Judge Faith - Good Deed Gone Wrong; Busted Basement (Season 3: Full Episode #28)

Judge Faith - Boss Better Have My Money | Damaged Besties (Season 2: Full Episode #49)

Patrick Moore on Climate Change realism (Ex founder of Greenpeace)

I love my Dad :)

1 Hour of The Funniest Game Show Answers EVER

The Dark Net isn't what you think. It's actually key to our privacy | Alex Winter | TEDxMidAtlantic

There is a hidden Internet, completely separate from the surface Web. Documentary filmmaker Alex Winter spent several years immersed in this fascinating world and talks about how the battle for your right to privacy is being waged in this dark corner of the Internet. You may have heard the "Dark Net" is a scary underworld filled with crime, but Alex's findings will surprise you.

Alex Winter entered show business as a child actor on Broadway and came to prominence in the wildly popular BILL AND TED franchise. Winter’s latest, award-winning documentary DEEP WEB, recently had a critically acclaimed world premiere at SXSW and a broadcast premiere in the U.S. on the Epix network, to be followed by a worldwide release on all platforms in September 2015.

Tackling the links between Gender expression and orientation/preference in ones partners.

Recently I have been researching into the known links between gender expression and sexual orientation/preferences in partners as well as positions in sexual relationships. Is it true that gender expression is actually directly linked to non-heterosexual orientations in adulthood? If so, is there a difference between the tops and bottom non-heterosexuals? Does penetrative same sex sexuality differ from bottom receptive same sex sexuality in terms of gender congruence and expression? Is there is a difference between bisexual same sex sexualities and exclusive homosexual ones? Can you really tell someones orientation just by looking at or listening to someone?

Well, it depends on which studies you look at really. Some studies say that non-heterosexuality be it bi or homosexual is linked to at least childhood non-conformity. They point out that feelings, thoughts, interests and behaviors of non-heterosexuals were more opposite gender typical in childhood and that there is also a link in that continuing into adulthood with ones orientation/sexual preference for partners. That seems to miss out on something important though. The research the American Psychological Association under Lisa Diamond did over long term time frames showed same sex sexualities are mostly bisexuals. What does this mean for the people in this studies? Could it not be possible those gays in these studies could turn out to be bisexuals.

How would one track this to see if it was the case? Well, for one we would need to know the ages of the people in the studies. We would also need to know if they were conflating bisexuality and exclusive gayness. It is possible since we do not know the stats that these people with opposite typical expression are as much for men into chooch and for the women into manmeat as the exclusively heterosexuals all around them. For the longest time bisexuality especially for men was denied its existence by the same groups that perform these studies. To the point where men whom set off this Gaydar and fiercely protested loudly they where bisexuals all over the bisexual scale were told they were "delusional."

On top of this the results are contradictory as well. Remember, I asked about the tops VS bottoms? Well, top homosexual males are more than likely to come off as the gender typical bloke, but, with a male hole for their man rod than bottom homosexual males. Men whom sleep with men whether they are in fact gay, bisexual or hetero and just horny without a woman around all share one core thing. Their gender expression is a typical bloke. This does not mean they might not say love Musicals or love Pink, but, they do not for example have any appeal at the idea of say doing drag as an adult. Nor do they for example use terms like "girl" to describe themselves. In fact, they tend to find gays that are too out there as more annoying.

Top homosexuals, bisexuals, bi-curious, questioning, mostly heterosexuals and so on are the least likely to be camp or overly flamboyant. They tend to for example be more into sports and be more physical than the bottoms. They tend to be more dominant in the bedroom as well not just the penetrative actor. They tend to be the Alpha if you will in the sack. Treating bottoms if you will as a chicks with dicks in terms of the traditional gender roles in the bedroom. They tend to not cross their legs and tend to sit with them more open. They tend to have less overemotional behavior as well, but, they are far from non-feeling Stoics either. This has lead people to believe that Tops in the same sex world have a much higher level of Testosterone during critical times of Androgen floods as well as a hormonal balance that is more flooded with said testicle juice.

However, if these people are also same sex attracted how can one say there is an inherent link between gender conformism and orientations? Well, some studies have shown a whopping 85-88% of gender non-conforming kids grow up to a heterosexual adulthood. However, that was back in 2012. Since then more studies have come out showing links between orientation/preference and gender expression. These studies one must remember though were done by the same group of people which denied bisexual men and still to this day refuses to take into their world view the FACT that most men with same sex sexualities are bisexual and not gay at all in the way we would tend to think of it as being exclusively homosexual attraction. 

