Avoiding Toxic Masculinity in BDSM

[IrisAlthea]

Volodymyr Zelenskyy?

I’ve heard Zelenskyj mentioned in this context several times recently and it has been on my mind a lot.
At the beginning of the war I saw a lot of articles in a lot of languages about how Zelenskyj was a comedian before and how he now was president, a leader, a tough guy etc and it was somehow very obvious that the role he has taken in war time has seemed mutually exclusive with being a comedian to a lot of people. There seems to be so much need to categorize both people and traits.

Overall, it seems that masculinity is somehow defined by how it makes the woman feel.

To elaborate my previous post - the examples I have given for femininity "collaborative, vulnerable, empathetic, caring, encouraging, self-sacrificing" don't talk about how a feminine woman should make a man feel. I'm not really trying to say much right now, I'm too exhausted to think much today, but the difference somehow stuck out.

It certainly seems to be part of what people think about when they are doing the sorting. I think it can be the same with traits often seen as feminine, like soft, warm etc.

I think the view of masculinity and femininity changes a lot over time and between cultures, depending of what society and culture needs at the time.
For example, I was thinking today about a man who was important to me, who grew up during and after WW2. When this topic comes up, I often think about how he spoke of the pressure he and his class mates were subjected to during their education, to grow up to the men who would re-build and how not all of them made it trough alive. I could see, in his relationships with his sons and some others that there was a price to pay for those who did.
I know that men growing up here during the same time, did so in a different situation and had a somewhat different experience and outcome. The idea of masculinity also looks a bit different here.
All with a generous helping of generalization of course.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Also, calling a man milady, offering him to be a sub as an insult in a thread about toxic masculinity, is…something.

 

[Primalex]

It certainly seems to be part of what people think about when they are doing the sorting. I think it can be the same with traits often seen as feminine, like soft, warm etc.

I think the view of masculinity and femininity changes a lot over time and between cultures, depending of what society and culture needs at the time.
For example, I was thinking today about a man who was important to me, who grew up during and after WW2. When this topic comes up, I often think about how he spoke of the pressure he and his class mates were subjected to during their education, to grow up to the men who would re-build and how not all of them made it trough alive. I could see, in his relationships with his sons and some others that there was a price to pay for those who did.
I know that men growing up here during the same time, did so in a different situation and had a somewhat different experience and outcome. The idea of masculinity also looks a bit different here.
All with a generous helping of generalization of course.

But did it really change a lot over time?

Look at the initiation rites. While there are differences, of course, overall, the female initiation rite is celebrating her first menstrual period. She does not actively need to prove that she is a woman. But the male initiation rites are not about shooting some cum from the dick to prove that everything works. You need to prove that you are a man and your male peer group decides if you have passed the test.

This is a fundamental difference that is still true to some degree today. The status of "being a man" is not a biological function of the male human. The status of being a man is a status granted by his male peers (peers in a broad sense, not just same age). Displaying masculinity is a core element of trying to figure out if you are a man. No mother has ever said:"Hey, I've found some cum stains in your socks, well, I guess you are a man now!" And you can't just say:"I'm a man, even if my peer group disagrees with me." No, then you are just a rambling lunatic. Some women, who have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, believe that you "just need to be confident in your masculinity". Yeah...that's not how it works. If you really believe that acceptance by others is something optional that you can shake off as need when you are just confident enough, then you should question why so many groups out there are fighting for being accepted by others.

 

[HotBrand]

Also, calling a man milady, offering him to be a sub as an insult in a thread about toxic masculinity, is…something.

So ... we'll ignore the five months of people trying to express why toxic masculinity is a thing - something I just pointed out because it's genuinely the case.

Let's ignore that the first thing he does is swear at me and insult the very idea of my existence, then about where I interact with people.

Instead, let's skirt around that and, instead, come at me because I used gender subversion in the face of direct aggression. Deflect from the guy who is outright defending toxic masculinity with:

You need to prove that you are a man and your male peer group decides if you have passed the test.

Nope. My use of "milady" is the problem. Not Primalex and his soggy biscuit, biggest dick is biggest man, don't-even-mention-gender-spectrum diatribe. Nope. Gender subversion is the enemy here. Queer culture and defence parody is the issue.

