Rolling Maleness and Masculinity Discussion Thread

ah

mea culpa

Sex and mating is the ultimate game of survival of the fittest fellas. If u ain’t gettin any guess what

I die of sex-lack? No, that can't be right. I'm a married man and have tested that hypothesis. I'm still alive.

I have news for you. My genetic direct line is going to die out. This is a mortal lock. My only daughter will never have sex or procreate. You know what? That's so far from a practical worry that it rates about 37,665th on my list. It is a pure and absolute irrelevancy to any part of my life or thought. As it should be.

you got a wife and had a child already, you don't count anymore

why, pray tell?

incels don't usu involve married people who don't have sex, those people have their own subreddit and it's called deadbedrooms

How does having a subreddit or not have any bearing on the "survival of the fittest"?

A little compassion in all directions goes a long way.

I don't have anything to add but tombots yelling at everyone and I feel left out

f# a# i can't tell if your invocation of social darwinism was meant to be serious

if it was somebody yell at him and explain to him why social darwinism is bullshit, i'm not up to mansplaining right now

it goes hand in hand-waving with the evolutionary psychology people who never quite seem to make an actual point

Incelsplaining

Its a reference to an old UK tv show character who'd shout "I'll skweam and skweam and skweam til I'm sick".

ftr television did not start in the UK until 1936, the first book came out in 1921*, and by the time of the 1970s LWT TV adaptation with Bonnie Langford as Violet Elizabeth Bott, there had also been a radio sitcom in 1946-47, a theatre version of that which toured & was filmed for television, a radio play in the 1950s, a 1956 ITV series, two BBC series in 1962 (starring Dennis Waterman!) and 1963.

(I have seen none of these, nor the 1994-95 series, nor the 2010 one by Simon Nye. The books are very good, though, and *continued to come out until 1970, plus another posthumous compilation of 1920s and '30s material in 1990 - effectively 39 books in 49 years. take that, G.R.R. Martin, ladies to the front.) <--- on-topic

Richmal Crompton's understanding of the psychology of 10-year-old boys has IMO still not been surpassed. The only real question is; Martin Jarvis or Kenneth Williams?

holy shit I just looked it up and she also wrote another 4 childrens books and FIFTY-ONE for adults during this time.

And they are in no way formulaic like Enid Blyton or Barbara Cartland or even Agatha Christie (barring a certain amount of reused stock characters, well-meaning educationalists and various varieties of maiden aunt) - I would put her up there with Wodehouse.

this is delightful stuff imo

for anyone else attempting to follow along, I'm assuming after a little reading that sic's explaining the history of Just William adaptations without actually naming the series, and I am reasonably confident I've encountered none of the books, continuations, or adaptations in my life

thanks for the deep background lads

I was following the formula Trayce set

but don't you feel better for having done some productive work today

I do!

when are we gonna crack open a cold one and talk about football? y'all are making me uncomfortable af

btw the dude up above who suggested the possibility of sex being redistributed like wealth is an economist at george mason university, which, shockingly: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/385560-major-university-allowed-conservative-donors-say-in-hiring-and

good mourning!

lol

aside from being the beneficiary of systemic preferential treatment i can't think of a single thing i find appealing about "masculinity" right now

"appealing" isn't the right word, i'm honestly kind of repulsed by it but it sure does come in handy to be held to a lower standard sometimes

aside from being the beneficiary of systemic preferential treatment i can't think of a single thing i find appealing about "masculinity" right now

To paraphrase Eeyore, I am quite attached to my penis, and it to me.

happy anniversary!

The Talmud my students are studying addressed this topic of incels and experts demanding redistribution of sex, around 1500 years ago pic.twitter.com/qVGjoVGnLd

— Dov | OOOOooo (@drnelk) April 30, 2018

lol

Sages otm

that is extremely good

fuckit mordy is gonna be unbearable now isnt he

Anyway y’all can and should continue to be men without participating in “masculinity” other than in the trivial, grammatical sense. A reconstructed masculinity serves no purpose. It doesn’t serve any purpose to violent misogynists either; they need to stop being violent misogynists, not find a new way to be a “real man”.

^ otm, though I would say that

mordy grows tired of this site more and more

he probably won't even bother replying anymore

Maybe he can reply from behind a fence, in a secluded area.

lol

I was following the formula Trayce set

You were doing what you always do to me, you cheeky shit :P

i wasnt directly referencing btw at least not knowingly but im sure its the original source for the formation

mh im not sure what you were even getting at in calling it out but genuinely now pls dont as a rule translate for me ta

that should be read as fond chiding obv not scathing outrage for those that need me translated

also males are good imo

yeah thats right

missed the Just William stuff upthread

Crompton was near enough a genius and the Martin Jarvis readings were essential for my childhood

I rolled it back immediately after finding out about the source but I’m putting you back on notice, deems

Not to drag the thread back to the incel discussion, but I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend the best thing I've ever read that touches on the subject, this London Review of Books article by philosophy professor Amia Srinavasan:

Does Anyone Have the Right to Sex?

Feminist commentary on Elliot Rodger and the incel phenomenon more broadly has said much about male sexual entitlement, objectification and violence. But so far it has said little about desire: men’s desire, women’s desire, and the ideological shaping of both.

As that excerpt would indicate, it's about more than just incels. It's also beautifully written and thought-provoking. I can't recommend it strongly enough.

I think, like verbal intercourse, you’re going to be universally declined if your views are repugnant

Anything titled Does Anyone Have the Right to Sex? has eroded its legitimacy from the get-go, because it puts it squarely in the province of click-bait and such unserious books as Are Men Necessary?. The answer to that question is so obviously 'no', that even hinting that the author might suggest a way to answer 'yes' is tatamount to hinting it handles the subject very stupidly.

I think if you read it you'll be pleasantly surprised, and feel a little silly for having posted that.

She waits until the final summing up of a rather long article to say:

The question posed by radical self-love movements is not whether there is a right to sex (there isn’t)

So, if by her own admission the question is NOT whether there is a right to sex, why is that question posed in the title of the piece? Because it draws attention. Like I said, the parallel to click-bait is perfectly legit.

Authors are not infrequently not responsible for the titles given their pieces by periodicals