The Pussification Of The Mal...In the mind of a bull

denny1970;

How ya doin'? I'm a true blue panty wearing bleeding heart liberal here.

We cannot go to an airport and joke about hijackings or bombs. Our free speech rights are superceded by public safety and national security.

We have the right to bear arms. We also have Authorities trained to control, and Laws to deal with those who exercise their arms rights in an antisocial manner.

School suspension for a kindergarten kiss is an excellent example of how a good Law (sexual harassment) can be bastardized to absurdity.

Degree of masculinity and gayness have no correlation whatsoever.

Re: your fave TV commercial, "Steve" broke the "Prime Taboo"! >Thou Shalt Not Speak Regarding Any Woman's Weight That Can Even Remotely Be Construed By Women As Adverse!< Give a lady a thread and she'll knit an entire sweater! Every time. The only box "Steve" sees tonight is the one she made him read. Her smile also indicates that some time will pass before "Steve" gets his next blowjob.

I get the point of this thread.

In order to express my thoughts from a wideband viewpoint I must establish my credibility. I've opined my disdain of men who emotionally involve women in relationships without sharing their possible sissy/gay proclivities beforehand. Let her decide to pursue the relationship by considering that knowledge before she commits.

I'm not going out tonight to stomp sissies and roll queers. I'll defend them.

Gay men are possibly the most masculine of all males. They embrace the most "masculine" mannerisms and embellish them into a male art form. I don't discount effeminate gays. I've seen more than one sissy kick some royal ass. I consider myself no better than any person with sexual issues. It can take some "balls" to be effeminate. I've been impressed how well many effeminates establish themselves in society as positive role models.

I believe a single mom with kids has one of the toughest rows to hoe in society. Think it's easy? This is just one (of many) aspects to life where women run circles around men.

I've discovered that you are what you hate. A liar hates a liar and thief a thief. "A nation of women" rapidly disintegrated into a diatribe against effeminates, gays and "girly-men". Assuming your arguments are correct, why blame and rail on those you claim have fallen due to the causative circumstances you describe? Since these folk are not the cause but only the symptom, why disparage the effeminates? Hating girly-men is gay.


The masses are just that. They are the 99 sheep you can leave while you search for the lost one. They'll continue to marry, have children, go to church on Sunday and work on Monday. The masses are the reason a tiny percentage of police can manage a large city. Change is glacial with the masses. True salt of the Earth.

The tenor of much of this thread is basically a homosexual treatise.

Thank you.

P.S. You're welcome to come on out here and see how many "liberal chicks" at Harvard, Brown, Brandeis, etcetera, are dazzled by your ideological acumen to even give you the time of day.

P.SS. Someone spoke of a President who landed a fighter jet on a carrier 6 (six) years ago. He popped out in a cute flight suit and declared "Mission Accomplished"! Question: How many of our best men have returned home from the war via Dover, Delaware since then? I think HUBRIS defines things nicely.

P.S.S.S. Many Moslem nations practice the male dominant society you guys mourn the loss of. Each year millions of men enter all male Mecca and bond. This may be well worth looking into for those of you wanting life where "men are real men and act like real men"! The President of Iran has certified his country homosexual free, for crying out loud!
..............PSEUDO PERSON

Strenght lies in weakness ... some say. What do you say to this?

Displaying weakness is never strength.


Subtle, reserved, thoughtful application of power always is. What may look like weakness often is not.
Joe Preston

or was he an it Krutch , a preep or a proo.... a nerkle a nerd or a seersucker too ???
an expert in military proper-gander ...... theodore contributes to the literacy of millions... however ..conspiracy aside i think his his message came more
from the gin

yet my reference to 'The DR" was actually a jovial jab @ some
'resident psycho babble ist" that find themselves here in the real world

**edit 4 spell lol

joranc
Yes, gin...
Joe Preston

and speaking og dr's........ Sylvester McCoy ,the7th Doctor reads the absolute best Dr Seuss.
read for the real man

Din't know, I'll have to hunt that down...
Joe Preston

Redimac, I suppose what you're talking about could be called "The Masculine Mystique".

My 2c: you're talking about stuff in near-poetic terms without really thinking about what it entails. You are taking one concept of masculinity -- the 'traditional'/received one in our culture -- and claiming it is *the* masculinity that we should all preserve, because society suffers if we don't.

Hm, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and many present-day hunter-gatherer societies would disagree with that. They have many behavioral features that would go completely against your generalizations about "how men are" and "what is masculine" and what not (the whole greek-roman eroticization of the kouros sort of shows that).

What you are talking about is really the ability for risk-taking with responsibility -- taking risks and knowing how to accept bad consequences if they occur; standing up for yourself and not letting others walk all over you.

I don't call this "masculine"; I call this "having a spine".

