First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Secure Masculinity vs. Homophobia
Posted 11/21/10
We have often observed in men such acts dedicated to proving one's manliness, and those merely coming off as weak attempts to fool others into believing their manliness. No amount of skirt chasing and/or chauvinistic behavior truly makes a man, but a man takes into account the truest sense of male identity. It, I feel, is one of pro-choice, strength, individuality, courage, temperance, mental/physical well-being, honor, and naturally; your right to chose your sexual orientation. It doesn't take a man to desire child rearing in the most conventional sense, nor does a man even have to bring up children at all. A man, by all definitions, can do as he pleases. Whether it be saving the world with a woman on one arm, being the outsider bandit of questionable preference, or perhaps a lone, monk-like practitioner of celibacy. Each man has his own path to follow, and it is with steadfastness that he does so.

Indeed, no man can be called masculine should he be a fake covering his weaknesses with a laughable facade, and there is no person so pathetic as any so fearful of anything he considers wrongful when it comes to sexuality. Such a man likely fears a side of himself which is dying to reach the surface and greet the world, and he fears most of all those who were manlier than he to admit the way in which they conduct themselves, be it the most profound form of homosexuality ever seen.
Posted 11/21/10
And when homosexual individual like George Takei had been more influential and fierce than those that are homophobic not just once or twice, but thrice in open public. I think straight men need to reevaluate their own masculinity with more civility, when bigots and douches are no longer considered as manly nor sexy.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/22/10 , edited 11/22/10

Mr_Entropy wrote:

We have often observed in men such acts dedicated to proving one's manliness, and those merely coming off as weak attempts to fool others into believing their manliness. No amount of skirt chasing and/or chauvinistic behavior truly makes a man, but a man takes into account the truest sense of male identity. It, I feel, is one of pro-choice, strength, individuality, courage, temperance, mental/physical well-being, honor, and naturally; your right to chose your sexual orientation. It doesn't take a man to desire child rearing in the most conventional sense, nor does a man even have to bring up children at all. A man, by all definitions, can do as he pleases. Whether it be saving the world with a woman on one arm, being the outsider bandit of questionable preference, or perhaps a lone, monk-like practitioner of celibacy. Each man has his own path to follow, and it is with steadfastness that he does so.

Indeed, no man can be called masculine should he be a fake covering his weaknesses with a laughable facade, and there is no person so pathetic as any so fearful of anything he considers wrongful when it comes to sexuality. Such a man likely fears a side of himself which is dying to reach the surface and greet the world, and he fears most of all those who were manlier than he to admit the way in which they conduct themselves, be it the most profound form of homosexuality ever seen.


Pray, sir, what is manliness? A woman may be endowed with all the above mentioned qualities that make your 'man', and, indeed, most human are endowed with your definition of manliness- 'tis chauvinistic to group these virtues under the banner of manliness and masculinity, when, in truth, they may just as well go with womanliness and feminity. Such Male-chauvinism makes me question your view towards the fairer sex.

But, more to the point, how do you know that it is, indeed, a facade, that they really are insecure- secure men may hate just as well as the insecure. Although there is a link between arousal toward homoerotic imagery and homophobia, there is not scientific link, hence the old abage-Correlation does not imply causation.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

An example, take a religious fanatic, say, Mrs Cornrollingfuff, and, pretend, she is out to crusade against Moslems, Catholics, Atheists, &c. You wouldn't say that she is a Papist, Mahometan Atheist at heart, would you?


Posted 11/22/10

longfenglim wrote:


Mr_Entropy wrote:

We have often observed in men such acts dedicated to proving one's manliness, and those merely coming off as weak attempts to fool others into believing their manliness. No amount of skirt chasing and/or chauvinistic behavior truly makes a man, but a man takes into account the truest sense of male identity. It, I feel, is one of pro-choice, strength, individuality, courage, temperance, mental/physical well-being, honor, and naturally; your right to chose your sexual orientation. It doesn't take a man to desire child rearing in the most conventional sense, nor does a man even have to bring up children at all. A man, by all definitions, can do as he pleases. Whether it be saving the world with a woman on one arm, being the outsider bandit of questionable preference, or perhaps a lone, monk-like practitioner of celibacy. Each man has his own path to follow, and it is with steadfastness that he does so.

Indeed, no man can be called masculine should he be a fake covering his weaknesses with a laughable facade, and there is no person so pathetic as any so fearful of anything he considers wrongful when it comes to sexuality. Such a man likely fears a side of himself which is dying to reach the surface and greet the world, and he fears most of all those who were manlier than he to admit the way in which they conduct themselves, be it the most profound form of homosexuality ever seen.


