"Frotophobia" and (Internalized) Homophobia

The Jewish-American Bill Weintraub began the "Frot Movement" as an attempt to popularize frottage (genital-genital sex or genital rubbing between men) and help frottage compete (in the "free market" of sexualities) against the much more dangerous and injurious act of anal.

In response to Bill's bravery, gay, bisexual, and occasionally even straight people would counter with weak arguments such as "frottage is just a fetish," although it's genital-genital sex between two men just like tribadism is genital-genital sex between two women, or penile-vaginal (and penile-clitoral) is genital-genital sex between a man and a woman. And of course, all of these sexual acts also occur in the animal world.

Heterosexist homophobes seem to prefer to maintain ignorance on this subject (i.e. to maintain the gay male analist status quo as much as possible while demonizing male homosexuality), especially since it's easier to judge gay men for anal than frottage. Anal, at least some of the time, can lead to incontinence, fissures, bleeding, painful defecation, prolapse, diseases (AIDS/HIV, Syphilis, Hepatitis C)... Monogamous frottage, in particular, is even safer than oral and penile-vaginal and infinitely safer than anal.

Right-wing and/or homophobic social conservatives have no problem availing themselves of every single argument they can possibly think of to attack (male) homosexuality, yet when frottage is brought up as a significantly safer alternative to anal, they do not want to talk about it at all, and in fact are likely to resort to forms of censorship against those mentioning frottage. Lives hang in the balance. Anal destroys life, friendship, love, etc. (or at the very least it is corrosive to those things).

I have communicated to a variety of people from both the Left and Right regarding frottage versus anal. One of the consensus opinions regarding this is that they are both sinful perversions. Those broadly on the Left are more likely to prefer the term "perversion," but this opinion is actually popular, regardless of whether it's spoken privately or openly.

Those who are more right-wing and/or socially conservative believe that all types of sex between men are sinful and against nature and ultimately lead to Hell. Perhaps even some (spiritual/religious) theists on the Left also subscribe to this belief.

I believe the Frot versus anal question is the ultimate test of whether someone is truly a non-conformist, individualist, or iconoclast or not. Collectivists tend to think that whatever a majority thinks is right. Therefore, if a majority believes that gay men do anal and that anal makes gay men happy, then the majority must be "right" no matter what. Or if a majority believes that all sex between men is bad and dangerous no matter what and don't want to mention frottage (since it's even safer than oral and penile-vaginal), then that majority must be "right" just because it's a majority. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

Who knows for how long this sinister alliance has existed between generally banal, homophobic, bourgeois heterosexuals and banal, homophobic, bourgeois homosexuals who generally refuse to criticize anal and/or refuse to openly consider frottage as a safer alternative. But I'm convinced that the longer this terrible status quo persists, the worse it will be for many gay (and bisexual) men: loveless lives; painful, dangerous sex; new diseases; injuries...

Observation

I've noticed that discussions about safer and more affectionate forms of intimacy between men--like frottage (genital-to-genital contact)--are often overlooked or dismissed, even though some individuals, like Bill Weintraub, have tried to raise awareness about its potential benefits, especially regarding health and emotional closeness.

Feelings

When I see frottage marginalized or ridiculed, I feel frustrated, sad, and even alarmed--especially because I care deeply about the well-being, safety, and dignity of gay and bisexual men. I also feel disappointed when I hear people from across the political spectrum label frottage as "just a fetish" or avoid the topic entirely.

Needs

I have a strong need for open, respectful dialogue about diverse forms of intimacy, particularly those that promote health and connection. I also value the freedom to challenge dominant narratives--whether cultural, medical, or sexual--without fear of censorship or dismissal. Underneath all of this is a longing for physical and emotional safety, for love and connection to be affirmed rather than undermined by societal norms.

Request

Would you be willing to reflect on why frottage is so rarely discussed as a meaningful alternative to anal sex, and to consider how greater awareness could benefit public health and human relationships? If you're open to it, I'd also love to hear how you personally experience or think about different forms of male-male intimacy, and what matters most to you in those contexts.

1. Bill Weintraub, a Jewish-American man, initiated the "Frot Movement" to promote frottage (genital-to-genital contact between men) as a safer alternative to anal penetration.

I feel concerned when I see frottage dismissed as a "fetish" or ignored in discussions about male sexuality. I feel saddened when the health risks of anal sex (e.g., incontinence, disease transmission) are not balanced with awareness of safer options.

I value safety, honest dialogue, and inclusivity in conversations about sexual health. I need for LGBTQ+ individuals to have access to accurate information and non-stigmatized choices.

I invite people to explore frottage as a valid, low-risk form of intimacy--without judgment or comparison to other acts. I encourage media, educators, and health advocates to discuss it openly alongside other sexual practices.

2. Some people, regardless of political leaning, label both frottage and anal sex as "sinful" or "perverse." Others oppose all male-male intimacy on religious grounds.

I feel disheartened when sexual health discussions are dominated by moral judgments rather than facts. I feel worried when stigma prevents people from considering safer alternatives.

I long for compassionate understanding and evidence-based sexual education. I need for LGBTQ+ individuals to feel empowered to make informed choices about their bodies.

I ask that we approach these topics with curiosity rather than dogma. Could we focus on reducing harm rather than enforcing rigid norms?

3. Many gay and bisexual men face pressure to conform to sexual norms (e.g., anal-centric culture) without being offered alternatives.

I feel alarmed by the physical and emotional risks this poses. I feel frustrated when minority voices advocating for frottage are silenced or censored.

I deeply value bodily autonomy, health, and authentic connection. I need for LGBTQ+ communities to foster environments where diverse expressions of intimacy are respected.

Let's create spaces where men can discuss frottage without shame. Can we prioritize well-being over conformity?

4. Key NVC Shifts:

a. Avoiding Labels: Replaced "homophobes," "banal," "sinister alliance" with specific behaviors (e.g., "dismissed," "oppose").

b. Focus on Needs: Highlighted universal needs (safety, honesty, autonomy) rather than moralizing.

c. Requests over Demands: Used invitations to foster dialogue.

This approach aligns with the Jewish-American Marshall Rosenberg's framework by emphasizing connection over conflict.

P.S. All forms of anal are a lot more dangerous (than safer forms of sex like frottage), including rimming/analingus (which can potentially lead to gastrointestinal infections, etc.)

Ultimately, this gay issue (frottage vs. anal) is also a "universal" one, in the sense that it's about doing what is right for you and what you're comfortable with instead of just what others want or expect you to do.