This question occurred to me a couple of weeks ago when I was watching some type of travelogue program. Is there any form of dancing that is still considered manly? What I have witnessed on television programs that many popular dances are either simply clothed frottage (dry-humping) or are a high sexualized style of group dancing as exhibited in broadway musicals. What, then, is considered a manly form of dancing? Now, I had considered many forms of country dancing, such as line dancing, and the like, but I wasn't certain. What forms of dancing does anyone on this site consider manly?
I'd say fewer forms of dancing are unmanly than manly... As long as you don't start twerking or doing some other dumb teenager's or whore's dance moves, then the rule of thumb is that you are doing good. Women like a man who can dance. Nothing unmanly about doing something to impress the ladies.
Pretty much nailed it right here. Even Ballet requires tremendous strength, and body control - very manly things. If you find yourself questioning the manliness of a gentleman having a good time on the dancefloor with his woman, you might want to re-examine your definition of manly.
Female gymnasts must be very manly by that logic, as well as ballerinas, as well as of course all those athletic creatures doing dances some guy above called whores' dances or thereabout...
They can exhibit manly traits, or exemplify manly ideals, without being men.
Nothing can exemplify the ideal something without being that thing.
As for the other thing, yes, manly traits are not the same as manly. But that would seem to say that ballet is after all not manly.
I couldn't disagree more about ballet.
You're an honest men. How about you come up with an argument!
"Nothing can exemplify the ideal something without being that thing." - huh?
A very "butch" woman can very well be described as "manly" or as one who exhibits "manly" or perhaps "manish" traits, just as a man can exhibit those traits that we like to call "feminine."
More to your point, if a "manly ideal" is courage or say, physical strength, how is it inaccurate to say that an unusually courageous woman in a typically more masculine setting, say, exemplified a manly ideal? I don't think that is a stretch. Or to use another example, I could be an American and in some way "exemplify a Japanese ideal" without being Japanese. The issue isn't my nationality, it's the ideal, and who or what that ideal is typically associated with.
Describing a butch woman as manly requires a previous understanding of manliness. If you do not know manliness, you cannot recognize something like manliness. You see manliness in the butch woman. You do not see the butch woman & think to manliness.
So also with the effeminate man. So also with the look of the American or the Japanese.
Only the highest form of the type exemplifies the ideal. The ideal reorganizes the class of which it is a member hierarchically. Such that all human beings are human, & that class is horizontally organized, but only the exemplar of the species is truly human.
A kid struggling to open your fist is not an example of the hero. A mother struggling to raise lots of kids in difficult conditions is not either. Achilles is the hero & the example of the hero. Idealism implies thinking of something as a whole, self-contained. Manliness, therefore, is the form of all ideals, because manliness is about being a whole apart from anything & everything--think of manly aloofness.
If you do not recognize the ideal as an ideal, you cannot see it in other things. The striving that things do reaches its fulfilment only in the ideal. Another way of saying this is that you only really know a being when you know its limits. The striving is a striving to reach those limits. Hence, only the exemplar is a test of knowledge.
Idealism as a mode of thinking is inextricably connected to metaphor. You do not see the metaphor in the thing at which you look. There is something strange about the phenomenon for that reason. Metaphor implies that things are supposed to seem to you in a certain way. That the human beings belong together with the things, as if merely by being human, humans animate nature, or ennoble it.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you think of human beings as types, the scientist is incapable of understanding metaphors. The ideal of science, to say the same again, makes metaphors meaningless--or proves metaphor meaningless, as scientists might say.
Sorry, Titus, I'm not a Platonist, so I don't share many of the presuppositions that you do. I don't buy the ideals/types/forms argument. Life has evolved and adapts over millenia. From whence did these perfect types or ideals or roots that make metaphors come? When did the perfect or ideal human (or human male in this case) emerge? Where does/did he exist? Or if he hasn't, where did that ideal come from that you seem to be insinuating is imprinted on our minds? From the gods of Mt. Olympus? I believe that most of these ideals that you speak of are socially constructed, and are not absolute as you seem to infer. My philosophical bias comes from the Judaic/Christian tradition and we certainly don't believe, for example, that "Manliness, therefore, is the form of all ideals, because manliness is about being a whole apart from anything & everything--think of manly aloofness." Maleness (and therefore manliness) was created by God and declared to be incomplete without the female counterpart. Only together did the man and woman in the garden fully reflect the image of God. God said, "It is not good for man to be alone..." even though Adam had perfect, unhindered fellowship with the Lord at that time. Therefore, according to my understanding, man is never "whole apart from anything and everything"; the Lord completes him, the woman (and other men) are his complements and companions. As Paul of Tarsus elaborated, "for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." (I Cor. 11:12) We, humankind, are incomplete (and wouldn't even exist) without each other, males and females. We are designed to be interdependent. As the old saying goes, "No man is an island," and this is true in more ways than one. And indeed, many of the cultural characteristics that we deem "manly" in our society would not exist if they were not taught and exemplified to people like you and me by other men (and women, too; the opposite sex plays an important role in reinforcing gender roles) when we were young and learning our culture and its language (and language always structures our understanding of reality and how we categorize it to some extent), how to express emotions, how to act in different situations, taboos, understandings of God and the supernatural, etc. Men, in the social/cultural sense, don't exist naturally. They are made. And how they are made, and what the ideal of that image is, varies some from culture to culture. Sorry, but cultural anthropology has pretty much proved that fact, and it is independently verifiable by anyone who has travelled. We aren't speculating about ancient realities or origins of the cosmos or other things that can't be proven or tested out; we are talking about our present, multicultural reality--it clearly proves this to be true. Plato's "forms" don't exist in some ex nihilo or even self-evident state. They are cultural (and individual) ideals, subject to great change.
Methinks you should re-visit the definition of logical fallacies Titus.
Hey, guy, tango is a whores' dance, too. Would you call that unmanly?