Documentary: The Disappearing Male

Off Topic
121

[quote]csulli wrote:
Wtf? To hell with all the gun control arguing. Let’s return to the original topic of how to stop my hormones from being fucked with when everything in my apartment from my shampoo to my couch is made of pure estrogen.

In the event of a government takeover, all the automatic weaponry in the world isn’t going to help me if I’m unable to focus on shooting people because I’m too busy worrying about how my sperm count is being cut in half by all the space chemicals in my toothbrush.[/quote]

I’m all ears. I think using some sort of low dosage testosterone cream like what they prescribe to middle-aged men is a good way to start. Injecting larger doses of cypionate or enanthate might not be the best way to go if getting back to previous generations’ levels is the goal. That might be overkill for most. I didn’t watch the whole documentary. Do we know what proper levels were back then as opposed to now? I have to assume we do, right? Why wouldn’t we?

I’m sure there’s stuff out there that’s an all-natural version of the shit that is weakening us men, but is it all-natural in the sense that it won’t ruin our test levels? What we need is to start using the political system to enact legislation that allows men of all ages to use topical creams without having test levels of a 60 y/o gelding first, and at a reasonable price instead of the sky-high prices these companies are charging to get our hands on this stuff.

122

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Are Orion and SexMachine making the same preparations that Chechens have made? Do they live in some dirt poor country, or they a part of the bourgeois and totally unprepared to live the life of the common guerrilla soldier.[/quote]

I’m sure when the shit hits the fan that people ‘unprepared for the life of a common guerrilla soldier’ would still prefer to be armed for self preservation and protection of their families and property than to be unarmed.[/quote]

Well sure, but without the proper precautions having your own gun ready for these eventualities is no different than keeping a stock car in your garage in case someone asks you to fill in for Jimmy Johnson at the Daytona 500 without ever having driven the course before.

123

[quote]ukrainian wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Are Orion and SexMachine making the same preparations that Chechens have made? Do they live in some dirt poor country, or they a part of the bourgeois and totally unprepared to live the life of the common guerrilla soldier. I totally agree, it isn’t impossible at all to stand up to a superior enemy, but are they really taking the necessary precautions to prepare for this? Because if they aren’t then it IS going to be a cakewalk for the Big Bad Gov’t. And of course, this is all assuming that the Big Bad Gov’t finally abandons this bullshit limited warfare doctrine and just sacks up and resorts to tactical nuke strikes. After all, if the shit goes down in THIS country, here in America, who the fuck is going to stop us from using our nukes? Britain? Yeah, right. They’ll be backing us up in all likelihood. China? Fuck no, they’ll just sit back and pick up all the pieces, assuming they aren’t backing the Big Bad Gov’t and the Brits as well. Russia? Fuck no. They probably can’t even deliver half of their arsenal and they might not give a shit either.[/quote]

Fair enough, but what about trade? The United States is now a service country and depends on trade.

But this discussion will delve into way too many details. I would rather not waste my time discussing this. I can’t just let a discussion go if some responds to me, even on the internet. So, I shall just say (as already said), let’s continue the discussion about masculinity, males, and stuff.

Personally, I think the true quality a lot of men are lacking nowadays is account of responsibility and actions. Less people now take responsibility for their actions and their circumstances. [/quote]

I totally agree. Fuck, I’m probably as guilty as of it as anyone. But is this a loss of masculinity, or a people problem in general, regardless of sex/gender?

124

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
I’m not asking you to “bother” with anything - you’re just shooting the messenger here i.e. I’m only relaying what I’ve heard and read.

But your above posts in this thread do smell of beta-bitch insecurity. C’mon dude it’s okay if you like playing video games, it doesn’t mean you’re becoming more feminine than anyone else and no one is trying to judge you like that either.

We are making generalisations here. Video games (in current form), personal computers and (most importantly) the internet are innovations that weren’t available to our fathers and grand-fathers and while they may have immeasurable usefulness in how we live are lives today, they do represent components partially explaining the trend toward declining socialisation behaviours in men (and people in general)[/quote]

You are drawing connections between social interaction and masculinity that aren’t there.[/quote]

Being an effective communicator is a highly masculine trait.

[/quote]

Just because a dog is a good barker, doesn’t mean he is a good dog.

125

So… you guys have made a lot of claims of what a masculine man should be… but there are literally no examples.

