Page 32 of 54 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 540

Thread: The Feminization of Males page 32

  1. #311
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by kelza83 View Post
    I feel that the current "age" (ie. last two decades) has been very confusing. I am in my late 20's and have seen that men at times have been encouraged to explore their feminine side. I am sure that this would confuse them. But, you also have to consider that women have been encouraged to explore their masculinity, so like some of the other posts have suggested, I would think that there has been a bit of a blurring between what is normal (instinct-wise) and what is not normal. I think that our instincts have been pushed to the side to try and fit in with society. I also believe that the amount of hormones that are being consumed in commercially produced foods (the ones that we are all avoiding) have caused a great amount of imbalances for both male and females alike.

    I think that it is ok for a guy to wear whatever pants he wants (re: comment on feminine clothing), but I have a feeling the underlying reason men are dressing and acting different etc, is to try and conform to the messed up society that we currently live in. Culturally, more lines have been crossed in the last 50 years than have been in the previous 1000 years. Prior to the last 20-30 years, there seemed to be a delegation of what a man's role in life was, and what a women's role was. It seemed to be based on traditional (or primal) instinctive things, such as men being the head of the family, "hunting" (working) to provide for the family, and women were maternal and home makers. There are many good things that come out of the feminist movement, but perhaps the downfall is that there is more confusion as to how men and women are supposed to behave. I don't think that this forum would have a right or wrong answer, it's pretty open ended. It is worth considering what our ancestors did, as there seemed to be less confusion on what our roles were primarily.

    This is my first post on this forum page. I have actually never posted up on any forum before besides making a comment on facebook, so forgive me if it was a load of baloney.

    Good post - don't let them scare you off. They play pretty rough, but they mean well...
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  2. #312
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    I don't see the masculinity thing as an issue of being "tough". With the exception of maybe the weallthy upper class, women have historically been tough as well, just in a different way. Childbirth is no walk in the park without pain meds, and it's a good example of the difference between "man tough" and "woman tough". Men used to do things like fight in wars - things where you have confrontation and tend to need brute strength. On the other hand, women were expected to do things that required being tough in a different way - birthing a dozen or more babies, fixing up bloodied warriors - things that were less confrontational and more along the lines of "bearing up" under difficult crcumstances. Traditionally, men have been expected to handle the more violent and confrontational type of hardship while women were expected to handle the long-term and less- (or non-) confrontational type. Just an observation.

    Back in the day (1863), my ancestors' town was the target of Quantrill's Raiders, since he wasn't exactly thrilled with their anti-slavery stance. When he raided the town, quite a few of the men hid in cellars while the women beat the crap out of the raiders with shovels and farm equipment. So maybe my genetic pool has a bit more testosterone in it than most.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  3. #313
    Rosegin's Avatar
    Rosegin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by not on the rug View Post
    yup.

    it's not good advice. so stop thinking it. in the long run it will cause more harm than good
    No, not really. It's far riskier to trust a person so much you allow them to put themselves in potentially dangerous situations. Allowing a spouse (or yourself) to spend copious amounts of time ALONE with someone of the opposite sex is asking for trouble. Like I said, people are animals, and animals have instincts. People also make bad decisions rather often, especially when they think nobody will find out/get harmed as a result of their actions.
    ~Sandy


  4. #314
    Rosegin's Avatar
    Rosegin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by Man is Truth View Post
    Yeah that lady and her crazy marriage, haha.

    I think its just a question of semantics though. She is calling it trust in the person, when really she means "I know that people are made out of cellular engines that kick into gear in response to different environmental cues, and so I act to minimize exposure of these engines to those cues."

    Still fuckin shitty though- that makes you his penis-warden, not his wife. You act like it would be the worst thing in the world if his dick ended up between someone else's legs for 7 minutes in his day. Except for your ego-constructed "Me" illusion- how can this negatively affect you at all really? It doesn't sound like you are afraid he will impregnate another women and drain your home of the resources that sustain it. You should relax and stop being afraid or he will abandon you, which is probably the root of your fears in the first place. Nothing is a more detestable gross unattractive boner killer than fear and anger. Fuckin totally disgusting. I want nothing to do with my wife when she acts that way.

    Give the dude some room- the very worst that could possibly happen is, a part of his body that is not your property might end up in location X instead of his underwear for N number of minutes. So the fuck what?!
    Um, yeah. You don't even know what you're talking about. In no way do I mean people should have a leash on their spouses. I just don't find it necessary for my spouse (or ME for that matter) to spend time alone with people of the opposite sex for long periods of time. In fact, this is not a new idea, but a very old one.
    ~Sandy


  5. #315
    Laconophile's Avatar
    Laconophile is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia1973 View Post
    And what, pray tell do we have to be proud of in terms of white american culture that makes it so superior that it is somehow tainted by other cultures? Jersey Shore? People living far above their needs so as to need to declare bankruptcy? The fine cuisine of McDonalds? Britney Spears whose meltdowns are better than her music? 15 year old girls getting breast implants? Holidays that we have made into shopping sprees?
    These are the products of demoralized and 'tolerant' modern whites. If you want something to be proud of, look back when whites were proud.
    Ye shall know them by their fruits.

  6. #316
    kenn's Avatar
    kenn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia1973 View Post
    Well, I'm sure back in the day, the blacks would have preferred to stay in Africa. But the whites forced them to come here, while the european whites messed up Africa.

    ignorance is slavery
    Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
    Starting Weight: 294 pounds
    Current Weight: 235 pounds
    Goal Weight: 195 pounds

  7. #317
    ChefGrok's Avatar
    ChefGrok is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by Man is Truth View Post
    all of you sound insane- white people didnt do shit to black people. Crown-sanctioned aristocrat merchant companies and new-money financiers in Europe bartered with invested african kings and chieftains to trade for prisoners of war and slaver missions.
    +1

  8. #318
    Grumpycakes's Avatar
    Grumpycakes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Man is Truth View Post
    all of you sound insane- white people didnt do shit to black people. Crown-sanctioned aristocrat merchant companies and new-money financiers in Europe bartered with invested african kings and chieftains to trade for prisoners of war and slaver missions.
    Shhh, now we can't make overly simplistic arguments that appeal to emotion.
    You lousy kids! Get off my savannah!

  9. #319
    magnolia1973's Avatar
    magnolia1973 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,846
    So.... the africans coming to America as slaves were coming here against the wishes of white people? They were brought over to free them from their captors? LOL, so we did them a favor, like we did with urban renewal?

  10. #320
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    I think the argument is that it was blacks capturing other blacks and selling them to the whites.

    Not that buying and keeping humans enslaved is any better than selling them, so...
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

Page 32 of 54 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •