Is this the dark age in masculinity?

No he is right. It's a matter of trust. Totally counter intuitive for today's hit and run crowd, so I can understand your confusion.

 

You make faulty assumptions of me, and of logic, but I totally understand that such misguided and thoughtless responses are nothing outside the norm, for some.

The member, whom my question addressed, @Roelath , has however already responded, with an unexpectedly long list of seemingly reputable research, giving a possible factual foundation to his views. I will need to review this material before I can respond, but I only point your attention to the difference between his answer, which is at least seemingly credible, versus the kind of reply, to which am currently responding-- in case there is an ability, and a willingness, on your part, for self-improvement.

 

I was speaking from personal experience. It's a matter of trust. But I can understand how trust is totally foreign to the hit and run crowd.

 

Huh I am unfamiliar with the trend but personally I think about how cool it would be to see gladiator games, and the increased sexual freedom (for men at least), and how they dominated so many civs. They are kind of the template for lots of bad guy empires but also the template for democracy. Seems interesting for thinking about.

 

Gladiators?

Oh.

You mean football and gay bars. You just need to find one of them gay sports bars.

 

... and it only applies to women.

Double standard.

 

Explain why, please.

 

I actually find watching sports boring and don’t like bars of any kind. Watching people fight until blood flies everywhere sounds far more interesting. Their armor tended to be lacking in the back. That way, they could bleed a lot but not take a mortal wound. Most fights were not to the death.

 

Not necessarily, no.Not if the person would make the same assumption about a man given the same information.

 

It doesn't only apply to women but it does apply to women more than men. That's what the research shows, and if you think about it, it does make sense genetically. Women invest more in relationships biologically (child birth is a huge toll on them), are weaker and more vulnerable physically, have a more time sensitive biological clock for reproduction, etc.

Trust in sex plays a bigger role for most women than it does for most men, and emotional attachment is also more important to women than to men generally.

Men are more likely to feel no psychological loss, conscious or not, in never seeing a random casual sex partner again. Women are more likely to need a relationship based on trust for sex to be the most pleasurable. If the hookup culture pressures or conditions women into it, they are more likely to experience attachment issues and trust issues than men are.

That's not a misogynist attack on women. It isn't even a bad thing. It is just nature.

 

Projection NOTED!

Don't own a gun and not in the least bit afraid of anyone trying to break in with a gun either.

Can YOU say the same?

 

So YOU have SOLD all of your guns, right?

 

No not projection, reflection. That's your reflection.

My door is always open, so anybody that tries to break in has got real problems.

 

ROFL!

Definitely PROJECTION proven by your FAILURE to deny that you OWN guns to PROTECT yourself.

Hilarious!

 

Is your capslock on your keyboard glitching?

 

What exactly did you believe was going to happen when women began to gain power? This phase of feminism has released all the pent up emotions emanating from the narrative that "women have been oppressed by the [phantom] patriarchy for thousands of years," when the reality was that life was EXTREMELY difficult for nearly EVERYBODY until perhaps a century ago.

The attack on men by this cadre of miserable women has left young men in bad shape, but this will only be a temporary phenomena as women [in men's roles] will fail in all kinds of ways [as they are already doing].

 

Imagine somebody assuming you were male based on your genitals.

A world gone mad, I tell you!!

 

Then you have no idea what toxic masculinity actually means. Hint: maybe look up the origin of the term. You'll be in for a surprise.

 

Lol, my wife asked me a couple of days ago how often I think of the Roman Empire. I had no idea the context at the time. The answer is a couple of times a week, but I think of Greece far more often.

 

No one is responsible for Tate's actions but Tate. Blaming women is dumber than a sack of hammers. And this has nothing to do with the fake claim of "Social Marxism." That's another term you guys should look up the origin for.

 

Imagine a world where YOU were born with a FEMALE body?

Are you able to imagine that scenario?

How would YOU feel?

 

Julius Caesar is my favorite Shakespeare play, and I've read his Gallic War a couple of times. Marcus Aurelius is one of my favorite philosophers. So I guess my obsession is more literary than anything. I don't really look to any of these guys as an ideal "alpha male." The only emperor I really see as a decent role model is the aforementioned Aurelius.

 

Better if you give me a definition of your term Yardmeat. I will accept your definition for the purpose of explaining my previous statement.

Nothing surprises me these days.

 

What do they call a smiling Roman with a curly hair in his teeth?

Glad-he-ate-her !

 

I am not sure, but in the end, I would deal with the best way I knew.