... let's just stay away from each other, friend. It's not you. It's me. We tried. We'll always have Breakfast at Tiffany's.

 

[Primalex]

Let's ignore that the first thing he does is swear at me and insult the very idea of my existence, then about where I interact with people.

Oh no. I used the "f" word when, out of nowhere, you suddenly ranted about my contributions in this thread, without any contribution of yours.

then about where I interact with people.

You fucking dumbwit literally asked me to do this. Are you whining now that I did what you suggested in the first place?

"It was his fault that he made me do bad things!!"

Yeah, we know this excuse very well.

Deflect from the guy who is outright defending toxic masculinity with:

This is not a defense for displaying toxic masculinity. I'm talking about displaying masculinity and as far as I understand it, even KatieDoes agrees that not all masculinity is toxic. Are you going to disagree with her now and declare that all masculinity is indeed toxic?

 

[HotBrand]

You fucking dumbwit literally asked me to do this. Are you whining now that I did what you suggested in the first place?

Calm down, champ. You're getting excited again.

Can I just point out your additional erasure of any non-binary, genderqueer, and trans identity?

[...] the female initiation rite is celebrating her first menstrual period. She does not actively need to prove that she is a woman.

... and ...

Displaying masculinity is a core element of trying to figure out if you are a man.

... or ...

The status of being a man is a status granted by his male peers (peers in a broad sense, not just same age).

FYI, that last quote is literally toxic masculinity. How can you not see that?

That last post was a treasure trove of misogyny, toxic masculinity, and peer pressure culture. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't harmful.

Admittedly, there is one thing that's worth addressing:

If you really believe that acceptance by others is something optional that you can shake off as need when you are just confident enough, then you should question why so many groups out there are fighting for being accepted by others.

The answer is because those groups are marginalised, vilified, disenfranchised, shamed, and disproportionately affected by discrimination and hate crime.

They're not fighting to be accepted because they need your approval.

They're fighting to be protected because - you'll never believe it, but bear with me! - they are targeted for their right to self-identify. Because they don't fit in with the opinions you espouse so proudly.

People *die* because of it - and you say:

And you can't just say:"I'm a man, even if my peer group disagrees with me." No, then you are just a rambling lunatic. Some women, who have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, believe that you "just need to be confident in your masculinity".

Could you just like ... reread some of the stuff that people have taken the time to say to you? It spans months and it'd do their efforts some justice.

People have tried to tell you about their worlds for months because it's important and it matters. You want to be a man? Fine. Don't force it on others with your "initiation rites" and "accepted by peers" smoke.

Just ... try to understand ... because folks have taken a lot of time to try and rationalise with you.

Cheersies!

 

[Primalex]

Can I just point out your additional erasure of any non-binary, genderqueer, and trans identity?

Please tell me about non-binary-, genderqueer- and trans-identity initiation rites in preliterate societies.

The answer is because those groups are marginalised, vilified, disenfranchised, shamed, and disproportionately affected by discrimination and hate crime.

They're not fighting to be accepted because they need your approval.

"marginalised, vilified, disenfranchised, shamed" etc. is a fucking consequence of not being accepted.

Men are not seeking approval by other men because they want to hang a certificate on the wall, but because they want to avoid being "marginalised, vilified, disenfranchised, shamed".


(And your whole:"Primalex is worse than me so you people can't complain about what I'm doing" argument is...well...really, really sad.)

 

[HotBrand]

Please tell me about non-binary-, genderqueer- and trans-identity initiation rites in preliterate societies.

Sure. Two-spirit identity in some Native American cultures. There's a start.

However, as my first post mentioned, the dialogue isn't working. You ask questions solely to deride the respondent. I don't think you could name a single valid point since the very first post that talked about the harm toxic masculinity causes.

So I'm done. You beat me. Citing the caveman theory was just the cherry on the icing of this very sad cake.

I'm glad that this exchange is here though for posterity. It's like ... a vindication, you know?

So ... thank you in a weird way. You've successfully articulated a very real problem. You asked for examples of toxic masculinity and then provided them. Litsters will be able to check in here occasionally and just ... see, you know?

So you beat me. I can't convince you that men don't have to be accepted as masculine by their peers. I'm "man enough" to accept that.

But I hope it'll encourage readers to read through the posts of all those people who tried to engage with you.

