"Soy Boys", "Toxic Masculinity" - what does it even mean to be a "Real Man"?

[justjess]

This is a complicated topic because I can see both sides to some extent..

Society has for the last twenty years or so been working hard to suppress the boy out of boys. I’m not going to sit here and say that isn’t true. Boys that are “too active” or “too aggressive” are singled out in school as early as kindergarten, labeled ADHD or some other behavioral crap, parents are pressured to medicate them to make them more manageable and the kids are somewhat targeted for this school to prison pipeline for behaviors that used to be considered normal developmentally. Schoolyard fights have been criminalized but running your mouth is perfectly acceptable.

At the same time there’s nothing wrong with the message that you don’t have to be any one thing to be a MAN. That’s an important thing for kids to know, and it’s important for people to be accepted as they are regardless of some gender based stereotype of what they should be. There’s nothing wrong with promoting better conflict management skills then aggression and there’s nothing wrong on the surface with trying to help kids concentrate and succeed within the systems they need to travel through.

However, as with many things it seems maybe the pendulum has swung too far. In an effort to promote acceptance of all outside the stereotype those who naturally fit the stereotype have been left out. In an effort to try to reduce aggression normal developmental patterns of behavior that are biologically understandable have been criminalized instead of used as teachable moments as they once were. So I get the frustration.. it’s like the feminists who promote a woman’s choice but scorn stay at home moms. I get it. That doesn’t mean that you throw the baby out with the bath water and it doesn’t mean that those who don’t fit the original stereotype aren’t real men or real women. It just means humans are flawed fundamentally in general and maybe we should stay out of meddling with this kind of thing altogether and just let people be who they are

 

[Todd]

Thank you! I'm actually not about getting people to become axe wielding Scotsman, embrace macho man ideals or watch sport and drink beer...

I just want to ask the question - what does it mean to be a man? What should I aspire to? Who are my role models? Why?

Michael Landon as Charles Ingalls in "Little House on the Prairie". That was a real man. He loved his family, worked hard, was humble, giving, compassionate, a pillar in his community and peaceful, but was able to fight physically to protect his family when neccesary. Oh yeah he also was a man of faith and trusted in the mercy and Love of God.

 

[mecca]

Imagine asking your partner if they want you to telegraph every move and ask permission for each one during intimate times. If they say no, then it means no, but until then one does not need to whip out a contract.

All he asked was whether it was okay or not... he did not have a contract or continue asking her every second. I think you're overreacting. There's nothing wrong with being certain by asking someone if they are okay.

So are we in this PC culture to expect women to ask as well and be hypersensitive to a man's vanity? I do not want you looking at that tat during sex for it makes me uncomfortable and thinks you like it more than me. Yeah, crazy weird stuff like that should never be the norm.

When has that ever been the norm? That doesn't even have much to do with verbal consent. And consent is important from everyone so both people do have to make sure that each other are comfortable and both people should understand each other's insecurities if they have any.

So is making Rand Asian a stretch? Heck, Netflix caught hell because of it. I am a-okay with race changes and black hero's, but the aforementioned kills your accuracy argument.

Yes, it would not have been difficult for them to make him asian but I don't really know what point you're trying to make. Why do you want him to be asian and what does him being asian have to do with masculinity? I think they kept his character white because Danny is supposed to be an outsider who ended up training with monks by chance. That same thing could have happened if he was asian but it would have felt different so I think that was the majority of their reasoning. They didn't really think the show through fully and it was badly executed but I don't think it has anything to do with "PC".

 

[Vixy]

Michael Landon as Charles Ingalls in "Little House on the Prairie". That was a real man. He loved his family, worked hard, was humble, giving, compassionate, a pillar in his community and peaceful, but was able to fight physically to protect his family when neccesary. Oh yeah he also was a man of faith and trusted in the mercy and Love of God.

Thats' a DAMN good description, Todd!

