The MAN & WOMAN Thread.

[soon]

[Gracii Guns]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

For anyone who is interested, I'm an excellent dancer.  Been at it since I was 13/14 years old.... in the Italian Disco tech's of the late 80's, early 90's. 

 

Alright, Travolta hips, show us what you got. 

[spunko12345]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

For anyone who is interested, I'm an excellent dancer.  Been at it since I was 13/14 years old.... in the Italian Disco tech's of the late 80's, early 90's. 

 

I'm the best dancer in my street.

[Dazey]

8 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

I'm the best dancer in my street.

Given that most streets in Wales have more sheep than people I'm not sure how much of an accolade that is.  

[Len Cnut]

Quote

I'm not a guy who generally feels the need to put up some sort of facade of macho masculinity. I probably have more female friends than males. I'm pretty comfortable dancing to daft pop music in front of people, I sing all the time, I would generally always choose to hug my friends rather than shake their hands, I don't cry very often just because I don't, but I don't repress my emotions for the sake of appearing to be a 'real man'. My 'entrenched sense of masculinity' is not based on some caveman notion of the 'alpha male', all stoicism, sexism and aggression.

I really liked your post but there's bits of it i find problematic, particularly this idea that classical masculinity is like...perhaps there's something phoney about it or its some sort of act of repression.  I don't think stoicism is a bad thing, I don't having a certain inner strength is a bad thing, I don't think taking things on the chin and being strong for your people is a bad thing and its an idea thats prevalent in society and I don't think its necessarily correct.  These little internet weenies that make these 'how to be an Alpha male' thing are like half the problem because firstly its a put on and secondly they think it's something that you can become or make yourself.  People like me are part of the problem too in that although I'm a blokey bloke in a lot of ways I'm perhaps not as much of one as I've been known to act in my day to day life...and people see through you, it ain't hard to tell but this conflating the concept of classical masculinity with manifestly negative traits is...I dunno, perhaps too simplistic an assessment.  

My old mans like that and...its just what he is but he'll do things that blow my fuckin' mind sometimes, things I thought him way too aggressive and temperamental to be able to do, I shouldn't really say this because its someone elses business but he's taken it upon himself to look after my sisters child who has ADHD and all sorts of other issues that basically makes him umanageable, like REALLY unmanageable, to where they were looking to put him into care, like they were right on the cusp of that shit...and the old mans kinda taken it upon himself to like...look after him, take care of him, watch him daily, feed him, bath him, wipe his arse, just everything and like...if you knew the old man before now it is the last fuckin' thing you'd think him capable of but like...he does it cuz its the right thing to do...and I could've done it, the kid has a father he could've done it, some other member of our family coulda done it, I mean everyone talks a good game about caring etc, turns on the waterworks and talks about their emotions and fuckin' goes on...but the strong and silent one was the one who took it upon himself to do it, the one everyone thought to be the least sensitive, most temperamental of the options.  Its actually really endearing to see and like...its a part of the overall thing, he could've fuckin' folded and been all alas alack about it like everyone else but he didn't.

I don't think being a man is all about aggression and strength and sexism.  There are elements of the first two in the archetype but to me its about stepping up, its about being strong to protect those more inclined to like...I dunno, weep or perhaps need someone to lean on, its about stepping up, its about doing the right thing, its about setting an upright moral example, its about being the glue that holds things together.  Now you can have someone like me with all the words in the world explain his fuckin' feelings all day long but end of the day who stepped up here?  It often ain't the ones that can paint a pretty picture with words or the sensitive ones or the whatever ones.

I guess what I'm saying is this idea prevalent nowadays that the extent of classical masculinity extends as far as being a chauvenist pig that knocks people out and doesn't show his feelings is kinda...unjust.

Quote

 

Despite that, I'm useless at identifying if a man is attractive or not. I mean, beyond the physical health checklist we have up above, which most male celebrities fit anyway, when someone says to me "Johnny Depp is a good-looking man"... is he? If you say so. Likewise when Benedict Cumberbatch won the "sexiest man in the world" as voted by readers for some women's magazine... Is he a good-looking dude? I have no idea.

Because of my complete lack of a barometer as to what an attractive man is, I spent most of my late teens and early twenties with no idea if I was attractive or not. I assumed I wasn't and didn't ask many girls out because I thought the answer would be no. Now I'm at the stage where enough girls have told me they think I'm good-looking that I actually believe them a bit, but I think that 'straightness' is based on what you're attracted to, which is something innate that you can't control, rather than a conscious or unconscious effort to live up to societal expectations of masculinity or femininity. 

 

With the looks thing, there's a broad sort of barometer, high cheek bones, bright eyes, strong jawline, a symmetry of the face.  Its all subjective but there are these sort of signs of classical beauty that are the basis upon which you judge, they're certainly not hard and fast rules though.  Its often hard to catch in pictures.  I'm really interested in movies and there are some beautiful people like Marlon Brando and Grace Kelly and Liz Taylor in cinema but you do a google images search and sometimes you kinda struggle to find a picture that does them justice because a lot of it is to do with their living breathing moving behaving selves.  

[DieselDaisy]

54 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Cary Grant is a good looking and genuinely charming guy. When I saw North By Northwest I immediately thought this fucking guy got loads of pussy.

