Too bad he never got his head together to start his show back up. Cause Carlos Mencia is terrible draw out terrible for 30 seconds.
Alright back to jokes and or Men vs Women bashing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
In the end, the pendulum will swing back hard in the other direction as it always does. It may take another 5-10 years, [/quote]
Ahhh, one of my favorite expressions: The pendulum always swings both ways and stops somewhere in the middle.
The absolute majority of the time, I think you are right on the money but that’s not a fair statement. I think it might be fair to say most women but not all women in general. I, for one, happen to sincerely appreciate the differences between the sexes and I sure as hell don’t want any ubersexual or whatever they are.
I do however agree with (some) guys changing because they think they might get laid out of it. Notice that I didn’t say all because there are still some real men around…thank God!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Makavali wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
That isn’t true. No one can MAKE you be a way you don’t want to be. If men changed, they LET others TELL them who to be and those men fell in line like sheep and did it.
You sure give us women a lot of power. Maybe a woman could make you a girly-boy if you believe what you are saying.
Men do what it takes to get laid. Many were stupid and started acting like they had no penis because that’s what they were told would work. Women got confused by this and were all “wtf?” and thus came about the birth of the ubersexual. Who still doesn’t get laid.
Apparently, I’m a metrosexual because I wear hair gel, bathe everyday and can wear clothes, so I won’t start bashing metros.
Men don’t think with their brains, they think with their head.
Then it is the man’s fault. He made the decision to change.
BS. Women do hold some of the blame, just like many men hold the blame for why so many clearly obese women are walking around lately thinking they really look sexy in their baby t’s cut off above the navel with their rolls of Pillsbury influenced muffin tops pouring over the edges of their low cut jeans.
If enough men weren’t ready to pretty much screw anything that moved (speaking is optional) then less women would think this way.
The same goes for why an entire generation was under the impression that they had to look and act like some “man-woman” hybrid just to get laid. If it weren’t for women (who most guys over the age of 25 know don’t really know what they want…or at least know they want what they can’t have) than this would not have happened on such a grand scale. Do you really think guys are walking around spending more on hair products than women for no reason?
In the end, the pendulum will swing back hard in the other direction as it always does. It may take another 5-10 years, but there is no doubt that women are in part to blame for why men across the country are cutting off their balls just so they can have sex with something breathing and female.
Now that half of the population is “less than a man”, you all have the balls to claim you had NOTHING to do with it?[/quote]
First, I don’t need balls to claim anything.
Second, I want you to think back on all your posts about why people are fat. You say that people are responsible for their own situation.
Come on Professor! Is it that fat people are to blame for their situation, but men can blame women for their situation? How is it different?
If you want to point to external influences then I think the media has more of an influence than a gender. Isn’t it the ads, TV, and the movies telling folks how they should be to get what they want? For that matter, doesn’t the media tell us what to want?
I’ll give you that women should shoulder a very small portion of the blame but you men need to stop putting the entire weight of it on the women.
I don’t really spend a lot of time with these girly-men you all keep complaining about. I also really don’t know any women that would want one. Perhaps for that reason I am not the woman to be commenting on this subject.
Men keep tricking to these women - cupcaking those less then a dime, like maybe a 2 or 3…
These men simp to chickenheads and hoodrats, in effect giving most women NO incentive to step their game up and men keep lowering their standards just cause women keep throwing the hussy at them… Men lowering their level makes them less and less of man…
I swear it’s like us 300 players vs. a Million simps…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Makavali wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
That isn’t true. No one can MAKE you be a way you don’t want to be. If men changed, they LET others TELL them who to be and those men fell in line like sheep and did it.
You sure give us women a lot of power. Maybe a woman could make you a girly-boy if you believe what you are saying.
Men do what it takes to get laid. Many were stupid and started acting like they had no penis because that’s what they were told would work. Women got confused by this and were all “wtf?” and thus came about the birth of the ubersexual. Who still doesn’t get laid.