I can contribute with the scene from Drive:

What you see here is the dark haired guy has threatened the light haired guys family and he protects them by taking him out. That is a man, someone you can rely on with your life and trust it to be protected. Death is the length to which he would go to protect his own.

Compare that to todays man who wont even get a pizza for his woman but has her to go. I simply cannot feel any respect or love for such boys.

 

[Aero]

Why does it seem like so many people are anti-political correctness until *they* find something they don't like.

If the above sentence describes you, then you might be chasing a dog whistle. That's what all the political correctness talk actually is. I know this because it's been going on forever, and it goes nowhere.

It goes back to what I was saying about needing effort in all things. Chasing shadows around in your mind does not take effort. Our subconscious spits that stuff out constantly. That's why I talk about how our ego is directly related to conscious thoughts and actions. You cannot say or think anything without your ego waving its hand.

Jung talked about balancing the mind as being key. Making the unseen seen. And since we can't even get around our own ego this process can only be done through absorption. That takes tolerance and effort.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

Well 1. I'm not sure what that was, maybe a r*pe, maybe not but he wasnt a whimp like the guys around here are. He was more manly and believe me, our soy boys can r*pe to. Whimpy as they are they still dont care about the womans will. I've had several soy boys stalk me for years. Also a sign of that they probably have a hard time getting a new woman.

"and believe me, our soy boys can r*pe to. Whimpy as they are they still dont care about the womans will."
I think you are very correct with this statement......

 

[Mr.Grieves]

For once you have some interesting point, grieves.

Thanks, I think...?

Instead he brought me to a hotel room wehere he had sex with me against my wishes. But hey, at least they werent soy boys.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

Why does it seem like so many people are anti-political correctness until *they* find something they don't like.

If the above sentence describes you, then you might be chasing a dog whistle. That's what all the political correctness talk actually is. I know this because it's been going on forever, and it goes nowhere.

The issue is there are entirely good and valid reasons to be politically correct, just as there are entirely good and valid reasons to fight for social justice. These things are taken to unquestionable extremes by some folks on the radical left, but that doesn't make all instances of politically correct thought/behavior/expectation nor all efforts to ensure social justice are radical or wrong. It's politically correct act of social justice to suggest a group of men in pointed white hoods marching through a black neighborhood shouting 'Niggers must die!' should be stopped. Does that mean we should allow the Klu-Klux-Klan to go on such marches with impunity, because free speech?

People take this anti-PC, anti-SJW shit way too far. It's valid to an extent, but if you push it, you start toeing the cliffs of evil.

 

[Vixy]

Thanks, I think...?

To clarify grieves; I've been through ALOT in life, a r*pe is nothing for me.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

To clarify grieves; I've been through ALOT in life, a r*pe is nothing for me.

But the soyboys are too much...?

 

[TempestOfTempo]

But the soyboys are too much...?

Who knows what straw could break the camels back eh?

 

[Valerian]

Allow me to simply end this entire thread. I make extremely rare appearances on this forum, but I'm starting to notice that so many of you are so blinded by your faith that you can't think at a deeper level of intelligence.

Question: Why is homosexuality being pushed out?

Answer: The elite dont care about the lgbt community at all. However, they are trying to use the tolerance for the gay community to open a door into the p***philia community. If they can push the love is love concept hard enough, they may be able to allow p***philia to be open.

So to answer all the overly controversial religious people out there that hate gay humans - no, the illuminati arent trying to make your kids gay. They are simply using sexuality acceptance to push open a heavier door.

Human sexuality is dictated by a combination of nature & nurture and can be unpredictable. Human sexuality is not a choice by any means. By saying sexuality is a choice, you are admitting that anyone & everyone is bisexual and they simply choose to not have intercourse with the same sex.

Religiously speaking, the "only" solution gay humans have is to stay single & celibate their whole lives, which in my opinion is unreasonable, unfair, and unjustified. Humans are mentally built to share their lives with a loved one, and oppressing them from that right is against human rights.

