The only good touches for men are sexual?

Yes I am still in this world. Its just that while I was in the hospital with my dad last week it was all I had to continue my own blog. But don't worry he's good and now the show continues.

(Normally I keep my personal stuff at my place but I think this is just too big to presume that I'm the only guy that feels this way.)

I've been on a bit of a self diagnostic kick lately and have been reminded of another part of me that's probably a bit lacking.

Last week titfortat told me:

You can a have a Massage at our wellness clinic(on the house). It sounds like you could use one. :)

To which I responded with:

That's another one of my oddities. I don't do a whole lot of that human contact stuff. Its not that I have a phobia or anything that limits it it just doesn't happen.

Well I was going to revisit this later on but Ozy's touched on it a bit so now's as good a time as any.

Virginal men, especially if they don’t have romantic relationships, are often touch-starved. There is one acceptable way for men to get touched: sexually. Casual cuddles with friends are Not Allowed. Woo, homophobia!

For the most part growing up with the script of being a man shoved down our throats most of us were raised with some odd messages with regards to touch. When we're young touching is fine among family but even that has a shelf life (I'm betting I'm not the only one that kinda shied away from physical contact with even my parents as I hit my teen years). Once the teen years hit it seems that out of nowhere the only acceptable type of touching is in a romantic or sexual way. Well for those of us who are not touching or getting touched in those "appropriate" ways things can get pretty lonesome.

As I was telling titfortat in the comments of that post I've never had a massage before. Well it actually goes beyond laying on a table wrapped in a towel and getting rubbed down. In a short bit of thinking I can only count 2 times in my life that I've ever been touched in a massaging manner in a non professional setting. Hell the only time I hug people is when the other person reaches for me first.

But anyway when it comes to being a man and touching it just seems that that, like most other, line of emotional support is forbidden to us as a part of how we are conditioned to fulfill our role in The System. No we are supposed to rock hard stoic creatures in order to charge forth and do all that we can to make The System stronger (namely in the way of labor as external providers). Because really what kind of "real man" would look for emotional support when should be out there making some faceless power structure more money that it knows what to do with (well at least it knows not to actually include the people whose backs were broken for that profit).

Maybe that's the point of "allowing" us touching for sexual and romantic purposes. A little outlet so that we don't get totally touch-starved, as Ozy says. Well when tying the only "appropriate" touching to something like relationships and sex that leaves a lot of guys hanging. Guys who just don't feel like being in relationships. Guys who do have little to no success in relationships. Guys who aren't interested in relationships with women (because let's face it even among "appropriate" touching for guys gay guys still get pissed on in terms of displays of touching and affection). Guys who are soul crushingly shy when it comes to expressing desire for affection.

Come on I know I'm not the only thinking about touching and guys (okay some of us may be thinking about touching guys right now but that's cool too). Don't be scared to share.

Still not funny...

I just posted this a short while ago at my place but I want to put it over here too (and April invited me to do so). Frankly I'm still heated about this and I'll be other people are too. If you don't feel like being nice about the commentary by all means bring your fire over to my place. But just because I'm giving you more leeway than April doesn't mean you have a blank check to say what you want. Be nice to April folks.

(This post is about the violent mutilation of a man's genitals and some horrible people that actually laugh at it, cheer about it, and joke about it. Tread carefully.)

For the last few days I've been following the case of Catherine Kieu Becker, the woman who allegedly drugged her husband, tied him to a bed, chopped off his penis, threw it the garbage disposal (and turned it on), called the cops then told the cops on the scene that deserved it. However on a count of spending my Friday night getting ready for the final Harry Potter movie and then being away from the net from Saturday morning til Sunday evening I missed out on the news about some rather offensive commentary about the case from the women who host the CBS day time talk show The Talk. I'm going to show you the horror that I'm about to talk about. Like I said above this is some terrible stuff. Oh and if you're a fan of Sharon Osbourne before and still are after viewing this then I'm pretty sure I will no longer respect you in any way shape or form.