So, it is safe to say given their track record that even if people in the study said "dude, I am not homo I am bisexual I love pussy OK." That they would turn around and like they always have say they were gay and in denial. Funnily enough they DO believe in female bisexuality and do not conflate them like they do men in their studies. Even though they included a Bisexual part of their most recent causes of homosexuality article they still come to end it with saying it is a minority of men that are in fact bi if they even exist. Which is laughable and downright insulting to the personal experiences of any and all bisexual males. With such links to the flat out denial of the bisexual male how can one trust any study by such a group of ignorant twats?

This same group denies that sexuality can change over time for both genders/sexes. They stake claim to a completely genetic determinism model of orientation which says one is not ever both or in a gray area. Or that sexuality can be a scale. Or that bisexuality is the norm for same sex sexualities. They stake the claim you are born gay and or straight. That very few people at least for men are both or bisexual of some sort. That Sexual Fluidity is rare instead of the norm in same sex attractions which we have ample evidence is the opposite in human orientations and preferences. Even the American Psychological Association has come out against the working group sighting their anti-fluidity biases. As well as their lack of acknowledging of bisexuals in their studies whom time after time request not to be statistically called gay when they are not.

So, I have come to the conclusion that although they might be right that for some orientation is linked to gender expression it is not something that is true for all or even necessarily most same sex sexualities. For example there are tons of masculine even full gay men and tons of feminine full lesbian women. If orientation and partner preferences was deterministic of expression than it should determine that all people with same-sex attraction are opposite gender typical when they are not. For every Musical theater loving gay or bi male there is equally as many Nascar and Football loving, Nacho eating and Beer downing typically masculine gay or bisexual dude. For every butch lesbian there is a lipstick lesbian or complete femme lesbian.

I think that in fact most people will conform to some extent to their Gender Roles and expression due to how it is linked to our Gender Identity as males and females. Since same sex sexuality is not the same thing as Gender Identity Disorders or Gender Dysphoric issues it would be normal for one to in some ways conform to ones gender expressions linked to ones identity. That I do think is much more deterministic than the opposite. Most people irregardless of orientation and preference will be men and will be women. Or will be males and females to some or more of an extent. For every unique trait that could be atypical you can find so many more that are typical of male and femaleness irregardless of ones partner preferences.

Men and women having male and female brains will mean that most of the gays and bisexuals will be just as similar to heterosexuals on a whole list of metrics while differing on others. Yes, there might be some small differences, but. the idea that you can spot a same-sex attracted person simply based on the stereotype of gender non conformism is bullshit. Gaydar will only work on the most flamboyant and out there gays and most butchy of butchiest of lesbians. Even than you could be dead wrong and they might be as straight as the next person just expressing themselves differently. The era of the Gaydar test needs to stop. Let us just treat each other as individuals. Let all men and women just be themselves. Most of the time that will be in accordance with natural gender rules. However, even if it was not just let people be.

You should not really be asking about someones preferences outside of if you are interested in them anyways. It is really no ones business whom is straight, gay or whatever in the day to day life unless you want to partner or fuck said person. So, let us quit trying to put people into boxes based on their preferences and just be peaceful/benevolent to one another irregardless of ones orientation. In the end it does not matter at all to the character of a person and the content of ones character is what matters not the content of ones brain and genitals on sex.

The MHRM/MGTOW philosophical idea of Gynocentrism dare not say it's name.

I have distanced myself a bit from the broader Men's Human Rights Movement, but, not because of not being a Men's Human Rights Advocate. It is because it is very clear that there seems to be a bit of an issue with this movement and one particular word. That is the word Gynocentrism and what it really is talking about. What the fundamental aspects of this Gynocentrism are really made up of that makes it so appalling. 

The truth is that philosophically what is so appalling about Gynocentrism is altruism as it was defined by the founder of the philosophy one Auguste Comte. Whom was a known extreme left-utopian/dystopian and one of the founders of the formation of the non-science of sociology. He also was a quack that decided to create a "religion of Humanity." Which was an insane way of trying to make a heaven on earth. 

A key part of August Comte's view being altruism or the idea that what is moral is to live for others. As opposed to being selfish which is defined as looking after self and what the self finds is in its best long term interests and rational good. However, this view was not original it was he simply extended it to be in a secular context and removed the inclusion of God. All religions are altruistic in the philosophical definition as none of them say being selfish is good and they hate the mind. The one thing that is anything like a "human soul." 

Our neuron networks, our brain and our person is that which mystics mistake for a soul. Mystics of mind either are ignorant, or evil and simply evading the fact our brain structure/our mind is what makes us human just as much as the rest of the functions of our body. There is no mind/body dichotomy. For our mind is in our brain and that is the core of our body and its functioning in so many ways. 