What are some examples of what a masculine man should be?

Arnold?

Hulk Hogan?

Khal Drogo?

James Bond?

126

“Examples”? You really want examples? That’s way too complex man…fuggetaboutit.

Some think Arnold was masculine with his big muscles, but some some say Bruce Lee was masculine
and he was barely 140 lbs. soaking wet…but he kicked ass.

You want a Woman’s opinion of what “Masculine” is? Heh, just as complex…fuggetaboutit.
I’ve spoken to alot of Women, one super hot chick years ago who YOU would be “programmed”
to believe she would like a Rob Lowe, or a Mel Gibson thought that Sam Elliot was just “Gorgeous” and “Manly”.
Another VERY hot Asian girl I used to work with had a crush on Alan Cumming!

“Masculinity” has no rhyme, reason, or logic…STOP using Arnold, or Hulk,
UNprogram yourself on that bullshit lol.

Still want “examples”? open your eyes, because “examples” are all around you EVERYWHERE.
Women are gonna like what they like, and even if you don’t mean that MASCULINE is what Women
want, a guys perspective of masculine to other guys or whatever can be just as complex.
I’ve seen the wimpiest looking dudes surprise me and step up to very difficult
situations, and I’ve seen a 300 pound Football player freeze in fear because he had Arachnophobia, every man has their strengths and weaknesses man, overall masculinity
is subjective I guess, no easy answers.

So WHAT is Masculine? IDK man, it’s whatever you, or an INDIVIDUAL lady thinks it is…

127

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Take the whole gun thing. Who the fuck needs an automatic weapon?
[/quote]

Anyone who values freedom and self preservation.

Then you don’t understand history and politics. Democracy doesn’t and can’t last indefinitely. Armed citizenry are the only defence against the totalitarian regime that, by a logical progression must at some stage establish itself. America pays a high price for freedom but it’s a price that must be paid.

‘According to Polybius’ elaboration of the theory (of anacyclosis), the state begins in a form of primitive monarchy. The state will emerge from monarchy under the leadership of an influential and wise king; this represents the emergence of “kingship”. Political power will pass by hereditary succession to the children of the king, who will abuse their authority for their own gain; this represents the degeneration of kingship into “tyranny”. Some of the more influential and powerful men of the state will grow weary of the abuses of tyrants, and will overthrow them; this represents the ascendancy of “aristocracy” (as well as the end of the “rule by the one” and the beginning of the “rule by the few”). Just as the descendants of kings, however, political influence will pass to the descendants of the aristocrats, and these descendants will begin to abuse their power and influence, as the tyrants before them; this represents the decline of aristocracy and the beginning of “oligarchy”. As Polybius explains, the people will by this stage in the political evolution of the state decide to take political matters into their own hands. This point of the cycle sees the emergence of “democracy”, as well as the beginning of “rule by the many”. In the same way that the descendants of kings and aristocrats abused their political status, so too will the descendants of democrats. Accordingly, democracy degenerates into “ochlocracy”, literally, “mob-rule”. During ochlocracy, according to Polybius, the people of the state will become corrupted, and will develop a sense of entitlement and will be conditioned to accept the pandering of demagogues. Eventually, the state will be engulfed in chaos, and the competing claims of demagogues will culminate in a single (sometimes virtuous) demagogue claiming absolute power, bringing the state full-circle back to monarchy.'[/quote]

Very interesting, I’d never heard of this cycle.
However, what’s the difference exactly between democracy and “mob-rule”? Aren’t these essentially the same?

Let’s suppose we have to try to prevent the degradation of democracy in “mob-rule”. Are you sure guns will help? Won’t guns actually make it harder for a democratic government to avoid mob rule? Doesn’t the mob have to be controlled in a certain way to avoid this mob rule?

If we are in “mob rule” and want to avoid a demagogue claiming absolute power guns might help indeed. However the cost (in lives) will be huge and the end result will be the same. There’s always a winner. Not to mention that you never see it coming. Do you think the majority saw coming what Hitler became? That’s the definition of a demagogue, he appeals and controls the masses, making an idea of armed resistance quite futile. The idea of armed resistance only works if you have the vast majority of the population at your side. How will you fare while being a minority and having better trained and equipped ennemies?