Pray, sir, what is manliness? A woman may be endowed with all the above mentioned qualities that make your 'man', and, indeed, most human are endowed with your definition of manliness- 'tis chauvinistic to group these virtues under the banner of manliness and masculinity, when, in truth, they may just as well go with womanliness and feminity. Such Male-chauvinism makes me question your view towards the fairer sex.

But, more to the point, how do you know that it is, indeed, a facade, that they really are insecure- secure men may hate just as well as the insecure. Although there is a link between arousal toward homoerotic imagery and homophobia, there is not scientific link, hence the old abage-Correlation does not imply causation.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

An example, take a religious fanatic, say, Mrs Cornrollingfuff, and, pretend, she is out to crusade against Moslems, Catholics, Atheists, &c. You wouldn't say that she is a Papist, Mahometan Atheist at heart, would you?




A woman endowed with manliness is quite the influence on men without it. Homoerotic tendencies are present in all people with varying degrees, just not admitted, or always practiced. A facade would be put up by a pretentious man whom only wished to be a man, but is really a mincing, little, wussy boy with faggot balls.

I would not call Mrs. Cornrollingfuff anything without knowing precisely what she is. There is no certainty, but we often come to find through pretense how it is that some people become what they may or may not have intended to become.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/22/10 , edited 11/22/10

Mr_Entropy wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Mr_Entropy wrote:

We have often observed in men such acts dedicated to proving one's manliness, and those merely coming off as weak attempts to fool others into believing their manliness. No amount of skirt chasing and/or chauvinistic behavior truly makes a man, but a man takes into account the truest sense of male identity. It, I feel, is one of pro-choice, strength, individuality, courage, temperance, mental/physical well-being, honor, and naturally; your right to chose your sexual orientation. It doesn't take a man to desire child rearing in the most conventional sense, nor does a man even have to bring up children at all. A man, by all definitions, can do as he pleases. Whether it be saving the world with a woman on one arm, being the outsider bandit of questionable preference, or perhaps a lone, monk-like practitioner of celibacy. Each man has his own path to follow, and it is with steadfastness that he does so.

Indeed, no man can be called masculine should he be a fake covering his weaknesses with a laughable facade, and there is no person so pathetic as any so fearful of anything he considers wrongful when it comes to sexuality. Such a man likely fears a side of himself which is dying to reach the surface and greet the world, and he fears most of all those who were manlier than he to admit the way in which they conduct themselves, be it the most profound form of homosexuality ever seen.


Pray, sir, what is manliness? A woman may be endowed with all the above mentioned qualities that make your 'man', and, indeed, most human are endowed with your definition of manliness- 'tis chauvinistic to group these virtues under the banner of manliness and masculinity, when, in truth, they may just as well go with womanliness and feminity. Such Male-chauvinism makes me question your view towards the fairer sex.

But, more to the point, how do you know that it is, indeed, a facade, that they really are insecure- secure men may hate just as well as the insecure. Although there is a link between arousal toward homoerotic imagery and homophobia, there is not scientific link, hence the old abage-Correlation does not imply causation.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

An example, take a religious fanatic, say, Mrs Cornrollingfuff, and, pretend, she is out to crusade against Moslems, Catholics, Atheists, &c. You wouldn't say that she is a Papist, Mahometan Atheist at heart, would you?




A woman endowed with manliness is quite the influence on men without it. Homoerotic tendencies are present in all people with varying degrees, just not admitted, or always practiced. A facade would be put up by a pretentious man whom only wished to be a man, but is really a mincing, little, wussy boy with faggot balls.

I would not call Mrs. Cornrollingfuff anything without knowing precisely what she is. There is no certainty, but we often come to find through pretense how it is that some people become what they may or may not have intended to become.


And you do not know these men precisely either- which is my point, maybe they are not repressed homosexual, maybe they are just straight men, who happen to be zealots or miserable people. They may honestly enjoy those activities you describe as 'facades', maybe it isn't a weak mask.

Additionally, why do you still use the word manliness to describe what others would call virtues. A woman may be endowed with it, as with a child, or a man. Joan of Arc is an example par excellence of a woman who is strong, individualistic, couragous, temperant, careful of her mental/physical well-being, honorable, &c. Such chauvinistic language is degrading to the many women and children who posses these qualities in greater abundance than most adult males. Why not just accept my definition of 'masculinity', 'maleness', 'manliness', and the like- do you have the bits required to be a man- yes- congratulations, you are a man.
Posted 11/22/10

longfenglim wrote:



And you do not know these men precisely either- which is my point, maybe they are not repressed homosexual, maybe they are just straight men, who happen to be zealots or miserable people. They may honestly enjoy those activities you describe as 'facades', maybe it isn't a weak mask.

