Male Physical Intimacy

In their continuing efforts to destroy itself, Cracked has an article up on being in the closet while in other countries. It’s a low effort post consisting of 5 “facts” that are mostly blindingly obvious (Some geographic spaces have people more accepting of homosexuality than people from other geographic spaces! Surprising!) and a complete absence of humour. But there was one thing in it I wanted to comment on (aside from it being just another note on Cracked’s continued decline).

In Botswana, it’s customary for men to hold hands while chatting and walking. (No, the irony of such a homophobic country being filled with men skipping down the street holding hands was not lost on me.)

This is not irony. It is in fact the definitional opposite of irony, it is exactly what you’d expect.

These men are friends, engaging in male bonding. Touch is and always has been and important part of bonding and there is absolutely nothing implicitly homoerotic about men engaging in physical male bonding. In past, intimate physical contact between men was normal, and in other parts of the world that have not been homoeroticized it still is.

Take a look at this picture (one of a hundred similar ones from Art of Manliness):

Are these guys gay? Probably not. Yet it probably looks gay to you. In a healthy culture, intimate physical contact between men is normal and healthy. There would be nothing untoward or sexual about this, it’s just some friends hanging out. In our homoeroticized culture, this  kind of intimate contact between males is gay. We can see this difference from the Cracked article:

I didn’t even have to hide my boyfriend, whom I met at the gay underground party. He came to visit me for a weekend in my tiny village, and no one seemed to notice or suspect anything unusual about two dudes quietly holing up in a house together and sweating a lot. They must be great friends who love to work out!

As was pointed out in the Way of Men, men want to be recognized as masculine, as men within their gang who have attained the masculine virtues. Gays are effeminate, not masculine, and exist outside the gang. Normal men don’t want to be seen as effeminate or gay as this represents a failure to attain manhood and puts one outside of the gang.

In a “homophobic” society were homosexuality is proscribed, men can be physically and emotionally intimate with each other without being gay, because this intimacy is simply a normal, close friendship. So King David can say of his best friend:

“Jonathan lies slain on your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
very pleasant have you been to me;
your love to me was extraordinary,
surpassing the love of women.

And it’s not gay, because it isn’t gay. A man can have and signal intimacy with other men without it signalling gayness, because homosexuality doesn’t exist outside the occasional condemnation in a religious sermon. Male intimacy is normalized.

But, in a society where homosexuality is normalized as an accepted alternative lifestyle, and homosexuals publicly display their sexual proclivities through displays of intimacy, you can no longer safely display intimacy. If you do, there is a significant chance that other men around you will think you are signalling gayness, you will lose your masculinity. Through this, homoeroticism colonizes male intimacy. When homosexuality becomes normalized, male intimacy becomes denormalized.

In a gay society, you can not be homosocially intimate without being gay.

There are some modern attempts to bring non-sexual male intimacy back into normalcy. Both bromance and no homo try to explicitly counter-signal hetorosexuality and masculinity while engaging in male intimacy. But even then, our society is so gay that bromance is seen as “an increasing openness of society in the twenty-first century to reconsider gender, sexuality, and exclusivity constraints” rather than an attempt by young men to close the gaping spiritual and emotional wound that the lack of intimate male friendship has left in their hearts. These attempts have mostly failed.

In a non-gay society, you could slap your friend on the ass after the game, and walk to the showers with your arms around him. In our gay society, this sounds gay to you (and to me) because male intimacy has been colonized by homosexuality. This is one vague, virtually invisible, unquantifiable harm the homosexual movement has done to the majority.


  1. Great article. I do feel a strong desire for such bonding. It has made me question whether I am gay.

    Though, the effeminate gay is a cliche.

    I also think that any man of integrity should care less about being seen as manly than about being true to himself.