You are concerned with the idea that current cultural developments are "castrating" (I would say "de-spining") men. I am concerned with some of these developments too, but I will couch them in other terms: I am concerned that people in our society are expecting more and more of their individual problems, of their individual conflicts, to be <i>solvable</i>, and by <i>others</i> (big government, "strong" traditional daddy, The Authorities, God, the Church, some ideology, etc.) so that they don't have to take responsibility anymore.

We know life is hard and risky; we now want someone to take away the risk. We're becoming spineless.

This has very little to do with masculinity. You can be very masculine and spineless; you can be effeminate and stand up for your rights and not depend on others to solve your problems. 'Traditional' masculinity, like 'traditional' femininity, was all about myths and appearances, not about reality.

You lament the old daddy who was kind and yet capable of punishment; who gave his children values, telling them what good and evil was, and letting them know they should value good and fight evil. That's the good traditional daddy. But, like all good daddies (and good mummies for that matter), they were a rarity in the olden days as they are now.

The <i>real</i> traditional daddies would give you a beating not just when you deserved punishment, but when they felt angry at you. 'Oh yes, sir, you're going to be a banker just like your daddy, and if you don't, then take this!' Traditional daddies also told their children to stick their emotions up their asses and never acknowledge to ever needing or wanting anyone. Traditional daddies would lavish shame on you if you chose anything they didn't agree with, from a different religion to

Why? Because then, as today, most daddies were not 'good' daddies, the ones you mythically sigh about. They were goddamn fucking <i>people</i>, very well capable of causing as much damage to their children's future psychological health as any castrated effeminate 'oh dahling, just don't react if they mug you' daddy of today.

Then, as today, courage was rare.

(Gee, ever read a history of the German Nazi Party? Those guys were all for courage, manliness, self-reliance etc. But when confronted with real action -- Hitler after his brewery Putsch -- they ran and hid in holes like little scared mice. 'Culture of courage and valor,' they said. My ass. Hitler ran when they shot, Ludendorff the old general stayed and faced them enemy. That was the <i>Wehrmacht</i>, not the Nazis.)

Courage was never very common. Having a spine was never really a very frequent characteristic (though in olden days people would more frequently <i>brag</i> about having one). Hey, that's why they told stories and made myths about people's courage in the olden days; because there weren't that many of them. For inspiration, you know.

What there often was was people who could exert authority and be strict, no matter whether it was needed or not. Old authoritarian daddies who saw in their children only things to control, not things to develop.

A lot of this 'feminization' which you complain about is a reaction against that. The daddy who wouldn't let me be a writer because that wasn't a "real" job was worth fighting against.

Now, of course, the pendulum is swinging to the other side. We're confusing "empathy", "civility", "care", "respect for others" etc. with not having a spine. And that indeed is a shame.

BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT MASCULINITY!

There were as many spineless daddies in the past as there are today -- they just didn't bow to their wives (mostly), but believe me bow they did, till their asses showed and got kicked. It's their <i>ideal</i> that had a spine, not they themselves. They'd rather beat the hell out of their kids than actually grow a spine.

Don't confuse "masculinity" with "having a spine". They're not the same at all. "Having a spine" is part of what it should be to be a <i>person</i>; women need one just as much as men do. "Masculinity" is about something else again... (about "intensity," in my opinion).

asehpe
Good thoughts…



A "spine" is comprised of attitudes, beliefs, values, and the inner will to stand up for them.


Masculinity or femininity flavors that "spine,"


Nazi's? a far leftist/socialistic part made of misfit pussys. A pack of wanna be's. Their only strength was secrecy and blind faith in their leader. Sipne? Nah… They sent others to do the dirty work.



Historians never confuse Nazis with the German army or German general staff.
Joe Preston

Yes, indeed: attitudes, beliefs, values, and the inner will to stand up for them.

Plus, in addition, the wisdom to listen to what others say and to think about it -- knowing that you may be wrong. Not [i]assuming[\i] you are wrong, just because some big authority figure somewhere says so; but realizing that it's possible, that the other guy or gal might actually be right. Think, consider, find arguments, think again, make a try, cheer if you get a good result, accept it if you fail and then go further, always trying to get where it is that you want to be.

That's about it. It has nothing to do with being a man, or being a woman, or beying gay or straight. And it's as rare now as it ever was in the past -- we romanticize the old days and think 'men were men and women were women', but they were just as fucked up then as we are today, except the symptoms were different -- there apparently are no people with hysterical symptoms like the ones Freud studied and was so fascinated by (paralysis of various healthy bodyparts, lack of reaction to the external world, etc. -- especially frequent in women, since they were much more sexually repressed in his times than today), but nowadays we have an epidemia of depression and depressive states.

All the criticism against traditional families did have the effect of making some of the ways in which they were all fucked up more obvious; it hasn't necessarily corrected them, but becoming aware of a problem is certainly a first step.