Apparently, I’m a metrosexual because I wear hair gel, bathe everyday and can wear clothes, so I won’t start bashing metros.
Men don’t think with their brains, they think with their head.
Then it is the man’s fault. He made the decision to change.
BS. Women do hold some of the blame, just like many men hold the blame for why so many clearly obese women are walking around lately thinking they really look sexy in their baby t’s cut off above the navel with their rolls of Pillsbury influenced muffin tops pouring over the edges of their low cut jeans.
If enough men weren’t ready to pretty much screw anything that moved (speaking is optional) then less women would think this way.
The same goes for why an entire generation was under the impression that they had to look and act like some “man-woman” hybrid just to get laid. If it weren’t for women (who most guys over the age of 25 know don’t really know what they want…or at least know they want what they can’t have) than this would not have happened on such a grand scale. Do you really think guys are walking around spending more on hair products than women for no reason?
In the end, the pendulum will swing back hard in the other direction as it always does. It may take another 5-10 years, but there is no doubt that women are in part to blame for why men across the country are cutting off their balls just so they can have sex with something breathing and female.
Now that half of the population is “less than a man”, you all have the balls to claim you had NOTHING to do with it?[/quote]
Good post.
I’ve noticed that the eye-brow waxing, chest shaving, metro subset gets nothing but mockery from a lot of women, but maybe that’s just the women I know. There is a definite subset of women that are interested in men who see themselves as some sort of work of art, but these seem to be confined to certain clubs and bars that I don’t frequent.
South Park’s take on metrosexuality was still the best.
[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
cyph31 wrote:
Majin wrote:
I gotta say, though. If a lot of men need hormonal therapy before 60, isn’t that a problem in itself?
of course they do when they are bombarded by messages like these every day from everywhere:
“weightlifting is bad for you”
“fat is bad for you”
“cholesterol is bad for you”
“shave off all your body hair”
“never eat meat”
“eat lots of soy, it’s good for you”
and then we wonder why your average man these days has the testosterone level of a 5 year old girl
ugh…the testosterone problem is a complex one and has less to do with what you’ve posted and more to do with exposure to chemicals and radiation…There’s actually an article on this very site that debunks soy’s negative reputation…the upshot is that you’d basically have to eat a dumptruck full of soy everyday to see even a slight decline in T.
And who’s getting bombarded by messages to shave off their body hair, or to never eat meat, or that weight lifting is bad for you? I mean heck pro BBers shave off their body hair…does that make them metro?
I can’t say I’ve ever felt pressure to shave my chest / stomache, or to not eat meat. If anything vegetarianism is becoming more widely accepted not due to a backlash against ‘real men’ but because of people’s (rightful) anxiety over what’s being put into the beef they’re eating.
Personally I don’t eat red meat more than once a month, not because of ‘societal pressure’ but because I’m worried about wtf is going into the cattle in this country, and because using hormones on poultry is highly restricted.
Professor X wrote:
I care because I don’t give a shit about what someone looks like in the gym. I care because this type of thinking overflows into politics and even science. There is no reason at all for men over the age of 35 to have a harder time recently getting hormone replacement therapy.
Yet, here we are in 2008 with a literal “war on testosterone” going on in politics and the media making it harder and harder for men to go to a doctor and even seek treatment if they need/want it.
That means the real question is why you do NOT care.
This has jack shit to do with what some individual is wearing and everything to do with how society as a whole is leaning.
You seem to be thinking on a much smaller scale. Maybe you should upgrade.
The hormonal replacement debate doesn’t have much to do with metrosexuals…etc. That’s a passing fad. After that’s over I guarantee you that the debate about that will still be raging on. I’m not sure what you mean by it effects politics…I really think you guys are over-reacting to a broad cultural fad that’s going to pass.
In the meantime, enjoy the fact that even if you see signs in the media that being strong and large is ‘out’ right now, that most women still are going to favor you over some scrawny emo retard.