  2. Good post *slaps FN on the back, ruffles his hair, chucks his chin*

    Not sure if you ever read, but he makes a pretty good argument that gays are not really effeminate, but rather neotenous (i.e. they act like little kids in grown-up bodies). To the extent they do have some effeminate mannerisms, it’s comparable to how little boys might imitate some little-girl behaviors because they notice how much easier girls get positive attention, and gays are nothing if not desperate for attention. But they completely lack feminine nurturing instincts (predation on the young is rampant in the gay community), feminine disgust reflexes, feminine craving for intimate monogamous bonding, and feminine emotional empathy (nothwithstanding a shallow, sociopathic manipulativeness). Just doing a search on his blog for the words “Peter Pan” or “infantilized” will yield a bunch of articles on the subject.

  3. Part of the problem is, like many impulses of the left, a redefinition of terms.

    “Gay” has been expanded to include a myriad of things that have nothing to do with sexuality. In the past I have had to hide the fact that I like poetry and art because my comrades would have immediately classified me as gay and I just didn’t need the aggravation. Not just a modern day thing either, knew of a fellow in grad school whose grandfather is convinced he’s gay because he was studying poetry. Besides nothing sounds gayer to modern ears than claiming something isn’t gay, ironically.

    Plus the mythology surrounding whether or not “you might be gay”. It’s an incredible level of doubt and confusion specifically cultivated to serve a particular narrative. The same way they find the gay gene every couple of years (spoiler: nope, correlation still doesn’t mean causation).

    Desiring male friendship or contact doesn’t make you gay any more than having a good relationship with your mother makes you incestuous. You’re not gay unless you make gay choices, and those choices have to be actually gay, not what some leftist homonculus or redneck defines as gay.

  4. There was a whole category of human intimacy in this very vein that was destroyed by the rise of open homosexuality:

    It was beautiful and innocent and pure-hearted – yet another thing thrown into the maw of Dildolech; a sacrifice made by the many so that the few could feel comfortable – and finally could repay their magnanimity by stamping on their face – forever.

  5. It is sad what has been lost due to the homosexual mafia insisting on sexualizing all intimate male interactions. Growing up in the 60s and 70s we never gave a second thought to showering, taking a bath, or even sharing a bed with another boy. If you look at old movies, even strangers shared a bed when short on accommodations.

    Now everything is accompanied with the “knowing smile” or the required defense of “no, we’re not gay”. Although we wouldn’t have used the word “gay” back then: A perfectly useful word destroyed by the homosexual mafia.

  6. What a piece of shit I’m reading.

    You speak of male bonding and male nature as if these two were a heterosexual property. I must tell you that male nature is not a heterosexual property and neither is male bonding; they are human traits, that’s it.

    Also and something usually overlooked. Concepts of masculinity as modern society celebrates them today are homosexual in origin and conception. Let’s look back to Grecian times. In those days same-sex attraction was even thought as higher in reputation than heterosexual desire. Same-sex attraction was the ultimate expression of masculinity. Around 500 b.c Greece, homosexual and bisexual men came with a set of values and activities all men had to aspire to in order to reach masculinity. It was these men who, for instance, created gym culture. The gymnasium where men trained to develop their muscles and become more athletic, stronger and healthy. Male bonding was strong among them and and concepts of masculinity were passed down through generations of men. These all were conceptualized by homosexual and bisexual men; not heterosexual men.

    Being a strong and athletic man, developing an athletic/muscular body, being able to protect others, acquire millitar knowledge and skills, etc, all homosexual in origin and exercised by homosexual and bisexual men.

    Have you noticed that when you look at b.c. Greece the male body and male boding is so homoerotic? Look at the depictions of sports events, look at the art of the time, they all speak of an era when masculinity and male bonding were tightly intertwined with homosexual desire.

    As you can see, heterosexual en did not come with concepts of masculinity; only with homophobia which is the offspring of religion once Judeo-Christianity managed to dominate the west. Homophobia became the new definer of masculinity in modern times because all the rest was defined by men attracted to men.

Leave a Reply