128

[quote]Xav wrote:

Very interesting, I’d never heard of this cycle.
However, what’s the difference exactly between democracy and “mob-rule”? Aren’t these essentially the same?

[/quote]

Wikipedia explains the difference pretty well:

‘Ochlocracy (“rule of the general populace”) is democracy (“rule of the people”) spoiled by demagoguery, “tyranny of the majority” and the rule of passion over reason…’

Plato and Aristotle first developed the theory of kyklos/anacyclosis which was later refined by Polybius, Cicero, Machiavelli and many of the enlightment philosophers.

We’re already in the mob rule stage.

‘During ochlocracy, according to Polybius, the people of the state will become corrupted, and will develop a sense of entitlement and will be conditioned to accept the pandering of demagogues.’

Not the majority no. A few people did:

http://www.winstonchurchillthrillers.com/Churchills_Wilderness_Years.html

Demagogues always make themselves unpopular by their very nature. And you certainly don’t need the majority of the population to sustain an insurgency. You can also create discontent and focus it - i.e. foco strategy.

http://www.massline.org/Dictionary/FO.htm

I’m not one for Commie stuff but they certainly knew how to wage guerrilla and pyschological warfare as did the Nazis. Of course, many of their methods bring up moral quandaries.

129

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Xav wrote:

Very interesting, I’d never heard of this cycle.
However, what’s the difference exactly between democracy and “mob-rule”? Aren’t these essentially the same?

[/quote]

Wikipedia explains the difference pretty well:

‘Ochlocracy (“rule of the general populace”) is democracy (“rule of the people”) spoiled by demagoguery, “tyranny of the majority” and the rule of passion over reason…’

Plato and Aristotle first developed the theory of kyklos/anacyclosis which was later refined by Polybius, Cicero, Machiavelli and many of the enlightment philosophers.

We’re already in the mob rule stage.

‘During ochlocracy, according to Polybius, the people of the state will become corrupted, and will develop a sense of entitlement and will be conditioned to accept the pandering of demagogues.’

Not the majority no. A few people did:

http://www.winstonchurchillthrillers.com/Churchills_Wilderness_Years.html

Demagogues always make themselves unpopular by their very nature. And you certainly don’t need the majority of the population to sustain an insurgency. You can also create discontent and focus it - i.e. foco strategy.

http://www.massline.org/Dictionary/FO.htm

I’m not one for Commie stuff but they certainly knew how to wage guerrilla and pyschological warfare as did the Nazis. Of course, many of their methods bring up moral quandaries.[/quote]

Thanks for the explanation, I agree that we’re in mob rule after reading your reference to wikipedia.

However how can demagogues succeed if they are unpopular? Isn’t that their goal: grab power by means of popularity? I am by no means sure of this but I suppose Hitler was quite popular when he was rising to power. I believe the videos of his speeches are a good illustration of this. I believe one of the most popular politicians today is a demagogue (Obama). I agree that demagogues are unpopular post hoc, but that’s not very relevant for this discussion.

I highly doubt an insurgency consisting of a minority in the States could have a major influence on avoiding the cycles you described in your first post.

130

[quote]Xav wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, I agree that we’re in mob rule after reading your reference to wikipedia.

However how can demagogues succeed if they are unpopular? Isn’t that their goal: grab power by means of popularity?

[/quote]

You can make a distinction between demagogues and tyrants. Tyrants don’t necessarily gain power via popular support although obviously the more support the better. Hitler I suppose was a combination of both. After The First World War Germany and most of Europe was in the grip of Communist/Socialist revolution and he was able to gain significant support by presenting himself as an opponent of these revolutionaries who were creating chaos - although he really had far more in common with Communists than he did with the old regime or the Social Democrats. He was a National Socialist after all. The National Socialists never gained an absolute majority in an election although they did gain significant support peaking in the 1933 election. He then seized power via the political intrigues of Franz von Papen, the Reichstagg fire, suspression and terrorising of his opponents etc.

I agree with you there. Although I wouldn’t go so far as to liken Obama to Hitler. Obama is more of a soft tyrant/demagogue. Although I wouldn’t underestimate him. He is creating the conditions for a hard tyranny.