From the 7-14-11 episode of The Talk on CBS
Simply put this is disgusting and disrespectful to say the very least. Sara Gilbert eventually mentions the double standard but Sharon Osbourne doesn't let that stop her from celebrating the violence that was committed against this man (and she also joked about having an altar for Lorena Bobbit). All around that was hard to watch. To not only see it happen but where it happened. These are not some random nameless faceless folk in the farthest reaches of 4Chan. No these women are known people and celebrities on a nationally broadcasted show on a major network talking this misandry.

At one point in the video one of them (the woman to the far left) comments that she can think of one instance where she would do cut off a man's genitals. But she won't go into it. Why? Because they are laughing and joking and the thing she's thinking about is not a laughing manner (my guess is she's talking about rape, although I've seen one other speculate child rape specifically). So that one thing is not a laughing manner but this is? No its not. I said a while back that violence against men is not funny. Rest assured nothing has happened in the last year and half that made it suddenly funny or okay.

In case you're thinking about defending it:

1. "But look at all the women who are abused/tortured/raped/killed everyday!"

Doesn't justify vigilante justice or lashing out in violence. Or should we just make the whole world "blind"?

2. "I'll bet he abused her. She was just fighting back.

Early signs say he was drugged and tied up so self-defense is a no go. But if you insist on going this route pulling a Mary Winkler will not cut it here. Her words alone are not evidence of self-defense. Motivation to go looking for actual evidence of self-defense but not self-defense on its own.

3. "But, patriarchy!!!!

If you think that applies then you're using it wrong and there may be no hope for you.

4. "But its different from when it happens to women.

Please explain how the difference in genitals makes this okay.

5. "But she said he deserved it."

Unless he was in the middle of attacking her no he didn't. Refer to point 2.

6. (Oh and if you dare try to use "institutional power", "privilege", or any other buzzwords to explain this away or minimize it I'm warning you now my Moderation Style will be swift and unyielding.)

7...

Point is there is absolutely NO reason that this man deserved to have this done to him.

And Sharon Osbourne should be ashamed of herself but it should be no surprise since just a few weeks ago she said, “I would have chopped his willy (penis) off. Arnie’s willy would have been down the disposal unit spinning around, that’s where it’d be – and I’d make her clean it up. That mop would have been wrapped around her head.” when commenting on the recent discovery of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s infidelity. Just plain awful. If anything Osbourne needs to lose her job on that show and since they were so happy about joking about this attack on national tv they should be able to apologize to him on national tv. So its time to ante up. I was planning on contacting someone about this and low and behold the nice folks at No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? has rounded up contact info already.

• At CBS’s website comment form, select “Complaint,” and then “The Talk” from the dropdown menu. Let them know exactly how you feel.


• Write CBS on Twitter.


• Write CBS on Facebook.


• Email CBS Investor Relations or call them at 877-227-0787. (Put your cursor over the link to get the email address from the bottom lower left of your browser window.) You might inform them that you will be contacting their advertisers to tell them what they implicitly supported, and considering boycotting the same. If you have any investments in CBS properties (directly or through retirement accounts, etc.), you should tell them you will be reconsidering those investments.


• File a complaint with the FCC.

I also received a link to a Youtube video covering the story a few days ago. When's the last time you saw a news station headline a male against female violence story with "Ouch!"?

Received a link to this via email earlier today.

Time to ante up!

Still think intent doesn't matter ?

If you recall about a month ago I did a post on an ad featuring images of a fat guy being used to sell ad space. Well my problem with the ad was that the images were used in a "hey hurry up and buy this ad space before this fat guy takes all his clothes off" context. (Also check out Renee's chime in on it.) Pretty messed up right? It would seem that others don't think so.