Additionally, why do you still use the word manliness to describe what others would call virtues. A woman may be endowed with it, as with a child, or a man. Joan of Arc is an example par excellence of a woman who is strong, individualistic, couragous, temperant, careful of her mental/physical well-being, honorable, &c. Such chauvinistic language is degrading to the many women and children who posses these qualities in greater abundance than most adult males. Why not just accept my definition of 'masculinity', 'maleness', 'manliness', and the like- do you have the bits required to be a man- yes- congratulations, you are a man.
I like this challenge, for it liberates men from a traditionally and religiously one-dimensional gender role. While it promotes maturity, steadfastness, and reasoning across all diversity of humanity. Furthermore, it's because of this reason that some homosexual minority individual is coming out from a traditionally male-dominated profession.
Posted 11/22/10


It has been I while since I've seen a very good counter argument for my views.

Joan of Arc was indeed manly. She even went to the extent of cutting her hair to a length considered acceptable by the standards then for men to wear. She was trained for combat, wore armor which most people today wouldn't be able to carry, and was an outright lunatic on the battlefield.

A man is by his most basic parts a man, but there can be more to it that just what dangles between your legs.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/27/10 , edited 11/27/10

Mr_Entropy wrote:



It has been I while since I've seen a very good counter argument for my views.

Joan of Arc was indeed manly. She even went to the extent of cutting her hair to a length considered acceptable by the standards then for men to wear. She was trained for combat, wore armor which most people today wouldn't be able to carry, and was an outright lunatic on the battlefield.

A man is by his most basic parts a man, but there can be more to it that just what dangles between your legs.


Why, then, must the virtues of bravery, courage, individuality, &c. &c., be assigned the words 'Manly', when it can just as well be called 'Womanly' or, better yet, the neutral 'Virtuously'?

A woman may have these virtue in equal, and yea, more still in greater abundance than a man, and, though it may be hard to forget, as the stories homosexual males would oft time dominate our media, there women who are outed as lesbians are sometime in face with greater peril than their male counterparts, and mocked much more than their male counterparts as being too 'unfeminine', 'butch', 'tomboyish', and 'much too masculine', but, by their own conviction, defy society none the less. Also, consider this, there are some lesbians who are also the epitome of what we consider 'Dated Womanly Virtues', that is, docility, gentleness, soft-spoken, &c. &c., basically any woman-hero or woman love interest that Mr Dickens ever penned, in addition to the Tomboyish, unfeminine, and butch.

Indeed, the word 'lesbian' is oft associated, rather negatively, with a butch, angry, overly masculine truck-driver lady, often obese, while the male equivilent, the 'gay', with a whole spectrum of characters, from the flamboyant and fashionable, to the repressed, to a some butch fellow in a S&M suit, to a normal looking individual in normal business attire. Indeed, in senior highschool, my openly gay English teacher, rather than teach, decided to tell an off colour story of a teacher he suspected was lesbian just because she was butch and overly masculine, and her sense of clothing match what he envisioned of a Lesbian, and proceeded to take pot-shots at her. All in the name of humour, of course.

So, lesbian woman, who, at times, face even more peril from a community for her love, is she any more brave or couragous or, as you would say, 'manly', than male homosexuals.

While these virtues are dispersed among everyone, in every tribe, 'Manly' refers specifically to men- therefore let us redefined manly as 'pertaining to the owners or, sometimes, former owners of the bits that consitute a male.'
Posted 11/27/10

longfenglim wrote:


Mr_Entropy wrote:



It has been I while since I've seen a very good counter argument for my views.

Joan of Arc was indeed manly. She even went to the extent of cutting her hair to a length considered acceptable by the standards then for men to wear. She was trained for combat, wore armor which most people today wouldn't be able to carry, and was an outright lunatic on the battlefield.

A man is by his most basic parts a man, but there can be more to it that just what dangles between your legs.


Why, then, must the virtues of bravery, courage, individuality, &c. &c., be assigned the words 'Manly', when it can just as well be called 'Womanly' or, better yet, the neutral 'Virtuously'?

