"Wrestling with Manhood" documentary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The first one (about the wrestling) was sad but certainly made sense (I personally wouldn’t watch it if you paid me, so I didn’t realize how much worse it has gotten since my childhood). Children don’t understand that it’s make-believe, and even so, they shouldn’t be watching such trash.

The second one was just plain BS. I am proud to be a feminist, and I don’t see a well-mannered gentleman as an “emascualted wimp.” If I were looking for a man, I would want one that is my equal. Compassionate? An absolute must. Intelligent? Yes, please. Kind to animals, polite to strangers, patient with children…yes, yes, yes.

If those are the qualities of an emascualted wimp, then every human being on Earth should aspire to be one.

Jala
 
The first one is a bit old, but yeah, pro wrestling always bothered me. I think it’s lost a lot of popularity since the time period that that video was made though. Either that or I just moved away from everyone I know that likes it.

The second I thought was satire until it got to the end. Between the sword, the haircut, the blaming feminists and homosexuals for trying to destroy strong men, etc I was sure he was Colbert-ing it. That one was pretty much garbage and I agree with the poster above me.
 
I always enjoyed pro wrestling. I haven’t watched it in years, though. It was like a soap opera for men. hahaha

Men are naturally more agressive and more assertive. They act differently than women. And a woman who claims she wants a nice guy is most likely lying. There is a difference between a good guy and a nice guy, and no woman wants a nice guy. They don’t want an emasculated guy who has no strength. They don’t want some passive weakling.
 
jimmy said:
I always enjoyed pro wrestling. I haven’t watched it in years, though. It was like a soap opera for men. hahaha

Men are naturally more agressive and more assertive. They act differently than women. And a woman who claims she wants a nice guy is most likely lying. There is a difference between a good guy and a nice guy, and no woman wants a nice guy. They don’t want an emasculated guy who has no strength. They don’t want some passive weakling.
Click to expand...
um, no, there is a difference between nice and emasculated. I think many women do want a nice guy; there’s a difference between physical and emotional strength, and most ladies i know prefer the second. i couldn’t care less if a guy is not physically strong, and i think many ladies who are more assertive would prefer a guy who is not to balance it out.
 
Cloaked5 said:
um, no, there is a difference between nice and emasculated. I think many women do want a nice guy; there’s a difference between physical and emotional strength, and most ladies i know prefer the second. i couldn’t care less if a guy is not physically strong, and i think many ladies who are more assertive would prefer a guy who is not to balance it out.
Click to expand...
Who said I reduced it to physical strength? Either way, women want a strong man, not a weak one. Emotional strength is still strength.

Maybe 1 out of 100 women would like a nonassertive man.

You are right that there is a difference between nice and emasculated, but there is a tendency for them to be together in the same person.
 
Western society today hates masculinity. It’s sad that it’s spreading to here in the Far East.
 
Cloaked5 said:
um, no, there is a difference between nice and emasculated. I think many women do want a nice guy; there’s a difference between physical and emotional strength, and most ladies i know prefer the second. i couldn’t care less if a guy is not physically strong, and i think many ladies who are more assertive would prefer a guy who is not to balance it out.
Click to expand...
Crescentinus said:
Western society today hates masculinity. It’s sad that it’s spreading to here in the Far East.
Click to expand...
In reality, strength is a loose term. I wouldn’t try and make a tighter definition. Tis futile.
 
Jala said:
The first one (about the wrestling) was sad but certainly made sense (I personally wouldn’t watch it if you paid me, so I didn’t realize how much worse it has gotten since my childhood). Children don’t understand that it’s make-believe, and even so, they shouldn’t be watching such trash.
Click to expand...
Actually, Jala, all new WWE programming on television has been rated no “harder” than TV-PG since 2008.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
The better question is how much value is in the meaning we use.
Click to expand...
If it has a specific meaning that corresponds to reality, then it has value. If the meaning is so loose that it could mean anything, or apply to anything then we might as well abandon the word. Or if we determine that it doesn’t correspond to reality then we might as well abandon it. Those are two possible situations in which it could have no value. Are you claiming that one of those is true of the word strength?
 
jimmy said:
If it has a specific meaning that corresponds to reality, then it has value.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The subject that is within the reality is held up at a certain value, which is my point.

Again, plenty of things can be defined as strength. With that, the question shifts to the individual value of such things.

I for one do not see much value in raw, muscle strength (hence my dislike for people who think the macho-man image is the epitome of manliness). On the other hand, there is no doubt that others will disagree with what I see as strong.

Ultimately, it goes to show why the Church is wise in not setting down some absolutist definition of what is strong or manly.
 
I think the first video was feminist BS. the second one has a point, has anyone here heard the term “metrosexual”? It’s gotten so bad that a person wrote a book about 1000 cool things for boy’s to do. I do think the feminists are trying to blur sexual distinctions.
 
october_baby said:
I think the first video was feminist BS. the second one has a point, has anyone here heard the term “metrosexual”? It’s gotten so bad that a person wrote a book about 1000 cool things for boy’s to do. I do think the feminists are trying to blur sexual distinctions.
Click to expand...
From my understanding, a metrosexual is modern straight person with taste.

I can’t say I see anything wrong with that term. 🤷
 
A couple of questions.
Why is masculinity so demonized these days? What’s with a lot of women these days going after either effeminate boys or the totally obnoxious boys?
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Not necessarily. The subject that is within the reality is held up at a certain value, which is my point.

Again, plenty of things can be defined as strength. With that, the question shifts to the individual value of such things.

I for one do not see much value in raw, muscle strength (hence my dislike for people who think the macho-man image is the epitome of manliness). On the other hand, there is no doubt that others will disagree with what I see as strong.

Ultimately, it goes to show why the Church is wise in not setting down some absolutist definition of what is strong or manly.
Click to expand...
Strength isnt limited to one aspect of the person. There is physical, mental, and emotional strength; and they are all connected though. Someone who neglects their body and pays no attention to his physical situation will be an emotional wreck.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
From my understanding, a metrosexual is modern straight person with taste.

I can’t say I see anything wrong with that term. 🤷
Click to expand...
That is a bit of a simplistic definition. James Bond has style, Don Draper has style; neither would be considered metrosexual. Metrosexuals wear women’s jeans and get manicures. Thier girlfriends are more likely to change the flat tire because they can’t dirty their manicured hands. She is more likely to open doors for him.
 
jimmy said:
Strength isnt limited to one aspect of the person. There is physical, mental, and emotional strength; and they are all connected though. Someone who neglects their body and pays no attention to his physical situation will be an emotional wreck.
Click to expand...
False. A person who is fat is not necessarily that insecure about it and hence, not emotionally unstable. On the flip side, there are also buff guys who are all about getting toned but it drives them crazy because of the pressure.

See what I mean? Trying to put a definitive, all encompassing archetype on strength is meaningless.
jimmy said:
Metrosexuals wear women’s jeans and get manicures. Thier girlfriends are more likely to change the flat tire because they can’t dirty their manicured hands. She is more likely to open doors for him.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but if you were to use the definition around my brother’s peers, you’d be surrounded by people who would not hesitate to dirty their hands giving you a beating!

With all due respect, anyone who compares your definition to mine can see you’ve got quite the biased perspective here.
 
Crescentinus said:
A couple of questions.
Why is masculinity so demonized these days? What’s with a lot of women these days going after either effeminate boys or the totally obnoxious boys?
Click to expand...
For the sake of the discussion, you should at least describe what you define as masculinity.

Although, I can wager a lot of ‘effeminate’ males can fit that definition despite their looks. Looks aren’t everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top