So it's still a win, Mr Primalex, and that's a wonderful thing

 

[Primalex]

I can't convince you that men don't have to be accepted as masculine by their peers. I'm "man enough" to accept that.

You are not even man enough to say:"I'm sorry for using gender subversion."

 

[Primalex]

As HotBrand does not want to discuss with me, maybe someone else can answer:

Sure. Two-spirit identity in some Native American cultures. There's a start.

The question was about initiation rites. Did those cultures identify a two-spirit identity before or after the initiation rite based upon the birth-assigned identity and how did the initiation rite of the two-spirit look like then?

 

[twister947]

Is there a point to all of this?

 

[IrisAlthea]

But did it really change a lot over time?

Look at the initiation rites. While there are differences, of course, overall, the female initiation rite is celebrating her first menstrual period. She does not actively need to prove that she is a woman. But the male initiation rites are not about shooting some cum from the dick to prove that everything works. You need to prove that you are a man and your male peer group decides if you have passed the test.

This is a fundamental difference that is still true to some degree today. The status of "being a man" is not a biological function of the male human. The status of being a man is a status granted by his male peers (peers in a broad sense, not just same age). Displaying masculinity is a core element of trying to figure out if you are a man. No mother has ever said:"Hey, I've found some cum stains in your socks, well, I guess you are a man now!" And you can't just say:"I'm a man, even if my peer group disagrees with me." No, then you are just a rambling lunatic. Some women, who have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, believe that you "just need to be confident in your masculinity". Yeah...that's not how it works. If you really believe that acceptance by others is something optional that you can shake off as need when you are just confident enough, then you should question why so many groups out there are fighting for being accepted by others.

Define ”a lot”.
Some of it certainly doesn’t change. Agression seems to get sorted on the masculine side of things but the amount of open agression a man (and a woman) are allowed changes drastically based on external pressure.
You are right about the timing of female initiation rites being based on physical signs in earlier cultures. (And not even that much earlier in all things-swedish age of consent was set as the mean age at menarche at the time. Mid 19th century IIRC.)
Being a woman has always been physically tied to procreation but the role of the sticky stuff at night took a bit longer to figure out I guess.
I think most cultures have had/have other requirements than just periodic bleeding to be accepted among the women though.
It is interesting that we still have this strange relationship with the males first ejaculations. In swedish they are still called nocturnal ”pollutions”, I kid you not.

What it takes to be accepted among the grown ups now, seems to be a new, interesting topic. The fuzziness of that line and of the concept of masculinity is a huge problem though.

 

[IrisAlthea]

So ... we'll ignore the five months of people trying to express why toxic masculinity is a thing - something I just pointed out because it's genuinely the case.

Let's ignore that the first thing he does is swear at me and insult the very idea of my existence, then about where I interact with people.

Instead, let's skirt around that and, instead, come at me because I used gender subversion in the face of direct aggression. Deflect from the guy who is outright defending toxic masculinity with:



Nope. My use of "milady" is the problem. Not Primalex and his soggy biscuit, biggest dick is biggest man, don't-even-mention-gender-spectrum diatribe. Nope. Gender subversion is the enemy here. Queer culture and defence parody is the issue.

... let's just stay away from each other, friend. It's not you. It's me. We tried. We'll always have Breakfast at Tiffany's.

Yes, I have been part of the thread from the beginning. I’ve read every post at least twice actually and posted several times. I haven’t ignored anyone or only responded and reacted to one (male) poster.

When you find someone who doesn’t debate the way you want them to and you feel attacked, the best thing that comes to mind as the perfect insult, is assigning my gender to him.
And when I point it out, you tell me what should be my problem and explain the thread to me?
I don’t know who handed you the shovel, but they should have given you a ladder to get out of the hole too.

I really dislike Breakfast at Tiffany’s actually, because of how it portrays femininity as childlike and not required to be responsible (to the point where it is somehow ok to mistreat the cat!.)

I’m generally not much for assigning blame, but if it has to be done, we seem to at least agree that it’s you and to stay away from each other.

 

[IrisAlthea]

As HotBrand does not want to discuss with me, maybe someone else can answer:


The question was about initiation rites. Did those cultures identify a two-spirit identity before or after the initiation rite based upon the birth-assigned identity and how did the initiation rite of the two-spirit look like then?