We now complain about the men who bow too low to women, as it were. But this kind of complaint is so old... in the 18th and 19th-20th century, 'when men were men', it was already claimed that to marry was to surrender freedom, because your wife would 'dominate you' and 'make a pet of you'. How many writers of that time -- from Balzac to Proust, from Byron to Hemingway to Faulkner -- complained about that! 'Women' were always trying to 'enslave men' by diverting them from their paths in life towards the 'boring middle class respectability' or something like that. Never marry! The ring goes through your nose! Etc. And that, long, long before feminism, long, long before "empathism", before they started saying it was better to let the thieves get what they wanted than to be a hero and fight them.

To bring the topic of this site up: there are spineless cuckolds and 'bespined' ones (and there are also spineless and 'bespined' cuckoldresses, hotwives, bulls, etc.). Oh, how many of the wannabee cuckolds (and/or hotwives and bulls) just prefer to fantasize, because actually taking any steps -- even talking to their wives, just mentioning the topic, etc -- would be too risky.

I can admire a cuckold who actually took the risks and went ahead to try to get what he wanted.

It doesn't mean he succeeded. Maybe the whole idea is totally unpalatable to his wife. (It sure is to mine...). But he made the attempt, he was not ashamed, and he took the consequences. And he can still go on thinking. Is a refusal good reason for dumping the wife and looking for someone else? Which alternative would make him happier? Again, the important thing is not the final decision -- I can admire someone who decides to stay in a relationship where he's not totally satisfied sexually because he thinks this is the best of all available options. Just as I can admire someone who decides to leave and see what the world still has to offer him sexually. All I ask is that they be ready to take the consequences: if you stay with the vanilla wife, no cuckold sex except in fantasies. If you live, then the bonds with the ex-wife will be severed -- you'll have to take that like a man.

I guess the golden rule is: act, be wise, don't whine.

I meant to write 'if you leave', not 'if you live.' Oops...

asehpe


Which is sort of expressing on another plain what I was...stand up for a belief....Actually do.

Very few here live the life outside of fantasy.
Joe Preston

Indeed, very few do. But I don't necessarily blame them for that. It may be that they tried, but the circumstances around them were not favorable, so they had to make the best of the available options.

But it may also be that they (some of them at least) didn't try, because they weren't comfortable with doing something risky. Those I would blame.

It's all in how individuals face their fate, and what they do about it, I think.

thanks for your thoughts here...well done in all.
Joe Preston

flamer gone
Joe Preston

??
what is pleace?

joranc


think big cuckold was pissed...
Joe Preston

Only the weak survive. The rigid break down, like the big trees in the storms.

Being unbendable is also a form of spinelessness -- it's thinking that you found The Truth, and no matter what the situation is you're going to stick to it.

Still, cuckboy -- if you bend to anything, not only storms but even light rain or a few drops from a sprinkler -- you're not doing yourself a service. If there is anything you really believe in, this thing is really worth a little rigidity.

Or would you for instance give up your cuckold fetish if the circumstances (a storm) forced you to bend away from it? Wouldn't you rather have some spine and defend your right to a cuckold fetish, like a knight in shining armor with sword and spear?

asehpe
bending in the wind to me is change/modification, not going in a new diection. The strongest materials are just that because they can flex.
Joe Preston

males should be male, as women should be female.
We are indeed losing that concept, but maybe its not to late..
stupid questions dont exist...
stupid answers however....

The male/female concept we had was wrong. Or, to be fair: at best incomplete.

'Male' and 'female' were, are still often seen, even in today's more enlightened age, as 'better' or 'worse', or as 'brave' and 'coward', or 'autonomous' vs. 'dependent'. And some of the equalitarian/feminist dialogue -- not all, but some -- is about reverting the polarity rather than changing the perspective.

As (I think) redimac said above, male and female are flavors that color the whole spectrum of possible human personalities and behavior, from chivalry to cowardice, from the noblest aspiration to the vilest degradation. Autonomy, dependence, bravery, cowardice... they can all be flavored male or female, but they are not flavors; they are attitudes, personality traits, propensities. Or even something third (what is 'gay' then, if not yet another flavor?...)

I don't like the old ideas about 'male' and 'female'; they confused flavors with attitudes. I don't like (many of) today's ideas either; they make it sound as if the flavors didn't really exist, or had been invented at some point in the history of our society. A product of culture.

I think we should try to understand in ourselves what is male and what is female. My guess is it's not what's been said thus far, by feminists, anti-feminists, or any other groups. Oh, I'm sure many of the observed behavioral featres (men are 'aggressive', women are 'nurturing') play a role, just like the physical ones (men are 'taller', women are 'shorter'); but what role exactly I don't know.

I agree with luvpain's succinct summary.

Peace
..............PSEUDO PERSON

I_A_S_P
sort of how I feel...

I agree with luvpain's succinct summary.

Peace
Joe Preston

i am respectful of the most taciturn contribution, so freely and benevolently given by Mrs S.

myself am reluctant to disagree.

Peace

joranc
and you know I'm all about piece, er peace...
Joe Preston