All "major sins" have a negative impact on either someone, the person doing it, or society. (killing, theft, lying, and so forth)
however, a man being in love with another man does not harm anyone, nor themselves, nor society. People of faith simply hate gay humans because a book told them to. Nothing more, Nothing less. Hence why scholars of all major faiths against homosexuality never have an actual reason as to why it's a major sin. Nor do they have any understanding on the topic or solutions.


Stop focusing on who people sleep with and focus on yourselves and the global economy. You got 10 months before you start becoming homeless.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

Allow me to simply end this entire thread. I make extremely rare appearances on this forum, but I'm starting to notice that so many of you are so blinded by your faith that you can't think at a deeper level of intelligence.

Question: Why is homosexuality being pushed out?

Answer: The elite dont care about the lgbt community at all. However, they are trying to use the tolerance for the gay community to open a door into the p***philia community. If they can push the love is love concept hard enough, they may be able to allow p***philia to be open.

So to answer all the overly controversial religious people out there that hate gay humans - no, the illuminati arent trying to make your kids gay. They are simply using sexuality acceptance to push open a heavier door.

Human sexuality is dictated by a combination of nature & nurture and can be unpredictable. Human sexuality is not a choice by any means. By saying sexuality is a choice, you are admitting that anyone & everyone is bisexual and they simply choose to not have intercourse with the same sex.

Religiously speaking, the "only" solution gay humans have is to stay single & celibate their whole lives, which in my opinion is unreasonable, unfair, and unjustified. Humans are mentally built to share their lives with a loved one, and oppressing them from that right is against human rights.

All "major sins" have a negative impact on either someone, the person doing it, or society. (killing, theft, lying, and so forth)
however, a man being in love with another man does not harm anyone, nor themselves, nor society. People of faith simply hate gay humans because a book told them to. Nothing more, Nothing less. Hence why scholars of all major faiths against homosexuality never have an actual reason as to why it's a major sin. Nor do they have any understanding on the topic or solutions.


Stop focusing on who people sleep with and focus on yourselves and the global economy. You got 10 months before you start becoming homeless.

"
Question: Why is homosexuality being pushed out?

Answer: The elite dont care about the lgbt community at all. However, they are trying to use the tolerance for the gay community to open a door into the p***philia community. If they can push the love is love concept hard enough, they may be able to allow p***philia to be open."
This has much truth in it and I thank you for using your words to confront this agenda. I disagree that TPTB dont want to turn (or at least open up to considering) children homosexual. I think thats a big part of their agenda and it dovetails right in with your contentions. Perhaps there is room enough for us both to be correct?

 

[Valerian]

"
Question: Why is homosexuality being pushed out?

Answer: The elite dont care about the lgbt community at all. However, they are trying to use the tolerance for the gay community to open a door into the p***philia community. If they can push the love is love concept hard enough, they may be able to allow p***philia to be open."
This has much truth in it and I thank you for using your words to confront this agenda. i disagree that TPTB dont want to turn (or at least open up to considering) children homosexual. I think thats a big part of their agenda and it dovetails right in with your contentions. Perhaps there is room enough for us both to be correct?

If the government wanted to turn everyone gay, we wouldve seen gay marriage acceptance a lot earlier, a few decades earlier.

That aside, the issue with p***philia is, what's actually considered p***philia? Some cultures marry girls at 12, 14, 16, etc. What's normal in some cultures, isnt normal in others.


A Man could say "This girl is 13, but mentally is 20". Should society then accept their relationship? Also, for any muslims reading this, if you answered "no their relationship should not be accepted" Do keep in mind that the prophet muhammad married a girl who was under aged. Though it's written that her mind was that of an adult (which was common back in the day anyway, children grew up faster)

But the point still stands. What is the age limit that society is willing to accept?

 

[TempestOfTempo]

If the government wanted to turn everyone gay, we wouldve seen gay marriage acceptance a lot earlier, a few decades earlier.