I had never heard of it, but google tells me the term is modern and criticized.

Those few lectures on anthropology I stumbled into the last millennia, spoke mostly about tribes in Oceania and of the Sami people. As far as I remember, it is both about fluid gender as a sign of connection with spirituality and about being a representative for both genders as the link to the spirit world.
It is not the same everywhere and we always view it through our on cultural glasses and tend to want to translate directly to our own concepts, so we are usually missing and misunderstanding important points.

Is there a point to all of this?

I think there is a point to the discussion about masculinity and about toxic behaviour, yes.

 

[KatieDoes]

But did it really change a lot over time?

Look at the initiation rites. While there are differences, of course, overall, the female initiation rite is celebrating her first menstrual period. She does not actively need to prove that she is a woman. But the male initiation rites are not about shooting some cum from the dick to prove that everything works. You need to prove that you are a man and your male peer group decides if you have passed the test.

This is a fundamental difference that is still true to some degree today. The status of "being a man" is not a biological function of the male human. The status of being a man is a status granted by his male peers (peers in a broad sense, not just same age). Displaying masculinity is a core element of trying to figure out if you are a man. No mother has ever said:"Hey, I've found some cum stains in your socks, well, I guess you are a man now!" And you can't just say:"I'm a man, even if my peer group disagrees with me." No, then you are just a rambling lunatic. Some women, who have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, believe that you "just need to be confident in your masculinity". Yeah...that's not how it works. If you really believe that acceptance by others is something optional that you can shake off as need when you are just confident enough, then you should question why so many groups out there are fighting for being accepted by others.

This is really enlightening and sad.

I’m really sorry that the men in your life made you feel as though you had to prove you were a ‘man’ and that you weren’t accepted for yourself.

When we say that toxic masculinity is harmful to men, this is the sort of thing that we mean.

I know I’ve poked you with a stick a little bit in this thread, but I’m done. I’m genuinely sorry that that happened to you. You deserved better. Anyone deserves better.

 

[Primalex]

This is really enlightening and sad.
I’m really sorry that the men in your life made you feel as though you had to prove you were a ‘man’ and that you weren’t accepted for yourself.
When we say that toxic masculinity is harmful to men, this is the sort of thing that we mean.
I know I’ve poked you with a stick a little bit in this thread, but I’m done. I’m genuinely sorry that that happened to you. You deserved better. Anyone deserves better.

Oh, please. You think you are not doing stuff to be accepted by your peer group because you are female? You are as much a victim of society as me and if you don't believe this, then you are actually in a worse position.

 

[Lady2020]

Oh, please. You think you are not doing stuff to be accepted by your peer group because you are female? You are as much a victim of society as me and if you don't believe this, then you are actually in a worse position.

 

[Primalex]

So, it is not accurate to imply that there are simply "male" and "female" initiation rites. I think it is true that this is what most societies care about. You did mention somewhere, and I forget where, that men now do not have such a thing or you can correct me if I'm wrong, while women have menarche as an initiation rite.

First of all, the bolded part is the key element. I never said there has never been a culture in the history with more than two initiation rites - at least I did not intend to create this interpretation. And regarding the second part, I said that male initiation rites tend to not be pure functions of the body that are guaranteed to happen at some age. (Tend to, not that it never ever existed.)

Regarding the Jewish religion - the female equivalent, the Bat Mizwa, is a fairly new appearance, less than 150 years young. And...while the circumcision on the 8th day is maybe not an initiation rite for maturity, it is one regarding the acceptance of the community; while the female equivalent is merely pronouncing her name. It's sufficient for the female baby to exist to be accepted, not for the male baby.

Some cultures and major religions frown upon menstruation so much, deeming it unclean, that you are to be shut away from others while you are menstruating. Perhaps an initiation into isolation?

That's a good point, at it allows me to clear something else up, that might have been interpreted wrongly.

I'm not saying that women have it easier. I'm saying it's different from men. Your example reinforces my point - maybe their menstruation is not celebrated in their culture, but nevertheless, part of the "community acceptance clause". "You are impure, because you are bleeding." - the woman is judged by her biological traits. It's not under her control whether she "fails or succeeds". While it sucks if you "can't win", it also means you don't have to figure out how to win. This is just not a burden. If you don't have to show your community that you are "a real woman" because you are already accepted as one by the community, then you never ever can cross the line trying to prove it. You might do so by trying to gain additional status within the community - but your core identity is never questioned.

