... 
    
    Paul       
    
    Now that I've 

    Yeah, Paul, I don't like to just make "me too" responses but I agree
    with you.  I think the topic is a waste of time and other things.
    
    ed

    re .33, Hank-
    
    I'm surprised to hear anybody say this file is becoming more like
    womannotes; seems like the all the old traditionals come out hollering
    every time something unusual gets explored here.  Hey, this is another
    case in point, and you're proving the rule.  But some of the things you
    say are close enough to the truth that I'd like to take them the rest
    of the way.
    
    > I see a trend here, namely the continuing emasculation
    > of modern man in america. I suppose it was the logical next step.
    
    Hm, I didn't see that.  What gave you that idea?  When I'm discussing
    the basenote and my own experiences and perceptions regarding
    self-defensive behavior (see .15), I'm not at all talking about
    something that either figuratively or psychologically emasculates me. 
    In fact, I'm talking about something that makes me more capable of
    doing the things I want to do; something that makes me more powerful. 
    Its the opposite of emasculation.  It isn't threatening at all.
    When I *want* to become a better lover and friend to people close to
    me, and I identify the artificial barriers that interfere with
    relations between all men as something unacceptable to me, on a
    personal level, then doing something about it is empowering.
                                                                   
    > Men have been accused now of oppression, misogyny, etc. Fine.
    > But, if that weren't enough, the typical characteristics of being a man
    > are now being challenged as unsatisfactory, repressing, wrong.
    
    Fine, you can disagree; but, um...yeah.  I have found in my life that
    traditional male roles are repressive, unsatisfying, and...since they
    are that way, since they prevent me from doing what I want to
    do...wrong.  Yup.  Guess what?  I'm not gonna even try to persuade you. 
    But you and Dwight and Tony and Fred and Paul and Ed aren't going to
    shout down Gerry or Denny or Charles or I about what we find as true,
    either.
    
    > Some in wn have commented that they resent the fact that women, until
    > recently, have been defined by standards set by a patriarchal
    > society, that many aspects of being a woman were in fact designated
    > as negative. They are, of course, correct. I find this so called
    > therapy no different, only the roles have been reversed.
    
    Hmmm.  I dunno about your experiences with therapy, but I think that a
    room full of guys and one woman is first of all, not going to result in
    those men defining roles for themselves out of some 'matriarchal'
    standard, about which they aren't even talking.  And secondly, whatever
    kind of contact and experimenting with new roles these guys come up
    with, and we on the outside learn from reading about and doing our own
    thinking and experimenting, is not gonna be remotely comparable to the
    standards our male-dominated society rams down the throats of all women
    and all men.  The one is *voluntary* and, in fact, *hard* to do.  The
    other is what you've experienced all your lives and you had no choice
    in the matter.  Stay in your traditional roles, Hank, nobody will waste
    much time trying to persuade you to try something you don't want to do.
    But...some of us men are moving on, and we're going to try to find
    something better.  
    
    DougO

re:.32 - Doc

I couldn't agree more.  I thought of both mental pictures you described as
soon as I read the base note.

re: 33 - Hank

Great comments.  I share those as well.


re:  .29 - Ger

>>>It's interesting to me that a big point of contention is the idea that  men
are getting sexual with one another.  

.0 talked about massaging the "entire" body.  That gets sexual, in my book.

>>>Why is the thought of two heterosexual men being sexual with each other so
threatening?  

Threatening?  Maybe not the best word here.  But some people don't/can't fit it
into their morals.

>>>And, if men were to undermine that threatened feeling by, say, taking that
workshop, would it open up new ways of being with women? 

Hey, all you have is a bunch of guys sitting around on their butts, whacking
off, while watching a woman please herself.  That's a clinic??

-dwight

RE:  .36  Olson

>>>But you and Dwight and Tony and Fred and Paul and Ed aren't going to shout
down Gerry or Denny or Charles or I about what we find as true, either.

You left out the "Z-Man", Hank, "The Doctah", and a couple of others.  :^)

-dwight

Besides, no one was shouting.  This is shouting....

       "NOW THAT I'VE MADE IT WITH SHEEP, I'LL NEVER GO BACK TO WOMEN!"

>I do with several close lesbian friends of mine.  Full body hugs and 
>leaning against each other are quite common.  However, I don't 
>with my heterosexual female friends.  I don't have a quick answer as 
>to why.
    
     Very interesting. You don't do full body hugs with heterosexual women,
    and heterosexual men don't do full body hugs very often with other men.
    I see a sort of symmetry here.
    
     The Doctah

    	The problem that I have with this therapy session is that I
    can't see how it will make me a better lover with women. I've been
    married 15 years and that relationship is private. Prior to that,
    I had one women complain that "came" too fast. I was 20, erect and
    ready to go again in 10 minutes. She never complained about #2,
    #3, #4, #5. All of it took place in a single evening. At my age
    it takes me all night to do what I used to do all night 8^).
    
    	Anyway, I hardly imagine myself now or in the future benefiting
    from sitting around naked with a group of adult men fantasizing
    about someone else not in the room, with a strange woman urging
    us to masturbate along with her. Secondly, I hardly find it appealing
    to be holding on to a man while I would masturbate. What have I
    accomplished?? I accomplished ejaculation and possible orgasm through
    means of self stimulation in a group setting. What do I do in the
    next session?? Allow the woman to insert a device in my anus so
    I can become more sensitive to how a woman may feel when she engages
    in intercourse? Or does the next session warrant that all of the
    men fellate each other to understand how women feel performing oral
    sex and that way we can also equate with the homosexual men and
    what they do. What kind of therapy is that???? 
    
    	This so called theraputic session sounds like a lesbian woman
    and a gay man getting their "nut" in a group session, and getting
    paid for it. If they can entice a hundred straight men to do this,
    they could even publish a study. They could literally engage in
    a form of prostitution unknowingly to the straight men in the group
    by getting them to pay for the "therapy". Insert a few gay men into
    the group and the heretosexual men become willing participants in
    group homosexual acts that have no value. Think of the destruction
    to the psche of these men if they're being duped. 
    
    	Leave the "therapy" to the professionals. If you want to jerk
    off in a group, do it with your gay friends. Don't use straights
    as a vehicle for your fantasies or some dyke's. 
    
    Ken

Re: .36 Doug,
    
>    I'm surprised to hear anybody say this file is becoming more like
>    womannotes; 

	Well Doug, we all have different perceptions. Some notes 
	surprise me as well.

>    seems like the all the old traditionals come out hollering
>    every time something unusual gets explored here.  Hey, this is another
>    case in point, and you're proving the rule.  

	Here, you call me a traditionalist, accuse me of hollering
	and try to insinuate that I'm attempting to impeded
	the exploration of the "unusual". Why?	
    
>    Guess what?  I'm not gonna even try to persuade you. 
>    But you and Dwight and Tony and Fred and Paul and Ed aren't going to
>    shout down Gerry or Denny or Charles or I about what we find as true,
>    either.

	I didn't shout down anyone. I never challenged anyone about
	what they find as true. And why do you group me with the others?
	Though I'm sure they're fine people, I wrote my note alone,
	expressing my opinion and mine alone. I really don't
	understand the above. 
    
>    Stay in your traditional roles, Hank, nobody will waste
>    much time trying to persuade you to try something you don't want to do.
>    But...some of us men are moving on, and we're going to try to find
>    something better.  

	Nobody will "waste much time trying to persuade" me? 
	Some of you are moving on...to "something better"?
	Though I'm very tempted to respond in kind, I won't.
	I'll just say this. Aside from my opening paragraph all I did 
	was express my opinion on the topic. I never assigned any labels to 
	anyone. I never alluded to someone as a waste of time.  
	I didn't choose sides via the grouping of names, nor  
	did I misrepresent what anyone wrote as you have done with my note. 
	I guess that is but one difference between us.  
	Though you raised some valid points, I find
	that what I extracted above precludes any meaningful dialogue
	between us. 
    
								Hank
 

    .36
    
    Why am I being lumped together with others whose points of view are not
    compatible with mine?  In .34 I thought I had succeeded in alienating
    everybody!  8-)   You sure you got the right Paul?
    
