• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

what does make someone a man ?

Yes I did, youre right im wrong. I made a joke and and along with the 4 agreements Ive learnt to create my own rules. thx. :)

and I have definitely read the 4 agreements.

maybe you should to. because youre assuming too much buddy....

all im doing is asking questions.
 
Flowingbeyond, I think you're spot on. Your response reminds me a lot of the "What makes a man" monologue in "The Big Lebowski":

The BIG Lebowski: What makes a man, Mr. Lebowski?
The Dude: [It's] Dude. I...I don't know sir.
The BIG Lebowski: Is it being prepared to do the right thing, whatever the cost...isn't that what makes a man?
The Dude: Uuuuuhhh, yeah, that and a pair of testicles.
Click to expand...

What I heard The Dude say was essentially, "Buddy, if you're even willing to say what you're saying without any irony, that in and of itself shows that you're not secure in your manhood." What I got out of this exchange was this: in the male world, real men do not discuss what it means to be a real man. They just are one. The deeper a guy tries to analyze this question and put the answer into perfect words, the farther he will get from being accepted by other men as a real man. Why? Because men are not talkers, they're doers. They don't play with words, they just act on instincts and get results (getting laid, getting paid, etc.), and those results speak for themselves. They play rough with other men (as in The Dude's snide response to The Big Lebowski at the end), and respect a guy who doesn't take himself and his words too seriously and wrestles right back, rather than getting all hurt about it. Note that the phrase "get your panties in a wad" inherently implies a loss of masculinity when one takes onesself and one's viewpoints too seriously. In the end, this whole thing called life all just about getting pussy for us guys, right? So why the hell get worked up about anything else?

That said, I don't subscribe to the above viewpoint at all, and am not into the whole macho thing, in my own behavior or others. (Otherwise I probably wouldn't have had any interest in the first place in articulating what I just did!) But as Lao-tzu said, know thyself know thine enemy. I've found I've needed to thoroughly understand the way the mind of the manly man works in order to navigate a lot of situations.
 
Flowingbeyond said:
Yes I did, youre right im wrong. I made a joke and and along with the 4 agreements Ive learnt to create my own rules. thx. :)

and I have definitely read the 4 agreements.

maybe you should to. because youre assuming too much buddy....

all im doing is asking questions.
Click to expand...
calm down. all i really did was ask you exactly the same question you asked me and you're flipping out a little. take a breath. i just did that to try to show you what you did. whether you choose to see it or not is up to you.

alasdair
 
^ agreed, it is at least semi-sexist to even say "what makes a man"

why can't women have these traits as well? They are very respectable traits to have. Other than the testicles part ;).
 
A man is someone who won't fuck you because he can but because he loves you.

A woman won't put up with a fucker.

And, this is a big conflict with me: I never considered myself a man or a woman and never fucked a man or a woman but had men fuck me, which wasn't fun or pleasent. And now (actually all my life) I have/had fantasies about being a whore. Maybe it's just something I have to (obcession) experience or low self-esteem?

EDIT: maybe my obcession with prostitution has to do with one of my goals and the goal of the person who's last name I adopted: to show others Love? Maybe I should make a sex video. The last lesbian relationship I had was the best sex I ever had: lots of passion, I took the lead and have taken the lead with guys before, which was kind of fun.

EDIT #2: I'm gonna make a separate thread of my post in SLR
 
Last edited:
alasdairm said:
for me it would include (but not be limited to) qualities such as: trust and belief in oneself; honesty; integrity; industry

alasdair
Click to expand...

Agreed. IMO the definition of a man has nothing to do with sexual relationships. It's about carrying yourself in a manner consistent with your values.
 
The answer to this question is purely subjective.

What do You think it takes to make yourself a man?



I've got my theories, but they apply only to me...
 
Jamshyd said:

My answer is that there is no such thing as a man.

If the question was, what makes people fool themselves into believing in men; my answer would be the penis phobia, and all other social constructions (such as the sexualisation of women) that tend to disttract from that fear.
Click to expand...