Maybe it’s different here on the East coast, I don’t know where the other posters in this thread are from, but I’m not seeing ANYTHING that you guys are talking about, and I’m looking for things like this fairly regularly.[/quote]
As far as seeing this kind of stuff, I got it quite a bit when I interned in a public accounting firm recently. It was people who thought that a good workout was walking up/down 2 flights of stairs 3 times a day. It is people asking me if I workout/train, and then they look at me like I am from Mars when I tell them what I do and how I train. I think it hit the peak when someone told me that they found a study that said that drinking 6-8 glasses of water a day was not all that benificial. She then supported this idea by saying that she didn’t have to go to the bathroom very often if she didn’t drink all that much. How lazy can you get? Now, to be fair, there were a few folks there who were in pretty good shape, but by and large, these folks just could not stand the fact that some people actually get off of their asses and train sometimes. I also got the “fat is bad for you” line a good bit. This was often said to me as a person chowed down on a cerial bar that had nothing but carbs in it, or fat free chips. I think its the ignorance of a statement like that that appauls me the most. Certain types of fat are bad, yes, but the human body needs fat, carbs, and protien, in the proper proportions, to stay healthy.
I will end on this note. We have gotten into a very serious and heated debate over a lot of different topics, all because of an article that, as near as I can tell, was intended to be funny first and foremost. I just can’t help but laugh at this a little bit.
[quote]Tristram wrote:
AccipiterQ wrote:
cyph31 wrote:
Majin wrote:
I gotta say, though. If a lot of men need hormonal therapy before 60, isn’t that a problem in itself?
of course they do when they are bombarded by messages like these every day from everywhere:
“weightlifting is bad for you”
“fat is bad for you”
“cholesterol is bad for you”
“shave off all your body hair”
“never eat meat”
“eat lots of soy, it’s good for you”
and then we wonder why your average man these days has the testosterone level of a 5 year old girl
ugh…the testosterone problem is a complex one and has less to do with what you’ve posted and more to do with exposure to chemicals and radiation…There’s actually an article on this very site that debunks soy’s negative reputation…the upshot is that you’d basically have to eat a dumptruck full of soy everyday to see even a slight decline in T.
And who’s getting bombarded by messages to shave off their body hair, or to never eat meat, or that weight lifting is bad for you? I mean heck pro BBers shave off their body hair…does that make them metro?
I can’t say I’ve ever felt pressure to shave my chest / stomache, or to not eat meat. If anything vegetarianism is becoming more widely accepted not due to a backlash against ‘real men’ but because of people’s (rightful) anxiety over what’s being put into the beef they’re eating.
Personally I don’t eat red meat more than once a month, not because of ‘societal pressure’ but because I’m worried about wtf is going into the cattle in this country, and because using hormones on poultry is highly restricted.
Professor X wrote:
I care because I don’t give a shit about what someone looks like in the gym. I care because this type of thinking overflows into politics and even science. There is no reason at all for men over the age of 35 to have a harder time recently getting hormone replacement therapy.
Yet, here we are in 2008 with a literal “war on testosterone” going on in politics and the media making it harder and harder for men to go to a doctor and even seek treatment if they need/want it.
That means the real question is why you do NOT care.
This has jack shit to do with what some individual is wearing and everything to do with how society as a whole is leaning.
You seem to be thinking on a much smaller scale. Maybe you should upgrade.
The hormonal replacement debate doesn’t have much to do with metrosexuals…etc. That’s a passing fad. After that’s over I guarantee you that the debate about that will still be raging on. I’m not sure what you mean by it effects politics…I really think you guys are over-reacting to a broad cultural fad that’s going to pass.
In the meantime, enjoy the fact that even if you see signs in the media that being strong and large is ‘out’ right now, that most women still are going to favor you over some scrawny emo retard.
Maybe it’s different here on the East coast, I don’t know where the other posters in this thread are from, but I’m not seeing ANYTHING that you guys are talking about, and I’m looking for things like this fairly regularly.