    The more that we continue this topic, the more we indulge in the type
    of thing that men seem to do best:  Getting fearful, angry, defensive,
    competitive, irrational, and even hateful with other men.  I do not feel 
    particularly good about giving into urges that draw battle lines with 
    other men, simply because I have worked hard in recent years to 
    erase the unhealthy male conditioning that has created divisions 
    and distance between myself and other men.
    
    Other than pointing out how we are all feed into that conditioning, the
    contents of this topic do a great disservice to men.
    
    Cheers,
    Paul

    I fully respect the right of other people to engage in whatever
    mutually consenting activities get them off.  Many of these are
    activities which I personally would choose not to do, such as:

        o Sky diving
        o Pounding rusty nails into my skull
        o Masturbating with a group of naked men

    I lean toward the view that people should masturbate together the way
    God intended--with a man and a woman talking dirty to each other
    over the telephone.  Call me old fashioned.

    -- Mike

    .44  Mike,
    
    Masturbating the way God intended??
    
    Sounds like a fantastic topic for CHRISTIAN!   Has masturbation
    been covered in that conference yet?  If you start a new string there,
    let me know.  I wouldn't want to miss that for all the feeelthy
    magazines east of the Mississippi.
    
    Paul

    re .41, Hank-
    
    > 	Here, you call me a traditionalist, accuse me of hollering
    >	and try to insinuate that I'm attempting to impeded
    >	the exploration of the "unusual". Why?	
    
    Hmmm...ok, for your note, 'hollering' was a bit of hyperbole. 
    Apologies offered.  But in terms of taking a traditionalist view and
    impeding the discussion, you haven't yet explained your comment about
    the emasculation of the American male; was that comment supposed to be
    understood as *supporting* the discussion?
    
    > And why do you group me with the others?
    
    Well...my view of the dynamics of this discussion were firstly,
    interest in the basenote, and interest in notes which tried to discuss
    it; but secondly, disgust at people who tried to block the discussion
    with ridicule or non-sequiturs.  Dwight's sheep note was pure ridicule.  
    Similar comments, impeding the discussion or criticising the participants 
    (Gerry took shots from Paul) all looked similar...as did your shots about 
    emasculation, and role-reversal.  If they weren't intended to stifle
    the discussion, well, I interpreted them as if they were.  
    
    In a larger sense, stifling the discussion feeds right back into what
    the discussion was about; the roles men enforce upon other men.  I was
    finding that the people taking a 'traditionalist' stance were yet again
    attempting to prevent those of us with different attitudes from
    exploring and finding common perspectives or learning from each
    other...if you managed to misdirect or terminate this discussion, you'd
    have succeeded in enforcing traditional roles upon the rest of us. 
    That's objectionable to me, and that's what I was referring to when I
    said you won't shout us down.   OK, Hank, I beleive you when you say
    that wasn't your motive.  Do you believe me when I tell you that's
    the effect your words, and those of the others I mentioned, gave, 
    no matter your motive?
    
    And I'm willing to bet that some of those I named had exactly that as
    their motive.  Apologies for including you in their number, if you feel
    you don't belong there.  But I still wonder why you find the topic of
    the basenote to be indicative of an emasculating trend.
    
    DougO

re: .44

>  I lean toward the view that people should masturbate together the way
>    God intended--with a man and a woman talking dirty to each other
>    over the telephone.  Call me old fashioned.

So tell me, Mike, will you accept an electronic mail link as a 
substitute for the phone line?  Or is that too modern? 

--bonnie

    The session in .0 is based on a number of premises. Someone who
    doesn't agree with those premises is obviously not going to see
    much benefit in that sort of session.

    For example, the author of the article seems to buy off on the
    idea that many "male characteristics" than even he an "enlightened"
    male has are bad. Not everyone agrees that the standard male
    traits that one is socialized to have in America are bad. Many
    men believe for example that masturbating in public is bad. Obviously
    the people who favor the session in .0 disagree. In general, though
    is appears that the message in .0 is that men are generally bad.
    That the attitudes that most men have are also bad. I don't agree.

    I see the session in .0 as part of a trend to remove men's pride
    in themselves. I see it as an attempt to degrade men and convince
    them that women are not only superior beings, rather than just
    different, but that men are inferior. In fact the whole article 
    (especially before editing) seems anti-men. 

    An other premise being made is that men don't like men and that
    they don't (and shouldn't) like the things that differentiate men 
    from women. Most men seem to like being men and like other men. I don't 
    see  good coming from telling them that they would be better off hating
    the way they are and changing to some other way foreign to their
    inner nature. I guess that's why I see that session are harmful
    rather them helpful.

    			Alfred

    .47
    
        "Gerry took shots from Paul ..."
    
    Permit me again to explain my alleged "shots."  Gerry appears to want 
    to break down the barriers that prevent men from getting physically and
    emotionally close to each other.  He also appears to want to foster 
    greater tolerance and understanding of gay men.  In general, I think
    these are WORHTY GOALS.  However, when he or anyone suggests that, in 
    order to meet these goals, heterosexual men consider masturbating 
    with other naked men, I think he is defeating his own purpose and
    doing more harm to what otherwise are worthy causes.  I am not taking
    shots at Gerry; rather, he is shooting himself in the foot.
    
    Paul

    I know I wasn't invited but I do knwo that I wouldn't do anything in
    electronic mail just because of the opportunity for it to be forwarded.
    
    Now if there was a <this mail will self destruct in 5 seconds> option
    I might reconsider.
    
    ed

    Re: .49 (Bonnie R.)

    Oh sure, I'd accept an electronic mail link as a substitute for the
    phone line.  I may be old-fashioned, but I'm also flexible.  :-)

    -- Mike

	To the general audience. PLease feel free to skip this very
	long reply. I don't normally enter such replies but wanted to
	address some points brought up between Doug and myself.

    re .47, Doug
 
>    But in terms of taking a traditionalist view and
>    impeding the discussion, you haven't yet explained your comment about
>    the emasculation of the American male; was that comment supposed to be
>    understood as *supporting* the discussion?
  
	Doug, I wasn't aware that comments in this topic were limited
	to those that are supporting. I thought we were all free to offer
	our opinions. Though my reaction to the base note and replies was
	probably the opposite to yours and others, I nevertheless
	tried not to single out anyone, nor condemn, nor belittle.
	As an aside, Doug, in many discussion I find myself intensely
	interested in those who express views that are the opposite
	of mine. I read your notes, those from Ger and others with
	great interest. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that some of you
	folks would also be interested in views that differ from your own.
	How else, after all, will we learn more about each other?

  >  Well...my view of the dynamics of this discussion were firstly,
  >  interest in the basenote, and interest in notes which tried to discuss
  >  it; but secondly, disgust at people who tried to block the discussion
  >  with ridicule or non-sequiturs.  Dwight's sheep note was pure ridicule.  
  >  Similar comments, impeding the discussion or criticising the participants 
  >  (Gerry took shots from Paul) all looked similar...as did your shots about 
  >  emasculation, and role-reversal.  If they weren't intended to stifle
  >  the discussion, well, I interpreted them as if they were.  
   
	I generally don't like to discuss the notes of others as you
	have done above. Regarding what I wrote, no "shots" were intended
	nor was I trying to stifle the discussion. If I wanted to
	derail the topic I would probably engage in personal attacks
	and ridicule. These, however, are not characteristic of the
	way I note. I've long since left behind the days of engaging
	in fire-fights and unpleasant exchanges. 
 
>    OK, Hank, I beleive you when you say
>    that wasn't your motive.  Do you believe me when I tell you that's
>    the effect your words, and those of the others I mentioned, gave, 
>    no matter your motive?
 
	I believe that that is what you got from my note. Others,
	have indicated otherwise, and interestingly enough, through mail.
	I wonder why some who sent me mail about my reply were reluctant
	to say so here.
   
>    But I still wonder why you find the topic of
>    the basenote to be indicative of an emasculating trend.
    
	I suspect you and I see things very differently. My comment
	about the emasculating trend was merely how I see things
	in society today based on what I read, see and hear.

	If I decide to continue my participation in mn, I'll give some
	thought to starting a topic on why I feel there is a trend
	to emasculate the modern american male. But I'll be honest,
	I don't feel, at this point in time, that this is the forum
	to persue that. 

							Hank

    re .55, Hank, thanks for continuing the discussion.
    