Jamshyd, it seems to me like you subscribe to the feminism of Simone de Beauvoir. I'm more attracted to the models inspired by figures like Michel Foucault and Luce Irigaray, where we acknowledge that there are 2 sexes. This eliminates the problem where woman is otherised. To say that gender is a total illusion produces a loss of identity. Irigaray wrote, "One sex and its lack... still does not add up to two."

I think gender, cultural perceptions of masculinity and femininity, are valid, so long as there is communication and that the feminine is not closed to the masculine and vice versa. It is alright for a man to adopt what would traditionally be considered as a feminine behaviour and vice versa.

So an answer like this:
alasdairm said:
for me it would include (but not be limited to) qualities such as: trust and belief in oneself; honesty; integrity; industry
Click to expand...
is completely valid and 'correct'. At the same time, it's not the only answer. As psilocybe said, "The answer to this question is purely subjective."
 
Kobold said:
Jamshyd, it seems to me like you subscribe to the feminism of Simone de Beauvoir. I'm more attracted to the models inspired by figures like Michel Foucault and Luce Irigaray, where we acknowledge that there are 2 sexes. This eliminates the problem where woman is otherised. To say that gender is a total illusion produces a loss of identity. Irigaray wrote, "One sex and its lack... still does not add up to two."

I think gender, cultural perceptions of masculinity and femininity, are valid, so long as there is communication and that the feminine is not closed to the masculine and vice versa. It is alright for a man to adopt what would traditionally be considered as a feminine behaviour and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the thoughtful reply :)

I'm actually not familiar with Simone de Beuvoir, but now that you mention her, I will definitely investigate.

I do not personally subscribe to any particular philosophy. My main approach is actually a combination of experience (being queer and interacting with others) and comparative culture - especially the latter. It seems like all the cultures I have come across have stories that go along the lines of: A being emerges out of chaos, and creates another being out of itself and calls it a woman, therefore defining itself as a man - and then proceeds to blame the now-created woman for all it's own mistakes. Of course, details varry, but the main theme remains.

Brahma creates a female splinter of himself and blames her.

The Father creates barbelo (or somesuch - depending on who you're reading) and she is blamed for the imperfection of the world.

Eve is created out of Adam's ribs and is blamed for the fall.

...etc. As we know, myths are not created for fun, and the messages they relay are usually metaphors for the heart of the culture they come from.

Even linguistically, the word "woman" is derrived from the word "man."

Now, I do not deny at all (as I have already said) that there are two sexes (male and female) in humans. Humans are animals, after all. However humans tend to have behavioural and cultural expectations out of sexes, ie. gender identities - which are lacking when it comes to animals and especially plants. A lioness is just as fierce as a lion...etc, the only differences between the two sexes in non-human life is biological features and certain instinctual behaviours that go with those. I also do not deny the existance of gender identiy - as I said in a previous post, I think it is very real, and so taken for granted, to the point of being frighteningly questionable.

You mention loss of identity - yes you are correct, and loss of identity is something that I advocate - and it seems like I've gained a small reputation of being the resident looney here for advocating it :p

It is interesting that you mention Foucault. Although I only recently started reading his own works, I had always been very drawn to his ideas from what I've read and heard about him.
 
Simone de Beauvoir is famous for the words, "One is not born, but rather becomes a woman."

I think you might be interested in the Ancient Greek myth about Daphne, who turned into a tree. I read in a book on feminism in literary studies that she represented pre-classical matriarchies, or something to that effect.

I wonder if a loss of identity is really a good thing because of its potential to create confusion. Maybe to seek a freedom from expectations and to seek a freedom from identity is to do something more or less the same.

Have fun with Foucault, one of my teachers thought he couldn't write and considered someone else who was better, I think it was Hobbes.
 
>>Have fun with Foucault, one of my teachers thought he couldn't write and considered someone else who was better, I think it was Hobbes.>>

Hobbes? I would have serious, serious beef with this teacher.

ebola
 
ebola? said:
Hobbes? I would have serious, serious beef with this teacher.
Click to expand...

I don't think I heard right and I'm not sure they even write on the same topics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top