As far as seeing this kind of stuff, I got it quite a bit when I interned in a public accounting firm recently. It was people who thought that a good workout was walking up/down 2 flights of stairs 3 times a day. It is people asking me if I workout/train, and then they look at me like I am from Mars when I tell them what I do and how I train. I think it hit the peak when someone told me that they found a study that said that drinking 6-8 glasses of water a day was not all that benificial. She then supported this idea by saying that she didn’t have to go to the bathroom very often if she didn’t drink all that much. How lazy can you get? Now, to be fair, there were a few folks there who were in pretty good shape, but by and large, these folks just could not stand the fact that some people actually get off of their asses and train sometimes. I also got the “fat is bad for you” line a good bit. This was often said to me as a person chowed down on a cerial bar that had nothing but carbs in it, or fat free chips. I think its the ignorance of a statement like that that appauls me the most. Certain types of fat are bad, yes, but the human body needs fat, carbs, and protien, in the proper proportions, to stay healthy.
I will end on this note. We have gotten into a very serious and heated debate over a lot of different topics, all because of an article that, as near as I can tell, was intended to be funny first and foremost. I just can’t help but laugh at this a little bit.[/quote]
You just echoed my thoughts about this thread. For me, I will remain on my soapbox about most things coming down to choice. Choose to follow the media’s suggestions that metro/androgeny is in, or keep doing you. Choose to change for the sake of getting more women, or keep doing you. I can’t fathom putting blame on a non-entity or an entire gender because of something I’m not happy about. Life is way too short to get burdened by what he or she thinks of this society of ours. In the end, it always comes down to what you, the individual, are going to choose to do. Continue being “manly”? Tap into your feminine/metro side? Follow the ads in magazines and such? Do whatever it takes to get laid. It’s all a choice.
[quote]GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
Too bad he never got his head together to start his show back up.[/quote]
It had nothing to do with the whole psych ward admittance thing, he just decided he hated how the show had ended up portraying him as a comedian. He didn’t want to be the next Chris Rock that’s just remembered for being abrasively racial with his comedy and nothing else. His stand up is so diverse but the show was really centralized to a few topics and he didn’t want to keep going with it.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Makavali wrote:
That isn’t true. No one can MAKE you be a way you don’t want to be. If men changed, they LET others TELL them who to be and those men fell in line like sheep and did it.
You sure give us women a lot of power.
Would you let a woman turn you into a metrosexual?
[/quote]
After I’ve had my way with him, I would turn him into a six pack of beer and a pizza.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Makavali wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
That isn’t true. No one can MAKE you be a way you don’t want to be. If men changed, they LET others TELL them who to be and those men fell in line like sheep and did it.
You sure give us women a lot of power. Maybe a woman could make you a girly-boy if you believe what you are saying.
Men do what it takes to get laid. Many were stupid and started acting like they had no penis because that’s what they were told would work. Women got confused by this and were all “wtf?” and thus came about the birth of the ubersexual. Who still doesn’t get laid.
Apparently, I’m a metrosexual because I wear hair gel, bathe everyday and can wear clothes, so I won’t start bashing metros.
Men don’t think with their brains, they think with their head.
Then it is the man’s fault. He made the decision to change.
BS. Women do hold some of the blame, just like many men hold the blame for why so many clearly obese women are walking around lately thinking they really look sexy in their baby t’s cut off above the navel with their rolls of Pillsbury influenced muffin tops pouring over the edges of their low cut jeans.
If enough men weren’t ready to pretty much screw anything that moved (speaking is optional) then less women would think this way.
The same goes for why an entire generation was under the impression that they had to look and act like some “man-woman” hybrid just to get laid. If it weren’t for women (who most guys over the age of 25 know don’t really know what they want…or at least know they want what they can’t have) than this would not have happened on such a grand scale. Do you really think guys are walking around spending more on hair products than women for no reason?