    > 	Doug, I wasn't aware that comments in this topic were limited
    >	to those that are supporting.
    
    Don't forget the context I used.  I was responding to your question 
    of why I grouped you with others, and why I considered that group of
    replies to be 'impeding'.  You had asked me 'why' I did that.  I did
    see comments from other people that I didn't regard as supportive, but
    they didn't come across as condemnatory, either (Mark Levesque, for
    one.)
                                
    > Regarding what I wrote, no "shots" were intended nor was I trying to 
    > stifle the discussion. 
    
    I believe you.  And I'm glad to hear it.
    
    DougO

    
>    Gerry... If your goal here is trying to get men to consider this
>    "therapy" in breaking down barriers with other men and women, you are
>    failing miserably, IMO.   

No, I don't care if any of you take this therapy.  I don't think that
I will be taking it. 

I was addressing many people's argument of "this therapy makes no 
sense."  It does make sense.  Just because someone disagrees with 
something or "feels repulsed" by something doesn't mean that something 
"doesn't make sense."  

>    And if your goal is to foster greater
>    tolerance and understanding toward gays, you are also failing
>    miserably, in my opinion.

Where did this come from?  Did I miss something?  Does this note have 
anything to do with gay people?

First, my "goal" in this chain of replies is to express my opinion.
Forgive me if I refuse to carry "the greater understanding of
heterosexual, bisexual, and gay people" on my shoulders any longer (I
did a short time ago). 

Second, I think it's pretty pathetic that people keep holding out this
"you are damaging the relations between heterosexuals and homosexuals"
club every time I express an opinion that challenges some position
someone is in.  

At a given moment in time, either you are willing to listen to gay
people or you are not.  Either you are my friend and will base your
opinion of me on my sum total and not on one note, or on one notes
file, or on notes in general, or you are not my friend and will
continue to hold your support of me hostage, trying to force me to
behave the way you want me to behave. 

All this gets so tired, sometimes.  Is it too late to become a 
lesbian???  ("And they're all in their Ivory Tower laughing their 
butts of at the rest of us."--Parting Glances)

I'm dropping all this and starting my weekend.  Have a day, folks.

							--Gerry

[Sorry for moving the note, Herb.  This was in response to what's 
written before.]

>    re .57    
>    
>    I think that you are damaging the relations between heterosexuals and
>    homsexuals by the opinion(s) you offer in this discussion.

Exactly my point, Herb.  My opinion is that this is your problem.  If 
my politely expressing my opinion damages your relationship to gay 
people, then you must have been busy relating to your fantasy of gay
people and not to gay people themselves.  Conclusion: nothing lost.
You were never really relating to us, anyway.  

I get the impression that on the "gay issue" (and other issues) a lot 
of you are just waiting for one of us gays or feminists to cause you 
the slightest bit of discomfort so that you can drop your support of 
us.  You _love_ hanging that support over our head and threatening to 
drop it if we don't speak the way you want us to speak.

So drop it!  Give us a call when you are willing to own your own 
discomfort and when you are willing to listen as much as talk.

						--Ger

    If one were to look at this article from a gender-free perspective,
    one would be able to see the benefit from it.  It really takes the
    whole article to get to the point of "in order to love/relate to
    another, that person must love/relate to themselves FIRST".  That
    is all the article is trying to point out.  

    The amount of trepidation that people are approaching this article
    is interesting in itself.  It reinforces the theory of the article.
    A different topic title might have eased some of the off-putting.

    I wrote and asked the basenoter to send me a copy of the original
    topic.  I received it and read it before entering a reply here.  I
    know men-only were requested for this topic, but it does appear to
    apply to both sexes and all orientations if one takes the point I
    pointed out in my first paragraph.  It is a learning tool.  

    Another way to get in touch with yourself is to sit facing another
    person, same/opposite gender, and explore their hands while keeping
    your eyes shut for 3 - 5 minutes (fully clothed).  Take turns and
    see what happens.  8*)

    The one thing that this article did do was document that somewhere,
    someplace a "circle jerk" has actually happened.  In my AYS teacher/
    training weekend years ago, this phenomenon was discussed but no one,
    male/female, had actually been present at one....i.e. "it" was always
    "heard about"!   AYS for clarification purposes is the About Your
    Sexuality course that the UU Church developed years ago for teaching
    healthy sexuality concepts to young teenagers through adults under
    the auspices of the Religious Education Department.  It is upgraded
    on an on-going basis and is available to groups through the UUA office
    of Curriculum Development at 25 Beacon Street in Boston, MA.

    justme....jacqui

    one small nit;
    
    Sexuality and intimacy are not the same thing.
    
    -roger
    

    I'd guess that those men who do attend this particular seminar are
    particularly "open minded" to experiencing something new or changing
    the way they perceive the world.  If you went into a "self-help"
    seminar with a receptive frame of mind, the odds are you would come
    out with a little bit better self image.  In this case, probably relate
    to men a bit better than you had previously.  If nothing else, because
    you pysched yourself into believing that.
    
    If some guys can come out of it better than when the went in, it
    probably isn't a totally hokum technique.

    Thankyou gentlemen,
    
    I have never enjoyed a topic more than this one. I have been laughing
    for 20 minutes! Thank heavens the boss isn't in on Saturdays ;^|
    
    Kate

re:  .46

>>>That's why God created 976- numbers.

OK Mr. "Z-Man"... I'm still waiting for the rest of the numbers!

-dwight

    Re: .54
    
    Plus, E-Mail is a lot cheaper than steamy phone-sex calls between
    Massachusetts and Colorado Springs.
    
    Especially when you get stuck for the phone bills on both ends. :-)
    
      Alan

    
    	I'm not sure what to make out of this topic.
    	Perhaps it does underline the fact that in some respects,
    	men do indeed have trouble opening up and really talking
    	with each other about subjects that don't fit the norm
    	for typical male banter. 
    
    	One thing that certainly contributes to this difficulty,
    	however, are notes such as .64 by Kate Donovan and her
    	corresponding note in wn where great delight is expressed
    	because we're supposedly arguing like hens in a hens house
    	or something like that.  
    
    	If anything, her notes I think, serve to show that men alone are
    	not responsible for the societal conditioning that inhibits
    	expression of our feelings.  
    
    	Perhaps the therapy session in the base note should be
    	modified to include women as participants and should also
    	consider addressing their responsibility as it pertains
    	to male/female relationships.
    
    								Hank

    re .67
    
    The major reason I wanted women to abstain from responding to this note
    was because of the bickering that inevitably arises. Do a directory of
    mennotes and pick out the 10 notes with the largest number of replies.
    You will find that they degenerated into a gender based, us vs them
    spitting contest. No good. I don't read women notes. I'd bet a good
    proportion of the notes over there end up the same way if the same
    characters are in both.
    
    As for the base note.... the workshop was the first given for males. It
    was based on a successful workshop given multiple times for women with
    approximately the same workshop content but modified for the gender.
    
    I think that this experiment can be concluded. There were a few replies
    that showed thought and insight and willingness to consider other
    views/options and what that might mean. Most replies reinforce the male
    image of macho posturing and using jeers, humor, and sarcasm to divert
    a topic that is potentially too close to home.
    
    Dj

    DM_JOHNSON
    
    >I don't read women notes. I'd bet a good
    >proportion of the notes over there end up the same way if the same
    >characters are in both.   
    
    If you look at the discussion of this topic over there, you will find
    as much variety of opinion among the women, as you do among the men here.
                                              
    >          Most replies reinforce the male
    >image of macho posturing and using jeers, humor, and sarcasm to divert
    >a topic that is potentially too close to home.     
    
    It might simply be the reactions of people more conservative than
    yourself, and it is not necessarily a macho pose, as some of the
    women react in a similar manner.
    
    Thanks for entering the topic. It certainly provoked a discussion.
    
    -roger
    
    
    
                         

re: .47  Olson    
    
>>>>Dwight's sheep note was pure ridicule.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  At the beginning of that note, I said something about
reading it with an "open mind."  You of all people should appreciate that. 
Then you were to compare the two stories.  Same logic applied to both.  Just
add the sheep.  As I said, it PROVED NOTHING, just like the SCAM that .0 told
us about.  I called it an orgy, but that was not what I really meant.  I did
really see it as promoting "gay" events, with a "lesbian" running the thing. 
To me, it's perverted.  My feelings.  But you read it and became defensive
without giving it a serious thought.  Ever read something funny, but find it to
be honest and true at the same time?  Ever read Dave Barry?