You cannot end the cycle, merely set it in a different position where it will continue as normal - i.e., instead of moving from mob rule to dictatorship the idea would set be to set it back to democracy/republicanism(hopefully) - although often a revolution is co-opted by unscrupulous men - i.e. Napoleon. He took the cycle back to monarchy. George Washington could easily have done the same but he established the republic instead.

131

Hitler survived 17 known assassination attempts and never gained an absolute majority in an election. Tyrants always have a significant percentage of the populus against them due to their very nature.

132

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

If what you are describing is as inevitable as you and Polybius claim it is, then you’re all but physically-threatened as it is. And again, you’d be a fool to wait for it to happen. By that time it will be too late for you and your family. [/quote]

I’m not waiting. I’m engaged in the political process. The political process has thankfully, not broken down yet.[/quote]

Yes, but are you prepared for when/if it does break down? The skills I listed in my last two posts to Orion aren’t easily acquired. They take YEARS to acquire and become familiar with. Have you started the process? What about your family? Do you have a wife and/or children? Are your children old enough to handle a gun and fight for themselves? It would be nice to ship them off to the Orient or something like that so they avoid all the bloodshed, but let’s face it, a man in the position you could very well find yourself in cannot afford to send off able-bodied people of any kind.

Are you preparing your children, if you have any? Let’s assume that if you don’t have any now, you will have one/some by the time the shit goes down, because it WILL go down, right? History has shown us that the changes Polybius has described virtually never happen strictly within the political system. Are you prepared for extra-political action? Are you prepared to bring your sons and/or daughters into the fight with you? The Vietcong and the NVA had many, many women taking up arms and fighting as well, young and old alike.

Are you enrolling your children in some sort of martial arts classes? Are they skilled at hand-to-hand combat? Are they taking shooting classes? Ever take them camping? Are you prepared to send them to their certain death so that others may live?

I understand that you’re engaged in the political process and I commend you for it. I wish there were more people in THIS country who had that sort of commitment to enacting change through the political system. But if what you are describing and what Polybius claims is an inevitability, you would be an absolute FOOL to assume that you can enact meaningful change strictly within it. Are you making the preparations I described to Orion JUST IN CASE?

Because if you aren’t, you’re fucked.[/quote]

This is all a red herring. You don’t have to be a guerrilla fighter to contribute to preserving democracy/republicanism nor to contribute to the revolution when that becomes necessary.

133

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Are Orion and SexMachine making the same preparations that Chechens have made? Do they live in some dirt poor country, or they a part of the bourgeois and totally unprepared to live the life of the common guerrilla soldier.[/quote]

I’m sure when the shit hits the fan that people ‘unprepared for the life of a common guerrilla soldier’ would still prefer to be armed for self preservation and protection of their families and property than to be unarmed.[/quote]

Well sure, but without the proper precautions having your own gun ready for these eventualities is no different than keeping a stock car in your garage in case someone asks you to fill in for Jimmy Johnson at the Daytona 500 without ever having driven the course before.[/quote]

Sorry, I missed these posts due to posting time delay. That is not an apt analogy. As I said, not everyone is going to be a guerrilla fighter but firearms will help people survive and protect themselves and their families.

134

[quote]Karado wrote:
“Examples”? You really want examples? That’s way too complex man…fuggetaboutit.

Some think Arnold was masculine with his big muscles, but some some say Bruce Lee was masculine
and he was barely 140 lbs. soaking wet…but he kicked ass.

You want a Woman’s opinion of what “Masculine” is? Heh, just as complex…fuggetaboutit.
I’ve spoken to alot of Women, one super hot chick years ago who YOU would be “programmed”
to believe she would like a Rob Lowe, or a Mel Gibson thought that Sam Elliot was just “Gorgeous” and “Manly”.
Another VERY hot Asian girl I used to work with had a crush on Alan Cumming!

“Masculinity” has no rhyme, reason, or logic…STOP using Arnold, or Hulk,
UNprogram yourself on that bullshit lol.

Still want “examples”? open your eyes, because “examples” are all around you EVERYWHERE.
Women are gonna like what they like, and even if you don’t mean that MASCULINE is what Women
want, a guys perspective of masculine to other guys or whatever can be just as complex.
I’ve seen the wimpiest looking dudes surprise me and step up to very difficult
situations, and I’ve seen a 300 pound Football player freeze in fear because he had Arachnophobia, every man has their strengths and weaknesses man, overall masculinity
is subjective I guess, no easy answers.

