I recently was shown this article.  Honestly made me feel pretty sad.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-07-021-f

Personally, I feel like I've been a very guarded person most of my life yet I've also really craved some kind of deep friendship (or buddyship) with another man.  The fear and risk of sexualizing it has definitely kept me far away from something I really want.

Just wanted to share.  What do you all think about the article?

Views: 1865

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'd say; if you want to be friends with a man, be friends with him.  If you don't want to have sex with him, it's probably best you didn't.

Unless it's Thursday... then go ahead and do it anyway. 

Ahhh, yes.  Manlove Thursday.

Jesus Shane, you are deep and wise. Glad you're here with us!

You think he should have sex with a man he doesn't want to?

What is this about Thursday,  I've heard that before.

Not being Sarcastic at all, have read many of your posts including Manlove Thursday - I just wanted you to know that I enjoy your posts and understand your logic...that might scare you but so be it. 

I'm being serious, what is it about Thursday (I never heard of Manlove Thursday until the post above)?  But I've heard this reference made before, someone told me a long time ago that in a dormitory (I won't say where) in the 1950s if you didn't want to have sex you kept your door locked on Thursday nights.  What's the significance of Thursday, and why would I be scared by your comment?

***** deep friendship (or buddyship) with another man. The fear and risk of sexualizing it *****

There might be fear of sexualizing it, but no significant risk if you're not sexually attracted to other men in the first place. Contrary to Freudian theories of bisexuality, most people of both sexes prefer one or the other, and are not indifferent. Heterosexuals have innate sexual instincts that make them feel uncomfortable going past certain boundaries.

The fear has more to do with what's called a psychologial taboo, rather than a real risk. Seemingly masculine men in pre-civilized societies, or for that matter in agrarian backwaters, tend to be fairly affectionate with their friends, because they don't have the taboo because they're not conscious of the possibility of homosexuality in the first place. The taboo arises because many people are confused about the nature of homosexuality.

Think in terms of men and children: Many fathers are quite affectionate with their children, and it is precisely the more affectionate, protective types that are LESS likely to have sexual relationships with their own offspring. His very protective instincts would make him all the less likely to do anything that he would think would harm them. Also, interestingly, more masculine men tend to be more affectionate with their children, including sons, than "metrosexuals". It actually makes sense if you think about it.

Despite this fact, many women who watch too much Oprah/read "Dear Abby", etc, assume that all men are child molesters. ("Men are incapable of love; all they want is sex"...) It is actually a fairly common belief that children should not be left alone with a man. Recently a stewardess on an airplane moved two children away from a man, and reassigned them to sit next to a woman, pointedly claiming "for their safety". He reported being insulted and humiliated by the suggestion.

When I was younger I had strong taboos against touching. It's probably imprinted; my parents were not affectionate with me. Now I regularly hug on parting, and also on greeting if we haven't seen each other in a while, and I pat on shoulders and backs both paying compliments and also when gently ribbing. I think this is generally acceptable, and it stimulates warm, friendly feelings (the hormone oxytocin), not sexual feelings (the hormone testosterone). What is appropriate can depend on circumstances. In the case of Frodo and Sam, Frodo was injured. But if he didn't need comforting, it would have been awkward.

I think verbal affection is important. Make your friends feel good about themselves, and cared for. Give them lots of encouragement. You'll find that done appropriately, they'll tend to respond well to this, because like most people they're hungry for approval and have some self-esteem issues. Oddly, this is probably harder for most men than overcoming taboos against physical affection: our speech centers and emotional centers are reputedly wired on different hemispheres of our brains! However after a while, you can train yourself to freely say something thoughtful, classy, and appropriate for the situation, that makes your friends feel good.

^ Right, that's what I said.

BWAHAHAHA

Nice!

RSS

Latest Activity

crandles commented on Stephen Larsen's group Banya Men!
"Hi. I'm going to be in Rome and Paris soon Does anyone of some nice baths/saunas in either. In Paris I've only ever been to the one at mosque but that is closed now."
11 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Sir's discussion How far apart we are in the group The Great Debate
"Free speech has gone from freedom to speak to requirement to be heard to borderline crimethink. Interesting, you're right. It used to be skewed to "I can say what I want anywhere I want and you can't stop me." Now in colleges…"
11 minutes ago
Liam Strain replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"In which case? I you mean Terry v. Ohio, there is still a "reasonable suspicion" barrier to overcome. We've already agreed that's a different situation than how "Stop and Frisk" has been implemented in NYC."
14 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Sir's discussion How far apart we are in the group The Great Debate
"I do feel Obama has been handed a raw deal.  I know many will disagree with me on this, but congress said outright they would fight him on every move he made, good or bad.  That's a raw deal.  It's brought our government to…"
16 minutes ago
Shane replied to Sir's discussion How far apart we are in the group The Great Debate
"We've been divided politically. All the sorting taking place since JFK has been building to a head. The regressive left has gone insane. Media is no longer a watchdog against big government, but a collaborator. Entire industries are set up to…"
23 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Sir's discussion How far apart we are in the group The Great Debate
"I think most of us here are a different breed. Because if you can't articulate and substantiate your claims you will be made a fool, there is a certain level of accountability in the posts. Everyone here can respect those with other views, as…"
29 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Sir's discussion How far apart we are in the group The Great Debate
"I always liked when Colbert started the Colbert Report and had the word Truthiness. Both sides are guilty of it. We see our truths, regardless of facts.  Facts, like math, like stat, don't lie, but if you don't ask the right questions…"
34 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"SCOTUS doesn't agree with you."
34 minutes ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service