The funny thing about the sheep story, SOME PEOPLE would buy off on it!  We
have some pretty gullible people in this world, and that's how I felt about the
original story.  I feel that it's for "suckers."  I feel they were used and
that the woman was pocketing cash on their ignorance.  Yea, they whacked off
and felt "better" and maybe watching her please herself had them drooling a bit
too.  So it was easier for them to "enjoy" their session.

>>>>I was finding that the people taking a 'traditionalist' stance were yet
again attempting to prevent those of us with different attitudes from exploring
and finding common perspectives or learning from each other

Wrong assumption.  You assume that because some find it ridiculous, that they
are reluctant to accept this as"healthy" behavior.

>>>>And I'm willing to bet that some of those I named had exactly that as their
motive.  

Never go to Vegas.

-dwight

	RE: .67    

>	Perhaps it does underline the fact that in some respects,
>    	men do indeed have trouble opening up and really talking
>    	with each other about subjects that don't fit the norm
>    	for typical male banter. 
 
	66 replies before yours indicates that men were having trouble
	talking about this? Not to me it doesn't.

 	RE: .68

>    I think that this experiment can be concluded. There were a few replies
>    that showed thought and insight and willingness to consider other
>    views/options and what that might mean. Most replies reinforce the male
>    image of macho posturing and using jeers, humor, and sarcasm to divert
>    a topic that is potentially too close to home.
 
	I though most replies showed a willingness to concider other views.
	Most replies showed quite a bit of though and insight as well. I wonder
	if we both saw the most thought and insight in the replies we agreed
	with? I didn't see a whole lot of macho posturing. Sure there was
	humor and jeers but that is part of communication. One thing I did
	notice was that some people who supported the farce in .0 tried to
	shame people into agreeing with it by using such macho tactics as
	attempting to equate lack of agreement with cowardness. Also the use
	of self convincing argument "if you don't agree it proves I'm right
	or you wouldn't object" which is a tactic I remember little boys (mostly)
	using when I was a child. Now if people want to believe that that stuff
	in .0 works or would work for them fine but don't tell the rest of us
	that if we don't want to do it your way that we're macho posturing.

			Alfred

	

    I assume most noters read the passages describing naked full-body hugs
    and group masturbation and took a hard left, leaving the larger issues
    (emotional and non-sexual contact with other men and its relation to
    loving women) unheard and unanswered.  To say this is simply one tool
    toward forging a bond with other men is like saying a sledgehammer is
    simply one tool for driving in a thumb tack.  Yeah, it could work but
    there's got to be a simplier, less threatening way.
    
    Since I was 17 I've been fortunate to have a cirle of male friends
    who appreciate and nuture communication of feelings as well as in-
    formation; they're unafraid to express friendship in the form of a
    supportive hand on a shoulder or a warm embrace (as opposed to a bone
    crushing death sqeeze or the A-frame house).  Our relationship with
    women is stronger and richer because of it.  I'm 32 now, halfway
    between idealism and cynicism.  In large measure through my emotionally
    enriching (nonsexual) relationships with other men, I have the potential
    of bringing a wider view of love, passion and compassion to a relationship.
    Please understand this is a growth process and not a final destination.
    I have the ability to behave as boorishly as any other guy.  But I also
    have the capacity of physically and verbally sharing my feelings with other
    men.
    
    I'm beginning to sound like Alan Alda so I'll close.  Bottom line is
    this: it doesn't require a wanking session to open up to other men.
    All it takes is a small amount of that legendary male courage to express
    something more than work, news and sports.  Some men won't understand,
    so what.  Many more want to explore, waiting for someone to open the
    door.  That door opens from the inside out and starts with a move by you
    (and me).
    
    Allbest,
    Larry
     
      
         
     
    
    

    re: .74 and .75
    
     BRAVO!
    
     The Doctah

    .75  Larry,
    
    Thank you!  You hit the nail right on the head -- about what's wrong
    with this whole topic and about the more important issues that this
    whole mess has overshadowed.  I agree completely, and what you say
    reflects much of what's going on in my own life, in relation to
    other men and women.  If only your words led this topic off at ground 
    .0, then much of the hysteria that followed could have been averted.
    
    Congratulations on your insights and wisdom here.  You said it very well.
    
    Thanks,
    Paul
      

 
>	I though most replies showed a willingness to concider other views.
           .
           .
           .
>	...some people who supported the farce in .0 tried to...


C'mon, Alfred.  Look at your own reply.  "Farce"?  Judgement: signed, 
sealed, and delivered.  End of discussion, right?

People have been dismissing .0 as "a farce," "doesn't make any sense," 
and "repulsive."  Many of the points that I brought up in my first 
reply were never addressed with any level of respect or seriousness.  
People only picked up on the Prince/Basinger line.  (One line!)

I think to myself, "Have I considered other's opinions as much as I
would like for them to consider mine?"  Maybe not.  All I know is that
when I read, "Yech!" "Disgusting!" "Farce!" "Makes no sense!"  It
doesn't leave me much space to attempt to follow up on what the other
person was saying.  It doesn't leave much room for discussion.  It
sounds too much like lots of folks have the "right" attitude about .0
and that anyone who feels differently is...a bizarre throwback to the
Sixties. 

So why should Denny and I hang around here and try to talk to you 
about this?  What enlightenment are we going to get?  (Actually, I'd 
go for just a little respect for my differing opinion....)


							--Gerry

    Re:  .78
    
    But if people here find the activities in the base note disgusting and
    senseless, why shouldn't they say so?  If I told you we could relate
    better to each other if we all stood around a bonfire and sacrificed
    newborn lambs and drank their blood, would you address this with respect
    and seriousness?  Or would you think it was disgusting and senseless? 
    I don't think that valuing differences means agreeing with everyone who
    has an idea different from our own.
    
    							John 

    	A point that anyone failed to ponder is that men hanging around
    with men in a naked state has existed for years. In a nudist colony.
    The difference is that there is NO sexual embracing, no group
    masturbation, or is there a woman required to be a central focus.
    Nudism lets all of the male/male, male/female, female/female barriers
    be broken. Nudists are the most vulnerable people on earth. No clothes,
    no weapons, just words and actions. I would believe that this form
    of male/male bonding is much more theraputic and a hell of a lot
    less threatening.
    
    	I'm not and never have been a nudist, but it does intrigue me
    to know that there is a different way of life. As I understand it,
    these people live longer on average, have less stress and cope with
    life better, and have a much better view of life than the average
    Joe and Mary.
    
    	I just feel that "fad therapy" isn't going to make me bond better
    with men. It's like primael screaming, crying therapy, body-slapping,
    and other fly by night "in" stuff. My true gut reaction to this
    is nothing more than a way for gay men to meet a cross section of
    straight men who would be a safer bet in a sexual encounter than
    their gay friends. In other words.........a true straight male who
    has not had a blood transfusion after 1978, never had a homosexual
    experience, and never used a needle for drugs is about 10,000 times
    safer than a gay male sexual partner pick up. Ya know AIDS......
    
    	'nuff said.                                                 
    
    Ken
                     
    	

RE: .79 by SMAUG::DESMOND
                                                                                 
>  If I told you we could relate better to each other if we all stood 
> around a bonfire and sacrificed  newborn lambs and drank their blood,
> would you address this with respect and seriousness?  Or would you think
> it was disgusting and senseless?        
>
>                  -< But maybe we really find it disgusting! >-                  
>
> Or would you think...

	Let me tell you what I'd think.... 

	I think  your  reaction  hints  that  you  may  have  a  problem acting
	affectionate  or  even  comfortable with other men.  Equating full body
	hugs with death, killing, and blood - I mean, GET REAL!!

	I think we have a LEEE-TLE bit of a personal problem here...

	-Erik

    
    
    	Erik,  So just because you don't like his reply for not agreeing
    	with you, you're determined to twist his reply. Where in his
    	reply did he SAY .0 is the same as his example? 
    
