Why are Western Men so effeminate nowadays?

So which part of stating first that men wish to sleep with many women and women wish to jump from relationship to relationship is contradictory with stating that marriage is designed to circumvent human behaviour.

Please, take your time answering this one for me.

So you really think most people in the US prior to the late 19th century did not get married? If so you are wrong.

 

How disappointing. It seems from your posts this is going to turn out Usa vs europe and not a historical view to both continents over their rich history.

This 'competition' as you put it is meaningless if use at as flag waving and not a historical review at the effects of birth rates. Also ignoring centuries/millnia of european history to try and prove your point is not logical and is a waste of time.

 

Plenty of women enjoy meaningless no-strings-attached sex occasionally too, and many men do find meaningful relationships important. The problem I have with your statement was your equation of meaningful relationships with sex as a biological imperative for women, yet contending that men do not care about relationships is self-evident. This is socially expected, but does not seem to be particularly biologically evident.

I think it's more correct to say that most people in the US prior to the late 19th century did not try to marry the people they loved, or even necessarily had most of their sex with. Prior to the 19th century, people usually got married for economic reasons, and people without any real economic standing often didn't bother. Though obviously the substantial distance between people in rural and frontier areas would have an impact on this particular social tendency. The US, in this respect, was somewhat more hidebound than Europe, simply because of the lack of available partners for many Americans.

 

...because we're discussing the relative population growth between the United States and Europe. You can hardly have a discussion about this without framing it as "USA vs. Europe". Because you're comparing and contrasting the two.

You have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? I can't see how you can take my statement "the United States has a higher birth rate--indicating more poverty and lower educational attainament" as flag-waving.

There is no point in continuing this discussion if you will not actually read my posts.

 

???

There will be people that will like to have many relationships, and others that will prefer monogamious relations. It is decission of each one. And marriage is just a form of control of the man of the woman. Marriage is something obsolete.

 

I think the real question should be, are intimations like this thread still effective? Can you still manipulate a man (or more likely a boy) into doing what you tell him by implying that if he doesn't, he's at least effeminate, possibly homosexual?

 

Sure it is, I believe the term when applied to primates is 'serial-monogamy'.

People primarily got married for biblical reasons of child rearing. You can call that 'economic reasons' if you wish.

 

To paraphrase Dr. Sowell, only in academia can truly stupid ideas exist.

 

It sounds like Dr. Sowell isn't much of a doctor.

 

I always thought it was because the traditional role models of the mother being the nurturer and the father being the provider have been trampled on.

I respect the rights of women and that means I also respect her right to be a stay-at-home mom. For some of the more extreme feminists, this is a degrading lifestyle and they do everything they can to make it so. A child needs both nurturing and someone to provide for them. When women are told they must provide for their children or else they're being discriminated against it leaves a gap on the nurturing front which the male must then fill.

 

Apparently you never took any credit hours in the soft sciences like economics, sociology, anthropology, or psychology.

 

Exactly, social expectations are at play here, not biology. I mean, if we framed that as two guys and a girl at a bar getting drunk, the humor would have been lost entirely. Because the expectations would have been different.

 

So... How do people think masculine men are supposed to act today?

Shouldn't we be using logic to determine how people act rather then some concept of "manliness"?

 

I'm trying to figure out why pot brownies aren't considered manly.

 

This man is obviously the manliest of them all.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU6AVtQethw"]Cop Eats Pot Brownies, Calls 911 - YouTube[/ame]

 

Could it be that more males are being raised by mothers and not by their bsent fathers?

 

And the right of the man to stay-at-home dad? Do you respect that?

 

big part of it. Generally you can tell if a man has been raised by primarily women with no strong consistent male in the family.

 

It is rather surprising that Western men have become so compliant towards their mates. Most of whom seek money, security and endless "fulfilment".

Men should regard women only as sex objects with a massive appetite for "self-fulfilment" at a male's expense.

When men recognise this, they will learn to promise everything to get into a woman's panties as long as they have taken precautions to ensure it costs them no more than bodily fluids excluding blood.

 

LOLOL.. sounds like you have a problem.............

 

OK...

 

you think short hair, big bears, flannel shirts, jeans and boots are feminine?

 

This thread does make me kind of want to go watch Gran Torino. AWESOME MOVIE!!! If you never listen to me in terms of politics, fine -- but listen to me in terms of that movie. Watch it. Learn it. Live it.

There is this odd social phenomenon in America, ever since World War II basically, where every generation of men has seemed kind of gay to the generation right beforehand. But I think it's more because of the bad guys. 'Cause you've got THE GREATEST GENERATION, as Tom Brokaw put it (good book by the way), and they're like, "We fought the Nazis! We stormed the beaches at Normandy and we saved the world from an Orwellian nightmare of biblical proportion!" And then the next generation is like, "Well, we fought communist Chinese! Vast hordes of them!" And then the next generation is like, "Well, we fought an assortment of Asians, mostly in the southeast ... but it wasn't much fun and it was pretty miserable in the jungle and it went on way too long and nobody was quite sure what the point was." And then the next generation is all, "Well, we ... engaged in some covert things that we really shouldn't have for a while ... but I think we were actually fighting against democracy in a lot of places? How did that happen? I'm not even sure who were fighting. Just ... people, I think." And the current generation is now sort of, "Well ... we think there might be some bad guys ... sort of ... over there, somewhere ... probably in the middle of that crowd ... why are we bothering with this, again?"

Personally, I've always been a little perplexed by the idea that masculinity is defined primarily by the enthusiasm with which one embraces violence -- not their actual effectiveness at violence, mind you, but simply how eager they are to engage in it.

Some people that think that being manly is a matter of getting your way all the time, forcing your will on others, bringing not just order but your order to the world whether the world wants it or not. I disagree.

 

What kind of bars do you frequent? Social expectations are based on biological differences. Men and women have different libidos. The genders are biologically different both physically and psychologically.

You are saying such absurd things that a counter argument merely consists of stating the blatantly obvious like "The genders are biologically different both physically and psychologically."

Anyway, I'm just dying to know where you got the idea that marriage was not for the masses. Please, if you have a source I'd love to spend some time mocking it more thoroughly.

 

I am a western man and I now have hair growing out of my ears, call me honey