A week or so after I posted on this ad campaign the folks over at Sociological Images weighed in on it. The person that wrote that post seems to recognize the fat hatred (although I think they went through a bit of length to keep it gender neutral, lengths I doubt would have been taken if the featured a fat woman but that's another story) but were a few that thought otherwise:

Traditional attitudes to male and female fatness are not the same (obviously). The male beer belly is a symbol of strength, appetite and self-reliance (because, of course, only unmanly men care about their appearance), and the idea that it is unhealthy and unattractive reinforces that self-reliance message. This model is clearly not supposed to be ashamed of his body.(Emphasis mine.)

If only it were that simple.

Okay while I think its great that that model is not ashamed of his body I think the problem here isn't what he thinks about his body but the manner in which the ad agency chose to use it.

Take Chris Farley. If he were alive today and you asked him if he was ashamed of his size I bet you would get a resounding no. However I dare you to prove that "its funny because he's fat" had nothing to do with the appeal he had with fans during his relatively short career. Let's take someone that current. Kevin James. You really think that his material would be great if he were the same size as say Adam Sandler? Oh he could be but I bet you his material would very different.

And the reason those things work the way they do is because society at large thinks that fat is disgusting and unattractive but can be quite funny when used "properly". If that ad he used an image of a guy that's more conventionally attractive the ad space may have still sold (and possibly still won an award) but I think the reasoning would have been very different. My money says if he were conventionally attractive the tipping point would have been homophobia rather than fat hatred (which may have been counted by an effort to keep the image up by those who are attracted to men). I mean think about it like it were Hooters. More than likely most of the women that work at Hooters restaurants probably don't think they are being objectified but when you really get down to it why do the owners/managers hire those women? To show off their bodies.

Its times like this I believe intent matters and in this case I believe it was the intent of the folks who ran that ad campaign to use that man's image in the sense of, "Come on buy this ad space. You don't want that guy to take all of his clothes off do you?"

Being A Man 101: Work

Crossposted.

I live and I breath. I've been out of town the last few days and its time to get back to work. (But seriously I was shocked to see over 600 hits on my Google Reader when I got back.)

Wow has it already been over a month since I first brought this up? I've been a bit busy the last few weeks and my scheduled stuff has run out (except for the end of my 30 Day Song Challenge) so its time to get real again. To get back into the swing of things I'm bring up what will be the first of many entries in this FAQ.

I'm going straight for the jugular on this one. Work.

Now if you recall I said I was building this 101 up as a place where one can come and read up on the basics of being a man. By basics I mean to lay out the topic at hand as it relates to men, cover some of the pitfalls of that topic as they relate to men, perhaps try to throw in a few nuggets of wisdom on how to address them, and most importantly spur conversation on the subject. There's a chance you are burning up inside to talk about something. Come on in and talk. There's a chance you might have a question that you can get some beginner's insight on. Glad I can help. There's a chance you'll see something here you disagree with. By all means point it out and let's talk it out. There's a chance you may read this and think to yourself that there's nothing here you haven't seen already. Fair enough and peace be with you.

I was thinking about starting this off with sex but that's a pretty tall order to start Being A Man 101 with. So I'm gonna tap on another subject that's near and dear to the hearts of men: work.

Society teaches that a defining mark of a man is what occupation he holds.

In decades/centuries long past a man's occupation was so ingrained into his identity that he sometimes drew his very name from it. Meaning that almost quite literally a man was his job. If a man had no job then he had no identity (or at least a negative identity) and he was not a real man (or at least not a real honest man). Not only was having a job important but also what type of job a man held would hold sway over his status as a man. Not just as a man but as a person in general.

CEO of a large coporation? Then you're counted as a important man with the power to rule the world (or at least a noticable portion of it). Work at a steel factory? Then you're an unsophisticated brute that doesn't know the finer things in life. A professor at a high end college? Then you're a knowledgable man whose words should be heeded. However bear in mind that these mindsets are not universal but rather vary from person to person or culture to culture. That CEO could be seen as a greedy fiendish man that would kill his own family for a buck while making a fortune on the backs of others. That steel factory worker could be seen as a hardworking man that everyone should spire to be. And that professor could be seen as a know it who deals in theory but has little actual experience to back it up. Its mostly about how one perceives the job but at the end of the day there are people who base their assessment of a man on nothing but his job.