    	I also have to agree with most of the replies. What does being
    	naked with a bunch of other guys performing a circle jerk have
    	to do with forming better relationships (men or women)? Does this
    	mean that all relationships/friendships can only be sexual? How
    	does it help to form friendships? Explain, do I need to yank my
    	crank with a group of men just to make friends? Just because I
    	may be able to change hands and gain a stroke to boot, does that
    	mean I will now form much better relationships with both men and
    	women?

I think it's okay that people find .0 disgusting.  I try very hard not 
to tell people what to feel (not always successfully).  

Do you think that it's okay that I find .0 enlightening and a useful 
tool for breaking down parts of the male gender role that I don't 
like?  Do you see why .0 makes sense to me?


							--Gerry

re:  .81  [debriae]

	>>>I think  your  reaction  hints  that  you  may  have  a  problem
acting	affectionate  or  even  comfortable with other men.  Equating full body	
hugs with death, killing, and blood - I mean, GET REAL!!

Well, he can speak for himself, but I understood his point.  He was simply
saying that killing a lamb and drinking it's blood was as rediculous, to him,
as was the base note.  I said the same thing with my sheep story.  Either of
our stories COULD HAVE BEEN THE BASE NOTE.  And you can expect, there would be
some idots that would believe us and go sign up and pay us $1000 for the two
day session!

-dwight

As for your remark about him having a problem.... "Uncalled for."

>    	Explain, do I need to yank my
>    	crank with a group of men just to make friends? Just because I
>    	may be able to change hands and gain a stroke to boot, does that
>    	mean I will now form much better relationships with both men and
>    	women?

I gave my explanation from my point of view in .21.  Let me see if I 
can give a really quick summary:

Living day to day, a lot of choices are made using freedom of will.  
For instance, choosing what to have for breakfast, for most people, 
is a pretty open experience.  People can pick and choose according to 
their own tastes, health needs, personal priorities.  There is freedom 
of choice involved, and the experience is dynamic (can change from 
morning) and can be quite creative (I think that Diet Pepsi 
is...imaginative for breakfast).

There are some areas of life in which our freedom of choice is
hampered and restricted by strong taboos and emotional surges, which
are sometimes unconscious.  Some of this emotion is good; for
instance, I'm glad that I have a strong emotional reaction that keeps
me from choosing to jump off a bridge. However, some of these 
emotional reactions can get in the way of deepening our intimate 
relationships.

Which brings me to the workshop...

The workshop operates on the premise that, as men, a lot of emotional 
responses have been ingrained in us regarding our bodies, regarding 
how physically close we can get to other men, regarding how sexual we 
can get with other men, regarding how we can express our sexuality 
with women, regarding expressions of vulnerability (being nude is an 
extremely vulnerable state), and regarding how we can express 
tenderness.  The workshop attempts to provide a space in which men can 
experience both physical and emotional experiences that generally 
cause deep emotional reactions.  Once these experiences are no longer 
theoretical and once they become actual experiences, the idea is that 
men won't react in a knee-jerk fashion any more, that they will be 
able to freely choose the appropriate action for the given situation.

For instance, since the men who have taken the workshop have had some
experience being very vulnerable around a group that they are often
trained to mistrust (other men), that can open up avenues in the men's
relationships with women, allowing them greater freedom of choice in
allowing themselves to be vulnerable around their women spouses. Their
expressed sexuality with women is no longer a mandated requirement
linked to their masculinity; having been sexual with other men, the
sex with women becomes more of a nonemotionally-charged choice.  Also,
if the relationship requires men to be passive or vulnerable with
their women, the workshop tries to open up more choice and flexibility
in that area, too; the idea is that, if you could be vulnerable in the
sexually charged workshop, you can open up more choice in being
vulnerable in the less charged atmosphere of your relationship with
women. 

Again, the point of the workshop (in my opinion) is not to turn men 
onto homosexuality.  The point is to remove any knee-jerk emotional 
charge, and to open up the more emotionally satisfying state in which 
men are loving their women out of choice and natural feelings, not out 
of a knee-jerk reaction from rules that have been mandated to us since 
we were little boys.  The idea is to move from a space of "My god, 
that's disgusting, I could _never_ do that" (do you see the lack of 
freedom of choice in that?) to "I don't want to do that, I would 
rather do this."

I understand that some people find this disgusting.  I understand that
there are may be religious objections to participating in the
workshop.  I understand that some men see the workshop as being too
jarring, too much, too soon.  I understand that this type of workshop 
is not the only (or "best") method for some men to open up more choice 
in their intimate lives (there are other ways to get the same result).

Since I am such a big advocate of choice ;-), it doesn't bother me
that people would choose not to participate in this workshop.  But, as
I stated in .21, I have seen my relationship with women improve
drastically since I came out as a gay man.  The point for me is not
"becoming homosexual"; the point is that I undermined a gender-based
taboo and opened up not only more choice in my life but new
perspectives as well. 

It's not for everyone.  But can't it be effective for some?

[This turned out a lot longer than I planned.  Sorry.]

							--Ger

re:  .83  [fisher]

>>>>I think it's okay that people find .0 disgusting.

Agreed.

>>>>Do you think that it's okay that I find .0 enlightening and a useful 
tool for breaking down parts of the male gender role that I don't 
like?  

Yes.

>>>>Do you see why .0 makes sense to me?

No.  Here's we the discussion happens.

>>> -< I guess I just want to hear and to be heard >-

That IS discussion/communication which comes in many forms.

-dwight

re:  .79 [DESMOND]

>>>>I don't think that valuing differences means agreeing with everyone who has
an idea different from our own.

This one comment needs to be said a heck of a lot in *every* notes conference. 
We might have to endure or accept other points of view, and we can appreciate
that others think differently, but we DON'T have to AGREE or LIKE them.

-dwight

    Re: .81
    
    Come on, Erik.  You know me better than that.  After all unless this is
    some major coincidence, we went to school together.  Didn't you check
    out the name on the note?  I guess I never hugged you but I've never
    had a problem hugging men.  I hug my father and my brother when I see
    them.  I have several male friends that I hug when I greet them and
    it's not one of those A-frame hugs either.  But, I would certainly never
    sit around naked with any of them and masturbate.  If there are people
    who would like to do that, then I guess it just different strokes for
    different folks.  I think it's disgusting.
    
    Just to add another comment about men becoming more comfortable with
    men...  Gerry Fisher had entered a note about a workshop where men
    gathered to get to know each other and to share feelings and break down
    barriers.  There was nothing sexual involved if memory serves me
    correctly.  Although I don't know if I would go to such a workshop, I
    remember thinking that it was a great idea.  It allowed men to express
    their feelings without being afraid of being laughed at.  I think this
    would be a much better way to break down barriers between men.
    
    							John

RE: .90 

	Is it, could it be, *you* John?? :-) :-)

>	You know me better than that.

	Yes I  do...   I guess I just wanted an affirmation that the great_guy
	John I knew back at school was still himself. :-)

	The gist  of this topic, as I read it, was males being comfortable with
	and  affectionate  with  other  males.  And you came out with a "that's
	disgusting"  statement  without  qualifying what exactly it is that you
	found "disgusting." I assumed it was the very topic.

>  But, I would certainly never
>    sit around naked with any of them and masturbate.  If there are people
>    who would like to do that, then I guess it just different strokes for
>    different folks.  I think it's disgusting.

	Now I  understand  you  better.   BTW,  I  would  agree  with you but I
	wouldn't  use  such a judgemental term as 'disgusting'.  I myself would
	not  personally  be  *comfortable*  with  the  idea  nor  be willing to
	participate  in  getting  together  with a bunch of men I don't know to
	masturbate  with  them,  but I am certainly not 'disgusted' by the mere
	idea.

	I agree  with  the  gist  of the topic though...  that men need to go a
	long  ways  before they can be comfortable with other men and *not* see
	it  as  being  sexual with them.  Just watch the reaction of many men's
	faces  when  two  European  men  kiss  at an airport...  $100 down that
	they would swear the two men are gay.

	-Erik

    The gist of the topic probably should be males being comfortable with
    and affectionate with other males but I think most of the discussion
    has centered around the approach that was used to accomplish this goal. 
    I don't have any problem with males learning to be affectionate to each
    other.
    
    As for reactions to men kissing goodbye at an airport, I don't think
    that's such a big deal.  I certainly don't think that most of the
    leaders of the countries in the Middle East are gay and yet I've seen
    them kiss on the evening news many times. 

