The description of the new group is:

"Touch Practice has come to describe an intentional, mindful, 60-90 minute exchange of non-sexual touch between men. The practice is based on hugging, holding, and being held.."


And what does the following tell you? (extracted from About Touch Practice, at the site):

"Touch Practice partner may wish only to have contact between our hands, and no other parts of the body. On the other hand, partners may also explore full body touch up to and including genital touch. Some Touch Practice partnerships explore erotic energy, and others have no erotic interest."

We are living in a culture where feminists have successfully inculcated into the masses that men should be more like women and eschew any thoughts and/or outward demonstrations of dominance and violence in favor of acceptance, passivity and vulnerability as a virtue.  It is a glorification of "touchy-feely" that has succeeded to a great extent in confusing our young men's sexuality and emasculating them, as is proven in a great many of the discussions and comments on AoM from lost young men seeking guidance.  

What say you?

Views: 2925

Replies to This Discussion

Deeply

So...if this is a feminine thing to do...does this mean there's a group where women get naked and feel each other up for an hour?

Yes. About a third of the internet.

College thats where I'm going now.

Sir, I have been revising representative video material for years now, and I can tell you, yes, yes, they do: Mostly, they do so while scantily clad, and/or while bathing in baby oil.

This appears to be a behavior mostly common among women with model-good looks.

This is worse than the blight on planet Earth known as "Bronies."

Here's something to help us recover from the lack of manliness:  

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HUUR6lxnAME

A thread has appeared at the Touch Practice group, called "Only the Strong Survive."  It appears to be an effort at countering this discussion.  The following is extracted from the thread:

"Only homophobic bigots who feel a threat to their own sense of manliness would find fault with this venture."  


Frankly, I expected something like that:  shrill cries of "bigotry" and "homophobia" from the "tolerant" among us.  Right in there with "racism."  

I guess since I started this discussion, I must be a prime candidate as one who "feels a threat to (my) own sense of manliness;" this after a full career in the Army, serving during three wars and fathering four children.  Go figure. 

I'm secure in my masculinity.  I'm just not a gay.

When I taught school in Texas on the Mexican border right out of college, my Mexican American colleague teachers would frequently put their arms around my neck as we walked and/or sit closely.  And in college my friends from the Middle East freely touched and were touched by other guys.  Of course all of this was new to me as an American, so I really learned how different cultures are around the world.

There are not two ethnic groups more inclined to be "macho" than latin-Americans and middle-easterners; the very word "macho" coming from the Spanish for male.  

Momentary touching as signs of affection or regard - to include kissing on both cheeks (no, not those cheeks) by Frenchmen - are not intentional and conscious efforts to bring out the feminine side in men so as to make men more "sensitive" to each other.  And most especially not "macho" is lengthy conscious full-body contact, with genital "touching" as an accepted part of it.  

+1

RSS

Latest Activity

John Lee Pettimore replied to Jack Bauer's discussion Nevada Ranch War ... in the group The Great Debate
"Is there an option "C": Both A & B?"
23 seconds ago
Native Son commented on Herb Munson's group The Great Debate
"And the real irony is that my employer, myself, and every taxpaying entity in the US already is subsidizing medical care for "uninsured" persons in this country.  An often overlooked situation is that the regulators have apparently…"
1 minute ago
Pale Horse replied to Josh Allen's discussion If you can tell me what religion you are then you are in a prison.
"Don't be fatuous. It can't be that crappy."
4 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Jack Bauer's discussion Nevada Ranch War ... in the group The Great Debate
"So even after a couple days to think over what I told you, you still have shit for a response to the fact that there is no forest. Coward or intellectually empty?"
6 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Brad Williams's discussion Can Men and Women be Just Friends
"    Quite possible, as long as you aren't hormonal, lust-filled, or desperate. I generally prefer hanging out with men (there's a lot I wouldn't do in mixed company) but I get along with some women fine without trying to…"
6 minutes ago
Will replied to Ricky's discussion Your gay Brothers in the group New Warriors
"I'd want specifics on "homophobia" (I assume this means not a phobia, but oppression or wish to oppress or devalue). ...but I can comment on the Isms & Issues ("I&I") dividing men by this or that identity group.…"
7 minutes ago
John Lee Pettimore replied to Josh Allen's discussion If you can tell me what religion you are then you are in a prison.
"Well, to be fair it is a different day. Perhaps his WOTD generator has a limited number of choices."
11 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Josh Allen's discussion If you can tell me what religion you are then you are in a prison.
"Oh yeah!  Leverets FTW!"
18 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service