That aside, the issue with p***philia is, what's actually considered p***philia? Some cultures marry girls at 12, 14, 16, etc. What's normal in some cultures, isnt normal in others.


A Man could say "This girl is 13, but mentally is 20". Should society then accept their relationship? Also, for any muslims reading this, if you answered "no their relationship should not be accepted" Do keep in mind that the prophet muhammad married a girl who was under aged. Though it's written that her mind was that of an adult (which was common back in the day anyway, children grew up faster)

But the point still stands. What is the age limit that society is willing to accept?

The government and those who control it as an instrument of implementing their agenda have wanted to do lot of things. Just because they dont jump out on front street and announce it doesn't mean their plans aint in the works.....
True different cultures have different age standards but I live in the US and abide by these laws. Im a grown man so its not difficult to meet a woman aged at least 18. Im not saying girls under 18 are not physically ready for sex and Im not saying every guy over 18 has his ish together (hardly). Just saying that I think 18 is a reasonable, legal limit.
As far as I know, Aisha was not the age that is generally ascribed to her in the born-and-bred Muslim communities/opinions (usually around 8-9). The best evidence I have seen regarding her age basically proves she was not the age many born-and-bred Muslims contend she was when they were married.

 

[mecca]

The elite dont care about the lgbt community at all. However, they are trying to use the tolerance for the gay community to open a door into the p***philia community. They are simply using sexuality acceptance to push open a heavier door.

But p***philia isn't a sexuality so there's no way that people will accept it by using that argument. Pedophiles try to make the argument but people see that it's complete bs. It would be illogical to pretend that p***philia is just another sexual orientation when they literally r*pe children. r*pe and abuse can't be considered a sexuality. There's no way for the acceptance of lgbt people to ever lead to the allowance of p***philia... no matter how hard the pedophiles try.

 

[Valerian]

But p***philia isn't a sexuality so there's no way that people will accept it by using that argument. Pedophiles try to make the argument but people see that it's complete bs. It would be illogical to pretend that p***philia is just another sexual orientation when they literally r*pe children. r*pe and abuse can't be considered a sexuality. There's no way for the acceptance of lgbt people to ever lead to the allowance of p***philia... no matter how hard the pedophiles try.

Well, you're actually incorrect, because of the term that you're using.
The term "p***phile" means a person who is sexually attracted to children.

So someone can come to you and say " im a p***phile". That doesnt mean he/she is dangerous, that doesnt mean they are rapists or creeps. They are simply telling you what stimulates them.

However, society has used this term negatively so much so that now p***phile means you're a rapists. That isnt true.

So people that are pedophiles (dictionary term), feel like that they have counseling or some out about it because people automatically think they r*pe kids in a basement or something.

and trust me, you can make society accept anything....

 

[mecca]

The term "p***phile" means a person who is sexually attracted to children.

I know what it means... but it's not considered a sexual orientation. Pedophiles are seriously ill. Having sex with a child is abuse, not a normal sexual orientation.

That doesnt mean he/she is dangerous, that doesnt mean they are rapists or creeps.

Yes, but if they acted on it, they would be a rapist... that's why it's not a normal sexuality and it cannot be considered one. That's why the attempts at conflating pedos to gay people are futile. Because child r*pe can't be a sexuality.

I never said that all pedophiles are rapists... if they don't act on their urges, they are not a rapist, but they still need to seek counseling and therapy because their attraction to children is not healthy and they should be prevented from ever acting on it.

 

[Vixy]

I have to:

It makes ssense, the soy boys I know, all have an obvious lack of testo.

 

[elsbet]

Well despite your beliefs... by definition, it involves a lot of critical thinking. Critical thinking skills are one of the main things you gain from one of those degrees. The fact that you think it doesn't shows your lack of understanding of what the degree entails.

Not really, that's just a scare tactic that conservatives use... in reality, it's pretty impartial and nothing is "rampant". School is school, you go to study a topic... politics don't even really come up.
https://theconversation.com/does-college-turn-people-into-liberals-90905

lol