Thus altruism which says we should live for others at the expense of ourselves is basically a slow death sentence. It is choosing a long slow suicide for the sake of others living like being the energy source for a world of parasites and vampires. How is this philosophical Gynocentrism? Well, how is Gynocentrism as a moral philosophy anything, but, altruism taken to its most extreme. It is simply taking the floating-abstraction other and giving it an image that of the female human of the species. 

Gynocerntrism is a collective death sentence for males saying to all men to live for women and die for them too. It is a collectivism within a collectivism a gendered division within the greater altruism and societal collectivism of both genders. Except it's ideas are targeted towards men and manipulate men's natural tendency to desire to protect and provide for women with ideas that one should always act on such instincts. As a blank check without thinking about what it means for the self of that man. 

There are two Gynocentrism's; the natural instincts to protect women and children and the "philosophy" which says all women need saving and you the man are the one to do it. The philosophy is altruism writ large over all men on a collective scale. It collectivizes all men as wanting the same thing. Even if these instincts exist not all men want, nor should need to have a woman or children around; let alone protect them at the expense of their own life. It is the anti-male division of the greater collectivism we see in society. 

Yet, the Men's Human Rights Movement never seems to bring it up. Neither does MGTOW which has now made it too susceptible to collectivism. As Men supposedly going their own way make their own collectivist shrieks and shrills of "all women are evil." Which is simply taking the Feminist idea of male Patriarchy and reversing it calling "all women toxic." Even if a lot, hell, a good portion of women in the modern day are toxic in their views of men, especially feminists, that does not equal a collective "all women." 

A truly liberating movement for men would champion individualism and not collectivism. For it is collectivism that is at the heart of Philosophical Gynocentrism and it is that which fueled the existence of a feminist movement. Feminism with it's all men were evil throughout history views are simply one more modern version of collectivism. Which is itself a manifestation of altruism's core tenants of living for others like a servant at the expense of ones own self-worth and value. To live for women by women's social rules has always been nothing more than altruism brought to bare to men. 

It has always taken the natural instincts of protecting and providing for women/children within ones own relations and extended that to being "living for all women and all children everywhere." I am not arguing men protecting the women they love and their children is wrong. Hell, that would be to go against the reality of men's evolved psychology and a core of masculinity. However, I contend Philosophical Gynotheism, as was coined by Youtuber Jay Double Gee, is instincts gone insane. Pushed upon and unleashed without reason or rhyme on purpose. 

Not as part of some conspiracy or any such tin foil views of the extremer MGTOW's out there. It came into being because irrational people drank the kool-aid that collectivism was good and act ignorant. It is also very possibly a reaction to the ever more expanding freedom of expression of women's own psychologies being gone unchecked by being told to "shut the fuck up special snowflake." Thus pushing ever more worse collectivism and Philosophical Gynocentrism through men reacting at a more instinctive level and less reasoning manor to women's exposed evolved psychologies. 

That freedom without understanding of individualism vs collectivism can unleash collectivist attitudes on us. Through unleashing the more wet-ware instincts on a massive scale without the rational mindset to go with them. That in a sense altruism which is core to collectivism has taken something which is beautiful in the right context; protection of others not at expense to self, but, because those saved are a high value.. Having replaced it with not protecting, but, complete self-sacrifice and suicide to "save everyone, but, the self that is a man because my being is to be sacrifice itself." 

The MHRM needs to address collectivism, but, to do that it needs to address the core tenants of that philosophy called altruism. Not the tit for tat and win/win benevolent reciprocity and mutualist aspect of our human instincts, but, complete and utter self-sacrifice. The idea that win/lose is noble, but, win/win is bad because a win/win feeds the self its "spiritual fuel" as Ayn Rand would say. The MHRM if it is serious about the rights and liberty, hell, liberation of men needs to stand up against the altruist-collectivist origin of the movements it is against. It needs to be a beacon of individualism and let manhood be all about that.

Masculine traits, feminine traits and human traits

If one actually looks up on Google or some other search engine the words masculine traits one is sure to find numerous results. Some of them will be your generic "be the Alpha" sort of sites. Some will be the average dating type website. Others will be about Evolutionary Psychology an actually backed up science of human nature. Meanwhile still others will be "game" websites which preach their ways will get you the girl if you work it right. 

Sometimes you can find very useful and truthful claims about what is masculine psychologically and feminine psychologically. Other times what you find is snake oil salesmen pitches. Still further there is also a whole bunch of blatantly anti-male feminist crap online as well which calls masculinity toxic. When one is wondering what is masculine and what is feminine the net can harm as well as help your mindset. There are some really good websites dedicated to men and masculinity. There is also a bunch of junk. 

Let me state first of all I do not think being feminine actually makes you less of a man. However, I do find there to be a difference between a masculine and feminine man. These are not matters of one being worth more than the other when it comes to human worth and value. Just because people are different even within the same sex does not mean those differences have any moral or ethical weight. You judge a person by the contents of his character and not how limp or firm his wrist is. However, I do find that the differences do exist for sure. 