And a lot of willies if we believe the rumours. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

My understanding is there's no substantial rumors, just idle gossip? Either way, very charming dude.

Oh he is bloody great is Cary Grant. I'm a Hitchcock fanatic which basically means I'm a Cary Grant fan. He epitomises Hollywood Star Appeal during Hollywood's heyday. You have seen North by Northwest which is a masterpiece so make sure you see Notorious. 

[Graeme]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I really liked your post but there's bits of it i find problematic, particularly this idea that classical masculinity is like...perhaps there's something phoney about it or its some sort of act of repression.  I don't think stoicism is a bad thing, I don't having a certain inner strength is a bad thing, I don't think taking things on the chin and being strong for your people is a bad thing and its an idea thats prevalent in society and I don't think its necessarily correct.  These little internet weenies that make these 'how to be an Alpha male' thing are like half the problem because firstly its a put on and secondly they think it's something that you can become or make yourself.  People like me are part of the problem too in that although I'm a blokey bloke in a lot of ways I'm perhaps not as much of one as I've been known to act in my day to day life...and people see through you, it ain't hard to tell but this conflating the concept of classical masculinity with manifestly negative traits is...I dunno, perhaps too simplistic an assessment.  

My old mans like that and...its just what he is but he'll do things that blow my fuckin' mind sometimes, things I thought him way too aggressive and temperamental to be able to do, I shouldn't really say this because its someone elses business but he's taken it upon himself to look after my sisters child who has ADHD and all sorts of other issues that basically makes him umanageable, like REALLY unmanageable, to where they were looking to put him into care, like they were right on the cusp of that shit...and the old mans kinda taken it upon himself to like...look after him, take care of him, watch him daily, feed him, bath him, wipe his arse, just everything and like...if you knew the old man before now it is the last fuckin' thing you'd think him capable of but like...he does it cuz its the right thing to do...and I could've done it, the kid has a father he could've done it, some other member of our family coulda done it, I mean everyone talks a good game about caring etc, turns on the waterworks and talks about their emotions and fuckin' goes on...but the strong and silent one was the one who took it upon himself to do it, the one everyone thought to be the least sensitive, most temperamental of the options.  Its actually really endearing to see and like...its a part of the overall thing, he could've fuckin' folded and been all alas alack about it like everyone else but he didn't.

I don't think being a man is all about aggression and strength and sexism.  There are elements of the first two in the archetype but to me its about stepping up, its about being strong to protect those more inclined to like...I dunno, weep or perhaps need someone to lean on, its about stepping up, its about doing the right thing, its about setting an upright moral example, its about being the glue that holds things together.  Now you can have someone like me with all the words in the world explain his fuckin' feelings all day long but end of the day who stepped up here?  It often ain't the ones that can paint a pretty picture with words or the sensitive ones or the whatever ones.

I guess what I'm saying is this idea prevalent nowadays that the extent of classical masculinity extends as far as being a chauvenist pig that knocks people out and doesn't show his feelings is kinda...unjust.

There's nothing wrong with stoicism etc. if that's part of your personality. It's the idea that having such a personality is inextricably linked to the contents of your pants and if you don't conform you're 'lesser' or 'not doing it right' that's a load of nonsense, and the burden of expectation placed on young men to conform to this idea of being a 'real man' when it may not suit their personality can genuinely prove harmful to them and the people around them.

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

With the looks thing, there's a broad sort of barometer, high cheek bones, bright eyes, strong jawline, a symmetry of the face.  Its all subjective but there are these sort of signs of classical beauty that are the basis upon which you judge, they're certainly not hard and fast rules though.  Its often hard to catch in pictures.  I'm really interested in movies and there are some beautiful people like Marlon Brando and Grace Kelly and Liz Taylor in cinema but you do a google images search and sometimes you kinda struggle to find a picture that does them justice because a lot of it is to do with their living breathing moving behaving selves.  

Aye, that's a kind of extension of the checklist we were discussing above, but I still think there's a fundamental difference between being able to reel off these features descriptively and being attracted to them yourself. For example, I've seen a couple of films with the actor Tom Hardy, afterwards, some of my female friends would talk about how incredibly attractive they found him. When he'd been on screen, I'd had no notion whatsoever that he was better looking than any of the other male actors, or indeed the majority of the male population, I just saw a guy. Yes, if you'd given me that checklist, he'd have hit all the boxes, but so did some of his co-stars and I have no notion of the intangible essence that elevated him above them in those girls' eyes. 

Likewise, obviously, I was brought up in a world where the social norms were heterosexual. I always thought I'd grow up and marry a girl because heterosexual relationships were what I saw with my parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents etc. but I imagine most gay kids think the same at that age. I remember when I was about 9 or 10, seeing a girl coming out of a shop with a crop top on and being transfixed by her figure and not really knowing why I couldn't look away. That's attraction, it's innate and involuntary, and not informed. Presumably at a similar stage in life, gay or bisexual people find they experience the same thing for people of the same sex or both sexes.

That being the case, I think that the instinctive experience of attraction and sexuality is completely separate from the intellectual exercise of understanding what general physical features are considered attractive by human beings. Does that make sense?

Edited March 7, 2019 by Graeme