" *love* is gay, dude!"

Post Reply New Topic

I recently read an article in a very trashy, low-brow monthly publication called The Exotic Underground which featured a cynical, ostensibly macho article bashing "romantic love". This was the february issue centered around valentines day. It included such moronic, insipid, plebian statements such as: "nothing is more pitiful than a love-struck man....pathetic fa***ts" . AFAIC such statements bely the amazing stupidity of the author; but the question remains: Why is it considered unmacho for men to express interest in Romantic Love towards women??? I remember being told by my best friend Jason(VERY cynical guy) that "men dont talk about relationships, men talk about SEX" *sigh*. Where did this stupid BS come from and how did it find itsway into (macho)"guy culture"? Theres this weird cultural norm that men are supposed to Only want the physical component of a relationship and care nothing about any sort of emotional connection. Yeah I want sex, but its Not all that I want! I want *The Whole Package*-sex included .

I know right, I want nothing more than to shower a woman with affection. I have so much affection to offer a woman and I know that's one thing they want from a man. The whole "macho" thing is a load of bull sh*t anyway. I don't have to be "macho" to be a man, you know what makes me a man? I would tell you but this isn't the place to discuss that. My point is, this whole "macho" thing is so overrated. And for any guys that think I'm a sissy, I ACKNOWLEDGE WOMEN AS PEOPLE TOO!! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

"Macho" is stupid, and the only men who subscribe to the concept of "macho" are the ones that are insecure about their own manhood (as well as the village people, but that's a completely different story entirely... The villiage people's version of macho is okay...)

Here's my theorey: biologists say that we continue to have some of the same genetic coding that our ancestors had millions of years ago, when they were apelike creatures, or tiny ratlike mammals, or fish.

In many non-human species, it is customary for the males to fight over mates. The dominant males get to mate with most or all of the fertile females in the area, and the other males get little or no opportunity to mate -- until they kill or disable the dominant male or get him to back off voluntarily.

Clearly, these primitive-brained instincts for dominance and many mates were predominant among our ancestors at some time or times during the history of life on Earth, and they are still felt by present-day men. Apparently they're felt much more strongly by some men than by others. And if a man is controlled by these instincts -- whether he actually manages somehow to keep a whole harem of women, or if he can barely get any women to pay attention to him -- it's harder for him to develop a romantically loving relationship. The pattern of the dominant male, who either has or wants to have many mates, is pretty much incompatible with the human feelings which we know as romantic love.

In short: macho men are behaving like monkeys.

Macho behavior will probably eventually die out, by means of natural selection, for two reasons:

1) Macho behavior seems to attract some women in some cases, but not in most cases.

2) Macho guys seem to be less interested in impregnating women then in making sure that they don't get pregnant, so that they can coninue to enjoy them sexually, without any interference from pregnancy or children.

Theres the problem though, how many macho guys are very good at preventing their women from getting pregnant? It seems to me that they do a terrible job at it compared to the rest of the population.

Men don't want OTHER men to be 'romantic' because then the women will want THEM to be 'romantic' TOO.

and they are far too lazy.


Merle

Bravo, Fantom! Such bravery & honesty!
I salute you.

The stereotypical Macho Man with whom we're all so familiar, he is indeed a fallacy. No human being is without vulernability, man or woman. The macho posturing we see everywhere is amusing because it belies the "real man's" profound insecurities. The so-called tough guys of this world can't attain true manhood until they admit their cowardice. Until you are wiling to take off the armour of machismo and be vulnerable, real masculinity will elude you.

But a bit of macho is good. It's a balance between showing your toughness and showing your vulnerability.

Uncompromising macho is no good. Total wimpiness isn't either. Remember, in the adult male body there always a mix ot testosterone and estrogen.

Isn't it interesting how a woman will covet the "bad boy" type and stay with him despite the horrible treatment she receives?

Sure, women think they want the bad boy, but always find him to be an abusive jerk. Even harder to believe is why they stoically endure his abuse and call it ice-cream. Some women actually defend their abusers. So sad, how they're brainwashed into believing that they are happy with bruised arms and black eyes.

I definitely agree. I had a friend that was into the bad boy image and she eventually ended up having to go to a woman's shelter. I did too but my case wasn't bad like hers. I use to only go out with this guy because I had issues along with substance abuse and insecurity. I mean he was the one that asked me out and I was like OMG, a guy likes me.

I've never been attracted to the bad boy image and felt wrong for it. When I use to bring that up with the particular friend I was talking about, all she'd tell me was, " There's something wrong with you, he's hot." I think she even thought I was gay, imagine that, me not attracted to the "macho guy." I think I've learned a lot from my mistakes of trying to fit in the "what we consider normal world." Just made me more miserable, that and aspies I didn't know about.

BTW, is it just me or is that, "that's so gay" starting to sound old or like a broken record. Does to me, besides it being homophobic which some ppl are, it's getting corny as hell. So's the word fa***t but I don't know, maybe it's a guy thing or ppl thing. It's just getting old to me.

"That's so gay" is so 1990s.

Well said.

Monkeys? I'm the King Kong of the macho men.

- D

hurm... i guess its a men-amongst-men-bred phenomenon. something along the lines of showing that one is unshakeable.
it reminds me a bit of something one of those sex scientists once said: "penis size increments are important in one place: the mens locker, for comparing"

yeah, right


Merle

The question wasnt why women fall for 'bad boys' and macho thugs as opposed to romantic 'nice guys' MissConstrue, its why its considered unmasculine for a guy to want a romantic relationship and not just sex.

Related to this topic: me and a friend of mine, when we were still single had a lot of problem with the so-called 'brother-syndrome'. That means, being relatively quiet sensitive guys (yes, we are ) we did have some friendly contact with girls. Most of the time we were like a 'brother' to them. Someone to talk to, someone to confide in, a shoulder to cry on. But we were always like that, brothermaterial and no lovermaterial! Somehow the guys they were complaining about to us were by far more attractive. The plus of this story is we both finally did find a relationship and in both our cases it is long-term now.

But probably earlier on we were not tough enough or something like that for a lot of the girls. Probably also not handsome enough, but thats not the question here .

Concerning the title of this topic: how many intelligent sentences end with 'dude'?