I have taken more than one Gender Identity Expression and psychology test on the net. I find I always get the same results more or less. I end up with either a standard or very high masculine metric on each one of them simply by answering authentically about how my brain works when presented with certain situations. Some of these situations are more generic than others. Further still some psychological testing simply uses descriptors and sliding scales of where you sit in regards to it. 

Also, one must differentiate between what ones brain thinks or responds like and whether said person actually acts in accordance with those thoughts. A person could think in a more masculine way than they act in the actual environment around them. One could also think more feminine typical than they act as well. Not every little reflex, thought or desire manifests in behavior or mannerisms. The point being that metrics do exist that are not just some airy fairy nonsense and I would never argue otherwise. 

Yet, some things that seem to get lumped into the feminine side sometimes is to me patently bullshit and not feminine at all. For example the BEM sex role inventory puts compassion in the feminine box. So, I get like 20% -40% feminine on some tests along side 100% masculine in the same exact test. Mainly due to things like compassion being coded as being feminine instead of just being a human trait and perfectly compatible with being in the masculine box. So, men whom take these tests get coded by default as some sort of androgynous being simply for being human. 

So, men are incapable of being caring of others is basically what this misandric anti-male nonsense is trying to say. The standard non-androgynous man is an uncaring, cold hearted prick? This is complete nuttiness to say that the moment you might somewhat care about anything you are becoming like a woman. There are things that are definable and masculine or feminine, but, that is not one of them. It is a human trait that manifests irregardless of what is in between your legs. Often men's compassion is shown differently, but, it sure as hell exists.

A good example would be crying and I will use myself as an example of men's feelings. If I were to be super sad about something to the point I was possibly going to have my eyes become watery I would never cry around a stranger. I just would not if I cry it needs to be around someone I trust or better yet alone with no one around. During my more depressive days at work for example I would never cry if I were to work in the center. Tears do not help me work at all it is an unproductive behavior. Now, when I got home if the issue was bad enough a small little bit of water might come down my chin, might, but, maybe not either. 

The point I am trying to make though is that just because emotions are expressed differently by men does not mean we do not have them. To argue we do not simply because men do on average have more emotional mastery in that way is to misunderstand human nature itself. It is to in essence make an argument that men are not human and never can be unless they deal with emotions the way a woman would. To argue that I see the word compassion and say I agree makes me or any man any amount of less masculine is absurd.

When it comes to myself I do not plan on dropping my masculine self-identification simply because some test tries to say I am whatever percent feminine. That would be equally absurd as some of the tests assumptions are. In the end of the day I am just going to as Allan J. Frantzen puts it Grab My Balls and own my manhood not some random testers that know nothing about me. I refuse to put the source of my own self-esteem at the mercy of people whom obviously do not think very highly of men in general.  

The Flourishing Man Episode 2 | Same-sex Masculinity

In this second Episode the primer on definitions continues as I dispel the notions of same-sex experiences being incompatible with retaining manhood. I will be also citing the same article What is Masculinity from A Voice For Men.

Which can be found at;

www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issue…s-masculinity/

The Flourishing Man Pilot Broadcast | What is Masculinity and does it even matter?

In the Pilot episode of The Flourishing Man I tackle the question, what is masculinity? Tracing its origins in grammar to what it means in essence in nature. We will discuss why it matters that a positive and good definition of masculinity exist for people that fall within this definition. Touch on the importance of male role models for young boys and men. Why we need to rescue if you will masculinity from both sides the Barbarism is good movement as well as the Radical Feminist movement.

Victim is not code word for female or feminine. Being a victim does not remove a man's balls.

Recently the #MeToo has blown up on Twitter following the exposing of Harvey Weinstein within Hollywood. During this time many men started trying to include their own stories of being victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Yet, as soon as these men came out as being at one time victims they were told they were not to talk because it was taking the light off of "the real victims women." That they were trying to take the wind out of the sales of the hashtag.

There was a serious lack of any empathy for victims that was not within their own sex/gender. A serious lack of any caring about the stories that men had to share. Men came out about being molested, raped, harassed and what are they told to sit down and shut up because the women are talking. Or even more shameful when it was looked over these men were told they knew what it was like to be a woman. Or told other men would now be their enemies because they were exposing feminine traits.

No, these men are not now "female typical." No, these men are not now feminine because some low life abused them and used them. In fact, a fair number of the people that came out talked about women as perpetrators and not other men. So, where is the "toxic masculinity" in these experiences? Surely, if you were to call it toxic anything surely it would be toxic femininity. It does not take having a vagina to be a victim in this world. Any human can be a victim and any other human could victimize as we are all human.