    
    
    	RE: .86	
    
    	  Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :^)
    
    	I have no problem with the the need for men to be more comfortable
    	and even more affectionate towards one another. I guess I just
    	disagree that in order to accomplish this, it's reduced to sexual
    	acts with other men. I still fail to see why they (or you) feel
    	that connection is needed. You stated that the objectives (in your
    	opinion) were not to turn men onto homosexuality. Fine, then why
    	require them to partake in homosexual acts?? If you wanted to
    	attend an "anti-smoking"(for an example) workshop. Would you expect
    	to be required to pickup a pack or cigarettes and start smoking
    	when the objectives were to explore the dangers of smoking? I
    	sure wouldn't.
    
    	G_B

>  <<< Note 421.82 by MILKWY::BUSHEE "From the depths of shattered dreams!" >>>

>    	I also have to agree with most of the replies. What does being
>    	naked with a bunch of other guys performing a circle jerk have
>    	to do with forming better relationships (men or women)?

	 It has everything to do with forming better relationships.
	 As human beings we set up a facade around yourself of what
	 society dictates that we should be....we 'play the game'
	 society wants us to play and we fall prey to society's
	 dictations.

	 When we take off our clothes, we are taking OFF that facade
	 and we are seeing who the real person is
	 underneath.....mentally, emotionally, etc.  Masturbating is
	 one of the most relaxing, unassuming things.  It's a way to
	 let down ALL the inhibitions.
	 
>Does this
>    	mean that all relationships/friendships can only be sexual?

	 I don't find ANY of this seminar to be sexual.  But then
	 again, I'm quite able to separate my sexuality from my
	 nudity.  Many people are not able to make that distinction.
	 To some people nudity IS Sexual, and maturbating IS Sexual.
	 To others it's not, it a form of accepting our REAL selves
	 and getting rid of the inhibitions society places on us.
	 


	 kathy

    
    I've been wondering...
    
    When was it decided, and by whom, that men are not having good
    relationships with women. Who decided that these relationships
    were in need of improvement? Is this a manifestation of the
    feminist (and perhaps gay movement) challenge of traditional relationships?
    I ask seriously...
    
    
    								Hank

    -1
    
    Hank, I'd say you hit the nail on the head.
    
    -dwight

.95  [gallup]

>>>we 'play the game'	 society wants us to play and we fall prey to society's	
dictations.

I guess we can say, there are several "societies."  We have the freedom to
swing over to the one that fits us best.

>>>When we take off our clothes, we are taking OFF that facade and we are
seeing who the real person is underneath.....

This alone can be disgusting for some folks.  :^)

>>>Masturbating is	 one of the most relaxing, unassuming things.  It's a
way to	 let down ALL the inhibitions.

OK.  But I'll not have another man 'flogging my log' thank you.  He can go
'twitch his on switch.'

>>>I don't find ANY of this seminar to be sexual.  

Oh no???  Read this again from .0 ........

        .0>>>We each were to give and receive a group-massage, full-body. 
        We each were to have the chance to give the others full-body hugs,
        naked.  And, we all would masturbate at the same time.

        .0>>>As I hugged other men, I could feel their bodies against my
        body..... Rather than anxiety, I felt relieved at the freedom of
        including my genitals in my comfort.  

        .0>>>I sensed that every man in that room would now be a better
        lover for it.  


>>>But then	 again, I'm quite able to separate my sexuality from my	
nudity.  

>>>To some people nudity IS Sexual, and maturbating IS Sexual.
	 
I think most people would disagree with the first part.  When I'm in the
shower, it's not sexual, unless, perhaps, my girlfriend is with me.  As for
masturbating, I'd say it's sexual, IMO.

>>>To others it's not, it a form of accepting our REAL selves	 and getting
rid of the inhibitions society places on us.

OK.  I'm at work... it's been a 'hard' night, pardon the expression.... I'm
beat.  I'm sitting in my chair, accepting my REAL self.  My boss walks in. 
"Dwight," he says... "what are you doing.?"  I reply, "I'm getting rid of all
the inhibitions society places on us."  I'm fired.  I go home to relieve more
inhibitions.  I'm lucky.  Instead of a manager walking in on me, he could have
been an ASSISTANT manager!  :^)

-dwight

    I guess I'd address your question on a personal level, Hank; 
    nobody decided for me that my relationships with other men are
    loaded with suspicion and fear; nobody decided for me that even
    when I'm with my friends, affection is very difficult to express.
    These are true things that I noticed about my own life.  I thus
    recognized the basenote as confirming that other men have also
    noticed those things about their own lives.
    
    > Is this a manifestation of the feminist (and perhaps gay movement) 
    > challenge of traditional relationships?
    
    Did I learn to examine my own life from the feminist movement?
    Perhaps.  My life has been through some severe twists in the time 
    I've been on the planet (28 years); I recognize significant influences 
    from personal events like my own adolescent rebellion (ages 12-15), 
    my parents' divorce (age 15), my adult relationship with my father 
    (started when I was 15), my college ROTC and four years AF active 
    duty experiences (ages 18-26), and my relationships with women.
    I also recognize significant influences from my contemporary social
    history (the war protests, Watergate, the women's movement, the
    oil crisis, the fall of the shah, the assassination of John Lennon,
    the decay of the national legislature)...how can I say what influences
    taught me to examine my own life and my own fears and whether or not 
    I am satisfied with my relationships?  All of them formed me.  None 
    of them rules me.  
    
    I don't think that answer matters so much as this: having come to the
    realization that I am dissatisfied, it is useful to see and hear of
    others who feel the same way.  It is useful to examine our common
    cultural heritage for evidence and patterns of what has set these
    conflicts in motion.  It is important to me, to try to identify those
    aspects of our culture that have lead to these common problems...for
    I think that identifying the roots of the problems is important in
    avoiding their recurrence.  I want this society to be healed.
    
    Good questions.
    
    DougO

    re -1 >  I want this society to be healed.
    
    Who says it's sick ???
    
    Like Dr. Ruth, I have no problem with what two consenting adults
    do on their kitchen table, but when someone tries to tell me
    that "you can't possibly xxxxx unless you xxxxx" I have a 
    SEVERE problem with that.
    
    fred();

    re .100-

    Its funny, but while I was composing .99, I almost threw in a
    parenthetical comment after the sentence Fred objected to:

    >>    re -1 >  I want this society to be healed.
    >
    > Who says it's sick ???

    But I figured if anyone seriously objected to it, fine, I'd discuss it
    then.  Didn't figure it to happen so soon ;-).  The short answer is,
    with our prisons full, our taxes climbing, our violent crime rates way
    too high, our government lying to us about the real purposes of the
    drug war, our elected representatives inept, corrupt, stupid, or some
    combination thereof, our natural resurces dwindling, our balance-of-
    payments deeply in the red, our news media co-opted by the power they
    wield, our judicial and insurance systems snarled and hamstrung by
    hugely inequitable laws, our homes, persons and possessions insecure...
    anyone who suggests that this society is healthy is lying to you.

    Yes, I see this society as needing healing, and in a big way.  There
    are many more aspects of how it isn't healthy than just the one at hand, 
    but lets start here for the moment...errr...no.  Better to start by 
    trying to define societal health.  And I'm not trying for an
    all-inclusive definition; any of you who think I'm neglecting basic
    characteristics of a healthy society, feel free to chime in.

    Lets start with observations.  Any society has lots of components. 
    There's people; there's norms; there's dynamics of interactions.
    In modern societies, there are usually economic and political flavors
    to those dynamics; the society works on economic models of capitalism
    or socialism or whatever; the theories and models and ideological
    flavors are important, but for the moment I don't want to get into
    labeling the particular flavors.  Rather, what is important about the
    ideologies in defining societal health is how the dominant flavors 
    affect the people and the interactions in the society.

    [ok?  I'm purposely not saying political things like 'communism is bad
    for societies' or 'capitalism is bad for societies'.  I'm saying, what
    effect those particular-flavored-models have ON PEOPLE AND THEIR
    INTERACTIONS is the key to defining this thing I call, health.]