Now a days a man's status may not be as rigidly associated with this job as it once but the link is still there and its still strong.

How often do you hear people saying that a man that doesn't provide for his wife (yes heteromomative but we'll get back to that in the future) is a real man or try to measure a man's worth and character by his job? It still happens and because of this times have not boded well for men. In the recent economic downturn people seem to be in a state of confusion over what men are supposed to do now that what society tells us is a core part of being a man has been lost. This is the result of not just some rough patch that works itself out but rather this is a big case of a lot of those jobs simply not coming back (remember a large chunk of those jobs that were lost were in manufacturing and who makes up most of the people in those field?).

Something needs to change.

Despite things not quite being like they were a few centuries ago we still have the issue of boys being raised under the belief that they are supposed to be the provider in order to matter or to be worthy of finding a partner. This gives those boys (and men they will become) an expectation that they are unfairly expected to meet (there's a big difference between being expected to be a productive member of society and being treated like you don't count as a man, human, or potential partner unless you have a certain job or have x amount of money).

So what do you think reader? I'm not pretending that this is the absolute definitive word on the subject of men and work, its a work in progress and will probably in progress for a long time. Have something you want to share? By all means come on over and chime in. We'd be doing everyone a lot of good to talk this out.

And they say a man's looks don't matter...

(Okay I thought I had actually posted this. Silly me for leaving it in the drafts for so long.)

So I was reading this post over at Renee's about the Sexiest Man Alive list done by Star magazine and I came across this one part that kinda made by blood boil.

When we look at a man's physical body, it is never seen as limiting his potential...

Is it me or does it seem that some women love dictating what it is like to be a man?

As I commented over there (which BTW was modded down, I guess some people can't stand the truth) this is simply not true. Now before you start the "who has it worse" pissing match note that she did not say that a man's physical body aren't as limiting of his potential as a woman's physical body can be. No she straight up said that a man's physical body never has any bearing on his potential. I say nonsense.

Let's take actors for instance. If you look at the actors that some up on that list (she has some of them in her post and I can't find the list online) you'll see that not a one of those guys is what you would call fat. But that's not the trick to her post. Simply two paragraphs later she makes the very true point of how fat men are marginalized (and of course taking the paragraph in between to add in the obligatory "okay yeah there is something unfair that happens to men but above all else remember that they are privileged" mitigation).

So on one hand being fat doesn't limit my potential while at the same time because I'm fat I'm often automatically dismissed as not being considered sexy. Now while writing this post it hit me that maybe, just maybe when she was talking about "limiting his potential..." she was talking about his ability to succeed and trying to separate that from whether or not he thinks he is sexy. Then I realized that those two are not so easily pulled apart. Even if you eliminate careers that link directly to one's looks what a man (or woman for that matter) there is still the simple confidence factor. When you think you aren't attractive you shy away from things that might put your face out there. As much as I complain about answering phones all day I'd still rather do that than be a teller at my bank (yes there was that one woman whose firing from a bank over her attractiveness that caused a lot of noise but compared to say the modeling industry something happening like that in banking is pretty rare) and have people look at me all day.

And there's being large pretty much means you must be an athlete. Or that you're not very intelligent. Or that you don't practice good/regular hygiene. Or you're not active and must be lazy. Or that you must be lousy in bed (assuming you don't crush the poor woman right?). (And of course there's swinging the pendulum to the other side and making assumptions about small guys.)

But hey what do I know? I'm just an actual man rather than a woman trying to tell men what their lives are like. (Either that or I'm really missing something here.)

When I read that post I was reminded of an ad for that new music game Power Gig.

Notice what happens to the guy when the narrator says, "You don't need to be sexy, or good looking."