Victim is not a code word for females or feminine. The last time I checked male victims of sexual predation did not get their genitals cut off. Nor the last time I checked is there any sort of historical standard of only women or feminine people being victims. Men die all the time at the hands of both sexes. Men get abused and attacked by both sexes. Men get raped, molested and exploited as well not just women. Men of all shapes and sizes. From the most chiseled abs to the skinniest bro all of them can become victims at the hands of a vile piece of trash low life.

There is an empathy gap here between men and women. Women like those seeming to pop up in this hashtag are actively helping to widen the gap between this empathy. Men whom are victims should not be met with women saying they matter more because they are women. There needs to be just as much acknowledgement of men being human and worthy of empathy as any woman that has been abused. In addition, men should not be seen as having their balls removed due to being a victim at some point. Men do not become more feminine due to being victims at some point. Male victims remain all man.

An old article from 2011 on A Voice For Men provides an excellent definition of manhood/masculinity.

Normally I do not actually go onto A Voice For Men, but, I was on another site which linked to it. So, I began looking through the articles by a fellow whom got into a huge argument with the Alt-Right homo darling Jack Donovan. He was arguing that the colors on the Male Studies home page back in 2011 was not Queer against Jack whom called the program a home for "sissy faggots." It was an old article, but, I was interested to see what else B. R. Merrick had written for the site.

Low and behold I came across a ton of articles over the years on various different topics of note. One of them was just simply entitled, "What is Masculinity?" I found myself intrigued as his interaction with Jack showed whatever his definition would be it would not be what the Barbarism movement of Donovan wanted to release on the world. Much to my surprise I found a very well written article all about essentials and concept formation more or less.

This much broader and yet still fundamental definition was as follows;

The existence of manhood; and the perception, recognition, and application of reality through it. 

This frees up men to both have a broad brush, but, also still have fundamental differences to women in many ways. It essentializes; thus separating masculine from feminine. Yet, it does not render a man against any particular desire, interest or trait that might be within the man.

He continues on in his article after asking a trick question of whether the more emotionally contemplating music or the aggressive music above is by a man. The trick being that both are by a man writing his music about different topics and in different moods. He follows from this to explain what he means in more detail VS what he does not mean.

 ....both musical examples above fit nicely within this definition, as both were written by one who existed in manhood, and who perceived, recognized, and applied the principles of the universe in which he lived to create his music.  His contribution is different from a football player’s, from Jack Donovan’s, from mine, and from every other man who ever walked upon this earth, or whoever will, but it is still masculine.

Least you think his brush is still not broad enough he goes onto describe his Men's Group Therapy sessions which included many Gay and Bisexual men. In which he says the following;

Over the next several months, or perhaps it was longer than a year, this group of men became my lifeline, my outlet, my anchor, and my friends.  They were the genuine article..... I wasn’t the only masculine entity walking around on that campus that initially dismissed them as less-than-manly.  I’m sure I am not the last to have been proven wrong.  The masculine qualities these guys expressed were different than most.  But there was no mistaking that each of them had a penis and testicles, and that the unavoidable, external acknowledgement of the possession of those members, along with the internal surging of testosterone, had its influence on their behavior and their manly bodies. None of these guys wore a dress. None of these guys wanted a sex change. None of them was under the impression that he wasn’t really a man. 

Masculinity, whether we choose to define it or not, will continue.  It’s natural law.  What is required at this point in time is not to abandon the word, any more than I think we ought to abandon the word “honor.” What will benefit us the most is understanding, whenever we encounter it, those aspects of manhood that have been left behind, ignored, derided, or simply misunderstood. 

I think this is one of the best descriptions of a definable, but, yet less perfectionist driven version of masculinity. It lets us men be men, but, also does not deny men access to full humanity in the name of being masculine as opposed to feminine. It also lets into the masculine club if you will lots of men that get labelled by society as womanly or effeminate even if they do not match the actual Biological or Psychological definition of that term in anyway at all.

It is both defining and freeing all at the same time. By defining masculinity as a definite objective thing. Yet, does it in a way in which one is also acknowledging not everyone that tosses around that term knows what it in fact means. The answer to the man or boy that is "different" is not to make him feel like he is less than his sex. Is not to label him "effeminate," but, to understand this might be just aspects of "masculinity" miss-labelled as"feminine," It is instead once more as B. R. Merrick put it so well;

....... those aspects of manhood that have been left behind, ignored, derided, or simply misunderstood. 