So WHAT is Masculine? IDK man, it’s whatever you, or an INDIVIDUAL lady thinks it is…

[/quote]

I pretty much agree with this.

I’ve know several family men over the past 2 decades who I had thought were gay upon first meeting. These men were slight, docile, had graceful actions and didn’t engage in the typical male conversation. However, each of these guys were excellent fathers, exceptional husbands, responsible providers, and ultimately happy with themselves and their accomplishments.

The definitive modern male is one who functions successfully in the roles he’s chosen (environmental impact on the male physiology be damned).

135

[quote]Karado wrote:
“Examples”? You really want examples?

[/quote]

Sorry for the thread hijack. Back to topic…

136

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Possibly. What is also possible is that people like Orion are on the side of the gov’t that wants to subjugate the populace. If it were a conservative gov’t that wanted to wipe out or control all the liberals in the country I can pretty much guarantee he’s be goose-stepping along with them, not fighting against it.

[/quote]

Couple of things. Orion is not a conservative. Maybe a paleo-conservative, but they have little in common with traditional conservatives. A conservative would never ‘wipe out’ or ‘control’ other citizens as conservatism values life and individual liberty above all else.

137

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Possibly. What is also possible is that people like Orion are on the side of the gov’t that wants to subjugate the populace. If it were a conservative gov’t that wanted to wipe out or control all the liberals in the country I can pretty much guarantee he’s be goose-stepping along with them, not fighting against it.

[/quote]

Couple of things. Orion is not a conservative. Maybe a paleo-conservative, but they have little in common with traditional conservatives. A conservative would never ‘wipe out’ or ‘control’ other citizens as conservatism values life and individual liberty above all else.[/quote]

Bullshit and you know better.

<---- Libertarian.

As far as I am concerned people can think, say and do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they deal with the consequences with their own time and money.

138

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]lemony2j wrote:
My theory of it is that, among other things, we have to do less to survive nowadays

These days a fully grown man can earn a better living as say an interior designer than he could as a mechanic or a farmer. This obviously wouldn’t have been the case a thousand or even a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago you would have needed a pliable trade to earn a living, most of which would have required you to work with your hands. These days you can do far more than just survive sat behind a desk.

We live in such a disposable society where everyone feels they are entitled to something.

I was born in the wrong century[/quote]

Not sure why you would think that–just because your muscle was more functional doesn’t mean it was more valuable. Men have always been far more disposable, especially the working class, than they are today [orion–there you go cannon fodder :slight_smile: ].

You folks who long for yesteryear have a distorted and romanticized view of history that was only kind to the most privileged.
[/quote]

Great post.

I’ve always had a thorn in my side for the types of people who think surviving is cool and the kind of people who think Fight Club was to be taken seriously.

People can cry about the decline of “men” all you want, what you are really crying about is the decline of men engaging in what you were taught was “masculine” behavior.

and really, more than ever before we have guys pouring into gyms by the hundreds. Steroid use is more widespread in western societies and more openly talked about than it has ever been. More and more young men are engaging in hyper-masculine, almost cartoonish behavior (Zyzz anyone? Considering some of the past threads about “manly” behavior we’ve had on here, the only reason I can’t think some of you aren’t championing him is because he waxed his chest and didn’t grow a beard) which basically consists of being as loud, outgoing and boisterous as possible while trying to have as much casual sex as possible.

I really fail to see what is lacking in men today compared to 30-50 years ago?

The men of ancient Sparta wore makeup, fuddled over their hair constantly, plucked body hair out and fucked each other in the ass when they got bored of sex with women. Women enjoyed a social equality in that society that could be argued doesn’t even exist in today’s society. Yet they were a nation of warriors that some of this board hold up as the ideal of masculinity… But actively lament men today for being “pussies” because they pluck their eyebrows or wear clothing that is in fashion??

Shit, so what is a “man” then, someone please give me a clear definition for this. Because as far as I can tell, being a man is only an issue of sex, you have XY chromosome, testicles and a penis? Congratulations you are a male. Everything else is bullshit.

139

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

I really fail to see what is lacking in men today compared to 30-50 years ago?
[/quote]

A spine.

140

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

I really fail to see what is lacking in men today compared to 30-50 years ago?
[/quote]

A spine.[/quote]

And how do you figure that?