In the end, the pendulum will swing back hard in the other direction as it always does. It may take another 5-10 years, but there is no doubt that women are in part to blame for why men across the country are cutting off their balls just so they can have sex with something breathing and female.
Now that half of the population is “less than a man”, you all have the balls to claim you had NOTHING to do with it?
Good post.
I’ve noticed that the eye-brow waxing, chest shaving, metro subset gets nothing but mockery from a lot of women, but maybe that’s just the women I know. There is a definite subset of women that are interested in men who see themselves as some sort of work of art, but these seem to be confined to certain clubs and bars that I don’t frequent.
South Park’s take on metrosexuality was still the best.
[/quote]
I don’t see whats wrong with shaving your chest. Bodybuilders and those with good muscular development get rid of upper-body hair to show off their hard work. Although if you don’t lift weights and have no pec development, then I don’t see the point.
[quote]ab_power wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Makavali wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
That isn’t true. No one can MAKE you be a way you don’t want to be. If men changed, they LET others TELL them who to be and those men fell in line like sheep and did it.
You sure give us women a lot of power. Maybe a woman could make you a girly-boy if you believe what you are saying.
Men do what it takes to get laid. Many were stupid and started acting like they had no penis because that’s what they were told would work. Women got confused by this and were all “wtf?” and thus came about the birth of the ubersexual. Who still doesn’t get laid.
Apparently, I’m a metrosexual because I wear hair gel, bathe everyday and can wear clothes, so I won’t start bashing metros.
Men don’t think with their brains, they think with their head.
Then it is the man’s fault. He made the decision to change.
BS. Women do hold some of the blame, just like many men hold the blame for why so many clearly obese women are walking around lately thinking they really look sexy in their baby t’s cut off above the navel with their rolls of Pillsbury influenced muffin tops pouring over the edges of their low cut jeans.
If enough men weren’t ready to pretty much screw anything that moved (speaking is optional) then less women would think this way.
The same goes for why an entire generation was under the impression that they had to look and act like some “man-woman” hybrid just to get laid. If it weren’t for women (who most guys over the age of 25 know don’t really know what they want…or at least know they want what they can’t have) than this would not have happened on such a grand scale. Do you really think guys are walking around spending more on hair products than women for no reason?
In the end, the pendulum will swing back hard in the other direction as it always does. It may take another 5-10 years, but there is no doubt that women are in part to blame for why men across the country are cutting off their balls just so they can have sex with something breathing and female.
Now that half of the population is “less than a man”, you all have the balls to claim you had NOTHING to do with it?
Good post.
I’ve noticed that the eye-brow waxing, chest shaving, metro subset gets nothing but mockery from a lot of women, but maybe that’s just the women I know. There is a definite subset of women that are interested in men who see themselves as some sort of work of art, but these seem to be confined to certain clubs and bars that I don’t frequent.
South Park’s take on metrosexuality was still the best.
I don’t see whats wrong with shaving your chest. Bodybuilders and those with good muscular development get rid of upper-body hair to show off their hard work. Although if you don’t lift weights and have no pec development, then I don’t see the point.
[/quote]
My point was not to bash people like that. I’m just talking about the Hollywood subset of clotheshorse who spends hours in front of the mirror making sure every little hair is aligned properly to later don clothing well in excess of their monthly paycheck in preparation for going to some club or whatever.
[quote]Tristram wrote:
As far as seeing this kind of stuff, I got it quite a bit when I interned in a public accounting firm recently. It was people who thought that a good workout was walking up/down 2 flights of stairs 3 times a day. It is people asking me if I workout/train, and then they look at me like I am from Mars when I tell them what I do and how I train. I think it hit the peak when someone told me that they found a study that said that drinking 6-8 glasses of water a day was not all that benificial. She then supported this idea by saying that she didn’t have to go to the bathroom very often if she didn’t drink all that much. How lazy can you get? Now, to be fair, there were a few folks there who were in pretty good shape, but by and large, these folks just could not stand the fact that some people actually get off of their asses and train sometimes. I also got the “fat is bad for you” line a good bit. This was often said to me as a person chowed down on a cerial bar that had nothing but carbs in it, or fat free chips. I think its the ignorance of a statement like that that appauls me the most. Certain types of fat are bad, yes, but the human body needs fat, carbs, and protien, in the proper proportions, to stay healthy.