Most men are protectors and not predators

The Good and Bad of the Core of Manliness/Masculinity from The Art Of Manliness

One of the newsletters I have been subbed to for a while has been The Art of Manliness. Which is a website all about manhood and being the modern man in this age. One of the things they talked about in one of their many articles was a breakdown of the core of masculinity and manliness. It is an older page now and they tend do things have podcasts nowadays. 

I have a jaded relationship with their masculinity core articles and the sort of factors they mention. In one light it removes the more subjective nature of masculinity for a more objective one. It also puts it into a certain light which even someone that does not necessarily meet all the stereotypes still can be classified under the masculine category. Specifically it does not mention voice, walking or anything like that related to expression in their definition. Instead it uses other metrics for manliness and masculinity. However, the metrics themselves could be considered themselves restrictive despite being broad as well. 

According to The Art of Manliness being masculine and manly goes back not to expression or conforming as a male to anything outside of what they deem the 3 P's of masculinity. The 3 P's listed are protect, procreate and provide. This means that as long as you are falling into these 3 P's they consider that manliness and masculine. In some ways this could be quite broad as different individuals can protect, provide and even aim towards procreation differently. It also totally removes other stereotypes needing to be met. It removes the idea that expression really matters it is all in accepting your role instead. 

Let's start with protection that can be done by someone no matter how they express themselves. Any man can learn to use a weapon if they study. Or learn a Martial Art no matter if they swag or strut down the street. Any man can learn to step in front of the innocent and protect them. You do not need a 6 pack of abs to protect people although if you have them they might help in some ways. Nowhere in the article does it say you can only have one method of protecting. Nor does it say you are protecting just women or children. However, it does say the mans role is to protect in a way which makes it seem like some sort of evolutionary duty. Something which needs to be met to be manly and to truly be taking on the masculine role.    

Next let's move onto providing or provision the second core of masculinity. The jest of this would be exactly as it sounds that it is your role to be a provider to other people. Mainly to your partner and children when in a long term committed relationship. Traditionally that partner would be a woman, but, could be a man as well as long as there is provision. This makes a base assumption that you will have a long term partner and children. If someone ends up being a life long single man this role could extend to ones highly valued friends possibly as an alternative. However, it makes the assumption you are even making enough to do so. It also makes an assumption there is anyone of high enough value to you to provide anything to them. 

The final P is procreation and this is pretty self-explanatory that one of your roles as a man/the masculine is to spread your seed into a female for the purpose of reproduction. Although if you are into other men it could be interpreted as the drive to man dive. That procreation and the drive for it are integral to being a manly or masculine man. This includes though not only the desire to reproduce, but, other corollary ideas like men should be the initiators and pursuers. As well as that your pursuing of wealth and status is necessarily tied to trying to reproduce with women or whatever partner you have. Where does this leave men that pursue wealth simply to be a flourishing human being? Not for the sake of what it will give them, but, for being a content person in this one life we have. Where does this leave shy men or nervous men? Are they not men? 

I take issue with the fact that there seems to be this idea that just because men have done these things in the past men need to do them in the modern day to be a "real man." While it is in a sense less restricting in using roles like this over talking about other forms of behavior. It seems to base a man's worth as a man on whether they decide to protect, provide or procreate toward others. Which means that it seems anyone that does not fall into one of these categories in their relationship with others is not masculine or is less than a man. Or as it says is not good at being a man. It seems to pull a phrase out of the manosphere to be basing men's worth on a Gynocentric view of men. The idea that our worth as men comes from being free bodyguards, walking wallets and living sperm banks.

I am not going to argue this has not been the role of the masculine sex since time immemorial. I will not deny that these roles are part of the male evolutionary history and psychology. Hell, I am not even going to deny that one major fuck ton of men in modern day society will naturally feel drawn to these roles. However, there seems to be a sense wherein people that fall outside of this are deemed not to be good at being their gender/sex because they do not fall into the roles. Men are individuals and not all of them fall into archetypes that would encompass such roles in life. These men are just as much men as the next man. I do not think masculinity comes from living a life in service to others. To me that comes across as very much asking men to live a life counter to what their happiness would be. 

Androgynous and Feminine men are also on the Anti-males shit list.

Due to my writing about manhood on this blog some might think that maybe I have issues with gender-non-conforming men. The truth is I have no issues with gender-non-conformity at all and one does not need to be ruggedly masculine to be all man. There are non-conforming men out there that are just as great as the most masculine men. However, this does not mean that non-masculine or mixed men are off the shit list for those whom have issues with men.

Even if you are an Androgynous male you are still a male and you are still considered to have so-called Male Privilege. You will still be considered to be the enemy of the most screeching feminists and of the patriarchy theories behind all feminist philosophy. It is men as the enemy and the biological male as the oppressor not just masculinity. It is a collectivist war of women against men no matter how you express yourself. Anyone that questions the orthodoxy will be considered the heretic.