A woman may have these virtue in equal, and yea, more still in greater abundance than a man, and, though it may be hard to forget, as the stories homosexual males would oft time dominate our media, there women who are outed as lesbians are sometime in face with greater peril than their male counterparts, and mocked much more than their male counterparts as being too 'unfeminine', 'butch', 'tomboyish', and 'much too masculine', but, by their own conviction, defy society none the less. Also, consider this, there are some lesbians who are also the epitome of what we consider 'Dated Womanly Virtues', that is, docility, gentleness, soft-spoken, &c. &c., basically any woman-hero or woman love interest that Mr Dickens ever penned, in addition to the Tomboyish, unfeminine, and butch.

Indeed, the word 'lesbian' is oft associated, rather negatively, with a butch, angry, overly masculine truck-driver lady, often obese, while the male equivilent, the 'gay', with a whole spectrum of characters, from the flamboyant and fashionable, to the repressed, to a some butch fellow in a S&M suit, to a normal looking individual in normal business attire. Indeed, in senior highschool, my openly gay English teacher, rather than teach, decided to tell an off colour story of a teacher he suspected was lesbian just because she was butch and overly masculine, and her sense of clothing match what he envisioned of a Lesbian, and proceeded to take pot-shots at her. All in the name of humour, of course.

So, lesbian woman, who, at times, face even more peril from a community for her love, is she any more brave or couragous or, as you would say, 'manly', than male homosexuals.

While these virtues are dispersed among everyone, in every tribe, 'Manly' refers specifically to men- therefore let us redefined manly as 'pertaining to the owners or, sometimes, former owners of the bits that consitute a male.'


A man, by all definitions, I'd say is potentially an altruistic protector, and he/she can do that in as many ways as their are stars in the sky. Should this man decide to rear the next generation, he must learn to avoid certain things which could ruin that delicate process. He doesn't need to be a straight man/woman, since homosexuals can adopt children. To be a man is to be truly strong, if you are capable of it unencumbered by some insurmountable condition. He could be an actual "good politician" that feels, and follows adamantly, a sense of justice for all. A man could also be the unlikely hero; an anti-hero, if you will. He could even be like Robin Hood.

Character is never something just given to the ideal man, since he must earn it. By soldiering in his day-to-day routines and ventures, the ideal man builds his identity, for no real man is one that rides the couch all the time. A real man is also not the sort to let petty things get under his skin, since he is tempered like fine steel. Quite importantly (and not least of all), a man is never dull, for he can bore even himself with a lack of flavor and ambition in his life.
Posted 11/27/10
I pondered on this subject at one point so I decided to read The Alphabet of Manliness.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 11/28/10
A man is an adult home sapien with male anatomy. The adjective 'manly' is a tautology when used to describe one with male anatomy. Of course our stupid species absolutely had to arbitrarily ascribe traits to the two sexes and equally arbitrarily view their possession as essential to being adequate.
Posted 11/28/10 , edited 11/28/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

A man is an adult home sapien with male anatomy. The adjective 'manly' is a tautology when used to describe one with male anatomy. Of course our stupid species absolutely had to arbitrarily ascribe traits to the two sexes and equally arbitrarily view their possession as essential to being adequate.


Our psychology is like a proponent to our identity as a species and the gender-defining characteristics within. We may be "stupid" to have gone so far as to see masculinity and femininity beyond mere anatomy, and the genders are inarguably predisposed to certain roles beyond the most basic of them found in primal nature. We are unnecessarily complex, yet this complexity has become something required for our minds so easily bored by tasks such as weaving nests out of tree branches or gathering foodstuffs from our surrounding environments versus having sustainable, long-term housing and markets providing basic essentials for trade.
1142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / PLACES
Offline
Posted 11/28/10

jandarujora wrote:

I pondered on this subject at one point so I decided to read The Alphabet of Manliness.


Which is so funny, because Maddox is arguably the least masculine person on the internet.
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 12/4/10
Whenever a question of sexual preferences comes up with discussions/arguments on the pros & cons of hetero vs, homo -sexuality, I start to grind my teeth in frustration (ggrrrrr!) Such topics miss the point!!!

Never mind the view or opinion of who the significant other is, the issue should be about forging healthy a relationship with that person based on trust, dependability, & love, --right???
( hate & war in the world??? DUH!!!! )
Aryth 
45235 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Nashville
Offline
Posted 12/8/10
The difference between males and females are strictly biological (Born that way or otherwise acquired).

Masculinity and femininity are merely social labels created to try to differentiate the psychology, and rarely physiology, of the genders. Trying to sort out the correct adjectives that are strictly masculine and feminine is almost a joke.

I get what you are saying though, according to the very loose definitions of these labels, there are those who appear to be secure in their masculinity and those who do not, however you cannot know with absolute certainty who qualifies for which label. Therefore, I find that this risks serious misconceptions of people. This could then lead to unnecessary discrimination.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.