I will end on this note. We have gotten into a very serious and heated debate over a lot of different topics, all because of an article that, as near as I can tell, was intended to be funny first and foremost. I just can’t help but laugh at this a little bit.[/quote]
haha yeah the article was supposed to be funny, I got a chuckle out of it.
As for people looking at you like you have two heads…it’s because most people DON’T train like we do here…there has never been a time in history when a majority of people trained as hard as most on this site do.
There’s also the problem that a lot of us, when asked about how we train get very snide and condescending (not saying you do) with the people asking. I’ve caught myself doing so a few times and apologized. For some reason people in very good shape get this sense of superiority often times. The reaction a lot of people here are bitching about isn’t because of some ‘metrofication’ of society, but maybe a reaction to how they present themselves to others.
[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
Tristram wrote:
As far as seeing this kind of stuff, I got it quite a bit when I interned in a public accounting firm recently. It was people who thought that a good workout was walking up/down 2 flights of stairs 3 times a day. It is people asking me if I workout/train, and then they look at me like I am from Mars when I tell them what I do and how I train. I think it hit the peak when someone told me that they found a study that said that drinking 6-8 glasses of water a day was not all that benificial. She then supported this idea by saying that she didn’t have to go to the bathroom very often if she didn’t drink all that much. How lazy can you get? Now, to be fair, there were a few folks there who were in pretty good shape, but by and large, these folks just could not stand the fact that some people actually get off of their asses and train sometimes. I also got the “fat is bad for you” line a good bit. This was often said to me as a person chowed down on a cerial bar that had nothing but carbs in it, or fat free chips. I think its the ignorance of a statement like that that appauls me the most. Certain types of fat are bad, yes, but the human body needs fat, carbs, and protien, in the proper proportions, to stay healthy.
I will end on this note. We have gotten into a very serious and heated debate over a lot of different topics, all because of an article that, as near as I can tell, was intended to be funny first and foremost. I just can’t help but laugh at this a little bit.
haha yeah the article was supposed to be funny, I got a chuckle out of it.
As for people looking at you like you have two heads…it’s because most people DON’T train like we do here…there has never been a time in history when a majority of people trained as hard as most on this site do.
There’s also the problem that a lot of us, when asked about how we train get very snide and condescending (not saying you do) with the people asking. I’ve caught myself doing so a few times and apologized. For some reason people in very good shape get this sense of superiority often times. The reaction a lot of people here are bitching about isn’t because of some ‘metrofication’ of society, but maybe a reaction to how they present themselves to others. [/quote]
Says the guy who can’t seem to take a picture that isn’t of his flexed abs.
Dude. Never, EVER act like you are part of the same club I am a part of. You don’t train like I do. You take metro, ghey ab shots. You have the disease and you don’t even know it.
Not that I give a shit how you choose to live, or what you want to look like - but please don’t include yourself in any sort of “real man” fraternity.
And while we are on the subject - please clue me the fuck in on how you became an expert on ruminant nutrition.
Please stop acting like you are part of any world I am a part of. You are not. To assume you you are shows just how detached you have become from exactly what real man actually is.
[quote]ab_power wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Makavali wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
That isn’t true. No one can MAKE you be a way you don’t want to be. If men changed, they LET others TELL them who to be and those men fell in line like sheep and did it.
You sure give us women a lot of power. Maybe a woman could make you a girly-boy if you believe what you are saying.
Men do what it takes to get laid. Many were stupid and started acting like they had no penis because that’s what they were told would work. Women got confused by this and were all “wtf?” and thus came about the birth of the ubersexual. Who still doesn’t get laid.