All heretics will get burnt at the steaks of social condemnation despite being more atypical in some regards. I say in some regards as Androgynous men are still men and still have at least a good deal of male traits. Even men that express in the most feminine way have a males brain and will have some very male typical things about them. It is the being biologically male and a man that feminists do not like. It is not just their calling card of "toxic masculinity." It is all males and any amount of mix of the masculine/feminine, even the more Androgynous mixes.

For most ideologically true feminists you would need to literally make yourself effete by castrating yourself to please them. They are not fans of any men from masculine straight to the most "flaming" gay it is all men. In fact, feminists of pure ideology have long sense believed that gayness was a form of Misogyny and outright women hatred. Which is completely insane and shows that no man is safe from the ideologically pure feminists scorned wrath. It is men against women; males against females and not masculine vs feminine that the ideology want to perpetuate. 

It is also a Straight and Heterosexual vs everyone else narrative that is pushed as well. It is not called heteronormative-if-masculine that is hated and called the enemy. It is heteronormativity altogether and essentially heterosexual attraction patterns of any sort; even if part of an actual bisexual possibility. Opposite sex pairings are considered oppressive and women supposedly do not really desire to be with men. The very idea of heterosexual attraction to the radical feminists is a social construction based in male domination and female submission. Showing a hell of a lot of projection on their part.

This is why even a bisexual attraction pattern is considered to be an enemy of the "Queer" community. A community that is filled to the brim with radical feminist Social Justice Warriors. Even a hit of a straight possibility is considered to be a traitor to the collective. It is sleeping with the enemy and not liked very much. When I say that men need to be proud of themselves as good men I do not mean just Butch or gender typical men, but, all men. When I say that males need to not feel shame I mean all good males not just a particular type of male.

Whether you are a Butch, hypermasculine, average masculine, nerd masculine, or Androgynous. Whether you are gender typical or gender atypical. All men need to be able to be able to feel pride in themselves. No men should feel they are bad because they have a cock and balls. Bad men are those individual men and not all other men as well. Being a man is not an original sin of determined evil or badness. Being a man is being a man. We should strive to be the best person we can be. Our expressions of doing so can and will be different between men. This is not a bad thing at all. It is what makes us, well us.

The Quest to Revive Macho and Machismo as a Positive Masculine Archetype -- Is it even worth it?

Every time I venture into the amazing world of The Flexuality Test I end up with the same result. The first time I took the test I identified as Bi, but, I knew what my sexual imagination always had as a mate was a woman. In my dreams at night and in my fantasies in the days. Thus it would not shock me at the time to have it come back as say heteroflexible or a lower Kinsey Bi.

However, what it gave me as a result after answers that went to my very core of sexual imagination was something different. "You identified as bisexual, but, according to your Flexuality test you are Macho Straight." Huh? OK, I am straight, sure I became a typical red blooded heterosexual/straight male as I grew older fine with me. That was not a major surprise to me as I knew I had 0 fantasies or attractions to any men in quite sometime.

What really caused me to almost faint away onto my bed I was sitting on was the macho part of the answer. What on Earth did I say that this test used such a term for me? So, I decided to look at their definition of Macho Straight. To summarize my findings I pretty much am their Macho Straight to a tea (at least in the bedroom). Without going into all the sexually explicit details it means that I am a top, or as they put it "I am the man." Which to break it down essentially I pitch I do not catch even when I have been with other men. This is absolutely correct I have never enjoyed sex any other way.

I still did not think the word macho was a good terminology despite it matching the summary of being such in their own definitions. Macho means a lot more than being a certain way during sexual encounters. By tagging me with a definition of not just Straight, but, Macho Straight it made me sound like something much different than what their definition pointed to. It was a very misleading thing to use as a description of myself. When I heard the term Macho Straight I automatically went to some Gym Rat with a 6 pack and whom was a douche with all muscles no brains. 

Yet, it turns out there is somewhat of a quest to revive Macho not to mean douches or Gym Rats. Instead they want Macho and Machismo to be simply men loving being men, but, not being douches. It is a quest claiming to want to make Macho a good term one to embrace as a man not rejected. It has been put forward by such groups as the ManKind Project and The Good Man Project. It has also been talked about in various papers and articles online. Yet, what is the new Macho? Is it a new definition? A reclaim of the original definition? Or somewhere in between? Or is it Macho at all?

Some of the things I found when I have been researching talk about the new macho are very much not gendered at all.

He cleans up after himself. 
He knows what he feels.

These things are not exclusively masculine or male traits and I am not sure why they are even being included in a new definition of an archtype of masculinity. After all that is what you are doing if you are attempting to reclaim the term you are attempting to resurrect a form of masculine archetype. Trying to carve out a place for specific men whom get with that particular sense of their manhood. A certain type of masculinity with certain qualities is a masculine archetype. Why would these not just be seen as human values or human adult traits? Why wrap them in a banner called a new Macho?