    From those observations, I suggest that a healthy society is one in
    which all people have similar opportunities to participate in and
    benefit from the achievements of that society.  Similarity of
    opportunity is important because its lack leads to perceptions
    of unfairness.  The unfair society is not healthy because it isn't
    stable; because unfairness breeds resentment which leads in extreme
    cases to revolution, and in less extreme cases to culturally
    counter-productive actions; neither of which stabilizes a society.

    [btw, stable is not the same as "static" or "rigid".  Stable means,
    able to effectively cope with disequilibrating factors, and
    integrate them into the societal fabric.  The civil rights movement 
    in the US is probably a good example of a disequilibrating factor 
    (resentment of institutionalized racism) which was transformed into
    a part of the society.  If the civil rights movement had not been
    effective, would the resentment have lead to revolution?  Possibly.
    In any case, the society is more stable for the existence of the
    movement.]

    OK, so, I'm sketching this wholesale, but bear with me.

    I said up there that the effects upon people and their interactions 
    is the key to defining health.  If the institutions, ideologies,
    cultural norms of behavior, (whatever you want to call the forces 
    that condition people to act the way they do, that are different 
    from the ways that people act in other societies), if those forces 
    are conditioning people to be healthy members of the society, then 
    we have a healthy society.  If we are seeing all those problems I
    mentioned up above (the "short answer" ;-) ipso facto, the society
    isn't healthy, and (here is the point!) some of the forces that
    condition people and influence their interactions, aren't good for 
    them or healthy for them.

    So who says so, fred()?  I do.  Though I owe a lot of my thinking on
    this to a book by Chalmers Johnson, called _Revolutionary Change_,
    on the specific topic of disequilibrating forces and the myriad ways
    a society might react to them.

    (Does anyone see why I originally chose not to put in a parenthetical
    comment after my desire to see society healed?  Sorry for the length;-).

    DougO

    > 	And the solution is the workshop in .0?
    
    No, I didn't say that.
    
    >	I don't see the connection.    Can you show me?
    
    If you didn't follow the rest of .101, I seriously doubt I'll be able
    to show you the relationship between the concepts.  The workshop in .0
    was adressing a problem, that of certain men who feel unable to relate,
    or hindered in their relations, to other men.  For certain men, that
    workshop obviously *was* a solution.  For others, the problem remains
    unaddressed.  My note .101 attempts to address the question of what is
    a healthy society, and the connection to the basenote is that the
    underlying problem, addressed by the workshop, is one of the problems
    this society has to solve for {all men | all men who want to improve
    their relationships with other men} (reader's choice) to become a
    healthy society.
    
    DougO

>      <<< Note 421.98 by DEC25::BERRY "Send me to a McCartney concert." >>>

>-< can't buy it Kath... >-

You don't have to.  I do...we're different, ain't life grand?

>I guess we can say, there are several "societies."  We have the freedom to
>swing over to the one that fits us best.

True....but in some way we must comform to a certain society.  Very few
societies actually fit perfectly every person that is a part of it.  We
must comform and adapt.

>OK.  But I'll not have another man 'flogging my log' thank you.  He can go
>'twitch his on switch.'

I didn't read anything in .0 about someone masterbating another person.

>Oh no???  Read this again from .0 ........

I assume you mean "sexual" as referring to another person.  While I
find some of these things to be relating to a person's PERSONAL sexuality
I don't feel they really related to sexual inclinations toward others.

>        .0>>>We each were to give and receive a group-massage, full-body. 
>        We each were to have the chance to give the others full-body hugs,
>        naked.  And, we all would masturbate at the same time.

I don't necessarily find a full-body massage to be sexual.  Nor a full-body
hug....even while naked.

>        .0>>>As I hugged other men, I could feel their bodies against my
>        body..... Rather than anxiety, I felt relieved at the freedom of
>        including my genitals in my comfort.  

Comfort and relief != sexual.

>        .0>>>I sensed that every man in that room would now be a better
>        lover for it.  

What's sexual about this?  Being more aware of your OWN sexuality is
wonderful and can help a person to be a better lover.

>I think most people would disagree with the first part.  When I'm in the
>shower, it's not sexual, unless, perhaps, my girlfriend is with me.  As for
>masturbating, I'd say it's sexual, IMO.

To you it is....to others?  Well, it's self-gratification.....tension
release...it's sexual of a sort, but not particularly sexually
stimulating to others.

>OK.  I'm at work... it's been a 'hard' night, pardon the expression.... I'm
>beat.  I'm sitting in my chair, accepting my REAL self.  My boss walks in. 

You office is NOT a room where a seminar is being conducted.  This place
was a "safe" place.  Your office is not, so it's not a good analogy.

Try a stall in the restroom.


kath

    -1     Gallup
    
    >>>You office is NOT a room where a seminar is being conducted.  This
    place was a "safe" place.  Your office is not, so it's not a good
    analogy.  Try a stall in the restroom.
    
    Does that work for you?? 
    
    -dwight
    

>     <<< Note 421.105 by DEC25::BERRY "Send me to a McCartney concert." >>>

>    -1     Gallup
    
>    Does that work for you?? 


	 I didn't realize that was any of your business.....


	 k

    I've kept out of this string until now.  I've read through almost all
    of it and I think the tenor of the string reflects societies'
    attiutudes about sex. i.e. Sex is an EMOTIONAL, personal, subject with
    an incredible variety of different opinions about pretty much the same
    thing.  So what?  Well, I don't know if I can think of a subject which
    riles peoples opinions and emotions much more than sex does. Take a
    look at the rules and and outright laws which dictate "appropriate"
    human sexual behavior.  We put people in PRISON for walking down the
    street naked.  What do we do to people for murder?  The same thing.
    Doesn't it say something about how uptight we are about sex when we
    put people in prison for showing off their bodies and have virtually
    the same penalty for someone who DESTROYS another human being? 
    Although not a nudist or one who walks down the streets naked it makes
    me wonder when I can be put in PRISON for doing so.   This string I
    find disturbing because it reveals how up tight everyone really is
    about sex and their bodies. I am not an exception, I am too.  Its sad.
    
    Jeff
    

>   <<< Note 421.107 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "Herb -CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

>    Well, from this vantage, it looked like you were suggesting that
>    someone else use a restroom stall.

	 Oh, I see the misconnect now.  I wasn't "telling" him to use
	 a stall in the restroom.  I was *attempting* to say the
	 office isn't really a "safe" place and that a stall in the
	 restroom would probably be "safer."

	 
>    Given that, Not sure I understand why "does that work for you"
>    merits what seems to be a 'huffy' response?

	 Now, if he took my comment to be telling HIM, PERSONALLY, to
	 go use a stall, I can understand his comment, but I
	 wasn't....since my intention wasn't personal, I didn't feel a
	 personal question like that was warranted.

	 Obviously I was sadly lacking in getting my intention across.


	 kath

    
    
    Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up by the time I got back in here! 
    
    -dwight

    I have yet to see how a sexual encounter among ten men and a lesbian
    will make me a better lover with my wife.
    
    I certainly will NOT gain any experience that will benefit a woman
    by masturbating with men. I might find a technique or two by having
    a woman explain in detail something I don't understand.
    
    I see little corelation in the manner of men loving men and men
    loving women. Sorta like trying to grow apples and bananas on the
    same tree. Both fruits, won't happen.
    
    Ken 

Can I ask a question?

Several notes have referred to the woman who conducted the seminar
as a lesbian.  

Is she someone who has publicly stated her orientation?  Or is there 
something about her behavior that makes you think her orientation isn't
heterosexual?

--bonnie, confused

    -1
    
    Bonnie... perhaps is cause people feel they were homosexual acts?
    
    Especially the part about massaging each other, all over.
    
    -dwight

        
>    I see little corelation in the manner of men loving men and men
>    loving women. Sorta like trying to grow apples and bananas on the
>    same tree. Both fruits, won't happen.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^
    
	I apologize, in all honesty, this was not intended to be a sneer,
or sacastic, or even a remote reference to gays. It ws brought to my attention
through e-mail. I was refering to the banana and apple as both being fruits
that won't go on the same tree.

	AGAIN...I apologize....I'll delete the note or moderators can do it if 
they feel it necessary.....

          Ken

re: .114

I can see saying the men were engaged in homosexual activity (I don't
agree, but I can undestand how someone would say it).  But unless I 
misread something, there weren't any other women present for the 
moderator to be involved in homosexual activity with????