Apparently, I’m a metrosexual because I wear hair gel, bathe everyday and can wear clothes, so I won’t start bashing metros.
Men don’t think with their brains, they think with their head.
Then it is the man’s fault. He made the decision to change.
BS. Women do hold some of the blame, just like many men hold the blame for why so many clearly obese women are walking around lately thinking they really look sexy in their baby t’s cut off above the navel with their rolls of Pillsbury influenced muffin tops pouring over the edges of their low cut jeans.
If enough men weren’t ready to pretty much screw anything that moved (speaking is optional) then less women would think this way.
The same goes for why an entire generation was under the impression that they had to look and act like some “man-woman” hybrid just to get laid. If it weren’t for women (who most guys over the age of 25 know don’t really know what they want…or at least know they want what they can’t have) than this would not have happened on such a grand scale. Do you really think guys are walking around spending more on hair products than women for no reason?
In the end, the pendulum will swing back hard in the other direction as it always does. It may take another 5-10 years, but there is no doubt that women are in part to blame for why men across the country are cutting off their balls just so they can have sex with something breathing and female.
Now that half of the population is “less than a man”, you all have the balls to claim you had NOTHING to do with it?
Good post.
I’ve noticed that the eye-brow waxing, chest shaving, metro subset gets nothing but mockery from a lot of women, but maybe that’s just the women I know. There is a definite subset of women that are interested in men who see themselves as some sort of work of art, but these seem to be confined to certain clubs and bars that I don’t frequent.
South Park’s take on metrosexuality was still the best.
I don’t see whats wrong with shaving your chest. Bodybuilders and those with good muscular development get rid of upper-body hair to show off their hard work. Although if you don’t lift weights and have no pec development, then I don’t see the point.
[/quote]
i mean shaving EVERYTHING including all your facial hair, your balls, your legs, your ass, your back, everything
I do not get the debate going on here. Especially the blaming of men or women for the choices of ‘media’ about the current idealized forms of men (and women). These forms have changed throughout time (as evidenced in paintings/photos/etc.) and generally concerned a small percentage of the population–artists and wealthy patrons. The forms where altered through dress more often than exercise (or surgery) and sometimes diet. My point is there has traditionally been a disconnect between the tastes of the elite and the everyperson.
Although strength and muscularity are masculine traits, ‘extremes’ such as Sandow and bodybuilders are rare; often treated as topics of spectacle or the outcome of the warrior/working class (who have been distant from the elite for some time).
Lets look back to examples of extraordinary gentleman: James Bond, Steve McQueen, James Dean and The Fonz, etc, none where muscular, at least not by todays standards. Steve Reeves played Tarzan, a man who lived and communicated with animals (thus an warrior and spectacle).
Metrosexuals or what have you are just another iteration of the petite bourgeois who use their visual appearance as a signcard of their (self)worth and standing in society. Nothing new here.
What may be different is that the appearance of physical strength (body building) has started to gain a foothold in the business class of modern society, which is probably something new. It challenges the notion of labor and intellectual pursuits as separate, and like all good cultures, there is resistance (conservatism) in order to maintain the status quo. Men and women both participate equally in the maintenance of society.
At the same time feminism, now going on forty years old, has shaped an expectation that men and women are equal, and one way to invoke/promote that idea is to minimize the physical differences between the sexes (e.g. women with short hair, pants, boy names, etc.) I do not suggest that androgynous stylizing are anything new, but are showing up in different ways such as men’s skin care lines (of course this can be argued that it is the push of capitalism into new markets, but I will leave that under the header of media).
So while we, fellow T-men and women, challenge the status quo, we are resisted both through traditional male/female archetypes and the visual equalization of the genders. By emphasizing the male and female form as beyond spectacle (i.e., working in nonlabor/entertainment jobs) we are a challenge to current culture on multiple fronts.