At other times I have found things which are both human and also part of traditional standard masculine archetypes that we already have. Such as the following;

He is a role model for young men.
He is rigorously honest and fiercely optimistic.
He holds himself accountable.
He knows how to rage without hurting others.
He knows how to fear and how to keep moving.
He seeks self-mastery.
He’s let go of childish shame.
He feels guilty when he’s done something wrong.
He is kind to men, kind to women, kind to children.
He teaches others how to be kind.
He says he’s sorry.

Nothing in the above list is at all traditionally not found within one of the many very much masculine archetypes men can already fall into within masculinity as it exists in history or in the modern day. What is New Macho? Is it simply traditional, ordinary being one of many kinds of men, but, not being a douche? If so, then this is not a New Macho it is plain old masculinity and manliness without being a dick in the process. Cause surprise masculinity is not the same as doucheness. Douches are douches and would be even if they were born a woman not a man. It is the persons personality trait.

Meanwhile the term new Macho is also being used by very much masculinity haters that want men to become more like women and somehow that is the new Macho to them. There is no one consensus terminology on what this New Macho is. Is it men being more like women? Is it traditional masculine archetypes repackaged in a nice bow? Or is it just embracing general human traits and niceties? Or is it being "a hunter in the sheets and a gentleman in the streets?" I really cannot find a true answer anywhere I look.

Does Macho even need redefining? I mean according to the dictionary I found it to mean male pride. Which alone is not a bad thing depending on how that manifests in your behaviors. When I looked up Machismo which is linked off of Macho it talked again about being about male pride. Again this is not a bad thing at all if one is talking about a good man. A good man should be proud as fuck to be the man he is and that includes loving being a man. I see no problem with being Macho if that is all you mean by it. Not being a douche or an asshat.

I think it all comes back to the misunderstandings around the difference between masculinity, embracing your manhood and being a dickhead. I am a 31 yr old masculine straight male and I am not a douche. I am much more masculine now than I have ever been at any other time in my life. Perhaps that is other than when I used too be in my old friends Folk Band back in the day when I was dating his Ex (a woman). I was a pretty typical man then, but, I was a nerd man. I was a certain archetype of masculinity out of the many that exist. I was the type of young man you can find in a Comic Book Shop or Gaming store. I was not the cream of the crop, but, I was sure as hell not girly.

That is more or less how I am now, but, a little more socially aware and less awkward with women. Yet, I also fit into the warrior archetype too. I am not the peace-nick I was when I was younger and naive. If someone were to go after someone I care for I would be their worst nightmare. I refuse to initiate force under any means, but, I will damn well retaliate with coercion and immense brute force if it is required to defend the innocent.

That includes defending whomever I might be watching over at the time. That includes as well any future partner of mine. I refuse to be some random collectivized "women" I do not knows protector like I am am unpaid bodyguard. However, an actual woman I am with is protected by me and if anyone thinks I will not embody that "gender role" with the right person at the right time will be in for a rude wake up call if they awaken that beast within.

I also likewise have no problem at all providing for others when they deserve the benevolence of my providing for them and if they are in need of it. Again not just some random person, but, the people in my life I value. Which includes as a high value any woman I end up with. Again you do not get my money just for having a vagina, but, if I am with you and you need it I will provide it.

These things are all masculinity and fall into embracing your manhood without being a douche. Masculinity has nothing to do with being a dickhead the two things are not the same and never have been. So, if all being a Macho Straight means is being "the man in bed," and embracing certain archetypes of masculinity without being a douche then I guess I am after all. However, is the word really needing to be saved? Is it even worth mentioning the term at all?

I think it comes down to POV actually. If to you Macho means more than male pride (which can be there and tampered by reason) I think it does not help anything to use it. However, if you want to point out "hey I am a man and not ashamed" without any extra meaning to it go ahead and define it properly in your context for other people. However, I think really all you need to say is that you are masculine and that is enough. After all Macho is just being masculine and unashamed if all it means is male pride. Or it could mean just being a man and being unashamed as well for more Androgynous men out there. After all it does define as male pride and such a person would also be all male.

In the end of the day it is stopping ourselves as men from feeling self-hatred for not being able to be perfect and the ideal for everyone in the world that we need to work on. We need to work on realizing we have worth as men irregardless of our circumstances in life. No matter what archetype of manhood we embody or even if we do not actually end up falling into one at all. We are of value, we are worthy and we are enough just as we are we do not need to be the GQ model or the Billionaire Alpha to be worthy of a good life as men. A good life as people.