Watching two men having sex wouldn't make a heterosexual woman a lesbian 
any more than watching two women having sex (a common theme in porn 
movies) makes a heterosexual man gay.

--bonnie, still puzzled

    I think the original piece referred to her as a feminist. Through the
    miracle of unconscious association, memory parity errors and plain
    misunderstanding, we have the current term: lesbian. 
    
     The Doctah

I would like to make a plea that people don't judge other people's 
sexual orientation unless the person reveals that orientation.  It's a 
courtesy kind of thing.

I know that some people think it is rare, but I've met a significant 
number of heterosexual feminists.

...back to your regularly scheduled program.


							--Gerry

>    <a significant number of heterosexual feminists>
>    
>    Both male AND female!

How do _you_ know whom I've met, Herb?  ;-)


					--Ger

	I don't feel that the idea of men getting together to 
	disrobe and massage each other and masturbate together
	will make them relate better to women. (of course this
	is only my opinion)

	I can just picture the scenerio......

	<ring>  <ring>

	Me:      Hello

	My Man:  Hi honey.........I won't be able to see you
	         tonight.

	Me:      Oh.........why is that?

	My Man:  Well.....you see ..me and the guys ..we're 
	         gonna get together and massage each other 
	         and masturbate.

	Me:	<thud> ......[sound of me falling off chair]	

	The Man: Hello.....you still there.........?

	Me:	 Not any more. <crash>[sound of phone hanging up!]


	kits

    re. 121
    Looks like a *very* realistic scheme to me.
    
    Charles

For what it's worth, I've become aware that the base note has been posted
in WOMANNOTES, and a spirited discussion has ensued there, largely 
pertaining to people's reactions to what they heard was the reaction here.

I thought the participants here should know about this.

				Steve

RE WOMANNOTES discussion on this topic

For what it's worth, I went over to that file to read what they had to 
say.  As of last week, there were a few comments about what the men 
were talking about in "our" file, but, on the whole, it wasn't a heck 
of a lot different than this discussion.   I also felt that the pro 
and con ratio was just about the same; the women might have had a 
slightly higher pro ratio, but not by much, in my opinion.  They 
frequently echoed the "what does that have to do with men loving 
women" theme that is in this discussion.

...that's just my take on it.


						--Ger

>> .121		My Man:  Well.....you see ..me and the guys ..we're 
>>		         gonna get together and massage each other 
>>		         and masturbate.
>>
>>		Me:	<thud> ......[sound of me falling off chair]	
>>
>>		The Man: Hello.....you still there.........?
>>
>>		Me:	 Not any more. <crash>[sound of phone hanging up!]

>> .122		re. 121
>>		Looks like a *very* realistic scheme to me.
        
        Not fair!  In your scenario she hangs up the phone before
        giving the guy a chance to say that there would a woman
        in the circle with them!
        
        Dan

    re.125
    In this case I'd be lucky if my SO would just hang up the phone.
    I fear though, I'd be in for some very drastic surgery!
    
    Charles

    "In this case I'd be lucky if my SO would just hang up the phone.
    I fear though, I'd be in for some very drastic surgery!"
    
    Golly, what kind of phone service do you have?
    
    :-)
    
    ed
    

	After entering a few somewhat less serious replies, I think it's time
	to get a bit more serious with a question that (I think) has a relation
	to the subject on hand:
	During those sessions, is masturbation used in order to release tention
	and therefore not linked with sex?

	Charles

    Re:  .128


    BINGO!!!   I think he's got it!    8*)

    The forest was getting a little hazy with most everyone just looking at
    the trees.  

    justme....jacqui

    

    

    Having finally read through all 129 replies I find myself agreeing with
    some parts of .93 and .109 ( go read them again, I read too many to be
    able to summarize at this point :-)).
    
    Whether the group therapy's actions described in .0 are "right" by
    anyone's definitions, it was clear to me from the multitudinous
    replies, that the consensus said it is inappropriate behavior to 
    reach a goal of bettering one's relationships.
    
    I keep wondering if another, less intimidating type of exercise were
    offered, what the response would be. Say, a seminar to "improve one's
    relationships with the opposite sex", open to only men or
    only women.  Clothes on. Exercises like exploring another person's 
    hand or other "generalized" touching exercises, as well as verbal
    exercises.  Obviously I don't have all the answers for what it would
    contain, but I keep thinking that it would be a less threatening
    offering for MANY people if it didn't involve nudity or sexual
    connotations.  
    
    Lynn
    

Although the overall goal of "releasing tension" is the main point of 
the workshop, I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the 
masturbation as being nonsexual.  It _is_ sexual.  If the only goal 
was to release tension, they could all get together and play a game of 
basketball.  Massage and masturbation were chosen for important 
reasons, in my opinion; they get to deeper inhibitions and "tensions" 
that a good game of basketball can't reach.

FWIW  "Consensus" is defined as "everyone agreeing that they can live
with a decision."  Majority opinion is not a consensus.  There is no
consensus of opinion in this note.  Not while I'm here, anyway.  ;-) 


							--Ger

    Thanks Ger. Majority opinion is more in line with what I was trying to
    say than consensus.
    

    Non sexual masturbation....hmmmmmmm, that IS a trick.  Somehow I can't
    conceive of it NOT being sexual.   Jeff

>>	How can a tense male masturbate (with success)?


    	Practice, it takes practice.....like learning to walk!
    	One does not get up on one's feet and take off down the
    	road the first time.  ;*)

    	justme....jacqui	
    	

    re .133  I agree: "For most American men touching IS sexual" that is
    at the least has sexual overtones....     Jeff

    I think one of the outcomes of the basenote is to learn that 
    ALL touching is NOT sexual.  This is a very important aspect
    for the American male to learn that touching a female or a 
    male is not something that automatically leads to sex.  Touch
    is so much more than sex....it is comfort, sharing, joyful,
    ad infinitum....

    justme....jacqui

    
    I just wonder how one is supposed to learn this when the 
    women in question are doing their level best to avoid men...

    RE .140  Correct in that not all would agree.
    
    
    Also:  Touching may not be sexual for some/most/all men. HOWEVER
    touching after/before masterbating with other naked men and a naked
    women IS sexual. Please give us a break and the possibility of being
    somewhat intellegent.
    
    
    Steve
 

    
    >I just wonder how one is supposed to learn this when the 
    >women in question are doing their level best to avoid men..
     
    Where did that idea come from?
    I couldn't see which previous note it was alluding to....
    Which "women in question"?
    
    

    
    QUESTION
    
    If you were designing a workshop for men which will help them in their 
    relationships with women, and you want to sell this course (for
    vast amounts of money), what "market research" would you do through 
    asking questions of men to aid the design of the course?
    
    I'd ask things like:-
    
    - Is it your sexual relationshp specifically that you'd want to
    address?
    
    - Do you think that how you feel about yourself influences your
    relationships?
    
    - Do you feel that men are in any way repressed in our society
    today?
    
    Maybe discussion these kind of questions could lead us to see if
    the activities in the course in .0 were appropriate to the objective
    that brought the men to the course....
    
    'gail
    
    
    

You know what might be better than all this endless debating?  It
would probably be more useful to talk to some guys similar to you who
have taken it. Maybe wait a half year or so, and then ask them if they
have seen some improvements in their relationships with women. 

Haven't folks ever heard a logical discussion conclude that something
was possible and effective, and the experience turned out to be
impossible and ineffective?  Haven't folks ever heard a logical
discussion conclude that something was impossible or ineffective, and
the experience turned out to be possible and effective? 

It might be helpful to talk to people with experience.  I don't feel 
as if I can learn anything more about this workshop until I talk to 
someone who has tried it or until I try it myself.

							--Ger

    
    -1
    
    Well, I suppose you could try it by yourself........
    8*)

    But that contradicts the entire point... (doing it by yourself), that
    is, group participation and interaction.  [tongue in cheek]     

    justmetoo    Jeff

    
    
    "But that contradicts the entire point... (doing it by yourself), that
    is, group participation and interaction.
    
    Hmmmm.... maybe if you were schizophrenic???
    
    
    "[tongue in cheek]"
    
    I think that would be the smart thing to do..........
    

>	Ok, but what can we do *now*, if not what we're doing?

I guess I'm asking if we are done, yet.  I see wheels spinning.


						--Ger