That said, let us remember that our views, here assumed to be pro-muscle, are a minority and should not be surprised when fashion trends such as metrosexuals (and what have you) come alone and disagree with our views and lifestyles.
end rant
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I do not get the debate going on here. Especially the blaming of men or women for the choices of ‘media’ about the current idealized forms of men (and women). These forms have changed throughout time (as evidenced in paintings/photos/etc.) and generally concerned a small percentage of the population–artists and wealthy patrons. The forms where altered through dress more often than exercise (or surgery) and sometimes diet. My point is there has traditionally been a disconnect between the tastes of the elite and the everyperson.
Although strength and muscularity are masculine traits, ‘extremes’ such as Sandow and bodybuilders are rare; often treated as topics of spectacle or the outcome of the warrior/working class (who have been distant from the elite for some time).
Lets look back to examples of extraordinary gentleman: James Bond, Steve McQueen, James Dean and The Fonz, etc, none where muscular, at least not by todays standards. Steve Reeves played Tarzan, a man who lived and communicated with animals (thus an warrior and spectacle).
Metrosexuals or what have you are just another iteration of the petite bourgeois who use their visual appearance as a signcard of their (self)worth and standing in society. Nothing new here.
What may be different is that the appearance of physical strength (body building) has started to gain a foothold in the business class of modern society, which is probably something new. It challenges the notion of labor and intellectual pursuits as separate, and like all good cultures, there is resistance (conservatism) in order to maintain the status quo. Men and women both participate equally in the maintenance of society.
At the same time feminism, now going on forty years old, has shaped an expectation that men and women are equal, and one way to invoke/promote that idea is to minimize the physical differences between the sexes (e.g. women with short hair, pants, boy names, etc.) I do not suggest that androgynous stylizing are anything new, but are showing up in different ways such as men’s skin care lines (of course this can be argued that it is the push of capitalism into new markets, but I will leave that under the header of media).
So while we, fellow T-men and women, challenge the status quo, we are resisted both through traditional male/female archetypes and the visual equalization of the genders. By emphasizing the male and female form as beyond spectacle (i.e., working in nonlabor/entertainment jobs) we are a challenge to current culture on multiple fronts.
That said, let us remember that our views, here assumed to be pro-muscle, are a minority and should not be surprised when fashion trends such as metrosexuals (and what have you) come alone and disagree with our views and lifestyles.
end rant[/quote]
Very well put, and I could not agree more.
The point of this thread was that at no period in history were there so many feminine men walking around everywhere. In body shape, behavior, voice, clothes…everything reeks of weakness and docility. When I questioned the hormone replacement, I also implied that the two are connected. I just wanted to hear what other people thought.
My mind is made up. I know it’s the food. I refuse to believe that all of a sudden TV fucked everyone up and parents lost the skills. The kind of shit parents eat and give to their growing children and how it affects them is disgusting and I see it frequently in kids and adults at all ages. A chain is as strong as it’s weakest link, and society - as it’s common representative individual. It’s not TV or games. It’s shitty people cloning and feeding.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Interesting theory but I think it’s that life is sooooo easy now. Modern civilization has taken the hard edges off many men. Made them lazy. I don’t think it’s the food although I won’t deny it could be contributory. [/quote]
I agree with this. High testosterone just doesn’t have the advantage it used to - at least not overtly.
TC mentioned the book Heroes Rogues Lovers - Testosterone and Behavior. I picked it up a couple years back, really cool read.
The author took saliva samples of a bunch of men in different professions to compare T levels. The ones who had the highest were suprising to say the least.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Interesting theory but I think it’s that life is sooooo easy now. Modern civilization has taken the hard edges off many men. Made them lazy. I don’t think it’s the food although I won’t deny it could be contributory.
I agree with this. High testosterone just doesn’t have the advantage it used to - at least not overtly.
TC mentioned the book Heroes Rogues Lovers - Testosterone and Behavior. I picked it up a couple years back, really cool read.
The author took saliva samples of a bunch of men in different professions to compare T levels. The ones who had the highest were suprising to say the least.[/quote]
What were the results? or should I buy the book…