 

[IrisAlthea]

First of all, the bolded part is the key element. I never said there has never been a culture in the history with more than two initiation rites - at least I did not intend to create this interpretation. And regarding the second part, I said that male initiation rites tend to not be pure functions of the body that are guaranteed to happen at some age. (Tend to, not that it never ever existed.)

Regarding the Jewish religion - the female equivalent, the Bat Mizwa, is a fairly new appearance, less than 150 years young. And...while the circumcision on the 8th day is maybe not an initiation rite for maturity, it is one regarding the acceptance of the community; while the female equivalent is merely pronouncing her name. It's sufficient for the female baby to exist to be accepted, not for the male baby.



That's a good point, at it allows me to clear something else up, that might have been interpreted wrongly.

I'm not saying that women have it easier. I'm saying it's different from men. Your example reinforces my point - maybe their menstruation is not celebrated in their culture, but nevertheless, part of the "community acceptance clause". "You are impure, because you are bleeding." - the woman is judged by her biological traits. It's not under her control whether she "fails or succeeds". While it sucks if you "can't win", it also means you don't have to figure out how to win. This is just not a burden. If you don't have to show your community that you are "a real woman" because you are already accepted as one by the community, then you never ever can cross the line trying to prove it. You might do so by trying to gain additional status within the community - but your core identity is never questioned.

Yes, with men is seems to be more ”you are not a man”. I think it is way more rare that a woman hears that. IAAF/World Athletics tried to change that, but I think they had to back down. I don’t think we’ve heard the last of the issue in elite sports though.

For women, as GC points out, it is more about doing the woman thing wrong, by being a bad woman, not enough woman, too much woman - just not conforming with the current idea of the time, place, class, culture, group…
There are examples on a general level, like the distinctions between lady and woman, nice girl (has already been analyzed here) or not, slut shaming, the ”cool girl” debate, but as you pointed out earlier, you will not escape it while living among humans.

So it does suck for both men and women. Looking at historic and prehistoric conditions, I think it has always sucked to some extent and more for some.
While it is less about life or death for most, I think it is more confusing, conflicted and drawn out today though, because the village/tribe is a lot bigger and there are more peer groups judgeing us by different and conflicting standards, than there used to be.
While you are more free to find a group/identity, you are also rather on your own when it comes to doing so.

Those initiation rites mentioned have either been done away with or become empty ceremonies to a large extent.
Some groups certainly create new ones but it often seems to me that those groups that do it best are groups that are in conflict with democratic society etc.
It’s also still about life or death for some.

Question is what to do about it?
Some seem to want to go back to how it used to be, but they also seem (at least to me) to be romanticizeing to the point of actually fictionalizing it.

On an individual level, I think everyone has to pick their own balance point between belonging to a group and paying with some individuality and freedom or ”freedom’s just another word for nothing left to loose”.

On a society level though? Or to bring it back to the OP at least somewhat, in the BDSM community at large or locally?

 

[Primalex]

Because we have mounding evidence in the fields mentioned above that shows that people will change their expressions of gender and sexuality based on where they are, whom they are with, and what they are doing.

My argument - people do a lot of things to be accepted by their environment. This is why "just be confident, don't express your masculinity." is my pet peeve; as if there is an individual personal flaw that makes you do this.

 

[KimGordon67]

My argument - people do a lot of things to be accepted by their environment. This is why "just be confident, don't express your masculinity." is my pet peeve; as if there is an individual personal flaw that makes you do this.

Where did anyone say 'don't express your masculinity'?

 

[Primalex]

Where did anyone say 'don't express your masculinity'?

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...ulinity-in-bdsm.1555427/page-10#post-94954158

It's a circular contradiction.
"You can display your masculinity to prove that you are man, but not in a toxic way."
"When is it toxic?"
"When you display it just for the sake of proving that you are man."

When I point this out, all I read is:"YoU aRe dEfendinG tOxIc mAscuLIniTy!"

And the next level is:
"It is toxic masculinity, because you should not have to prove that you are a man."
But the logical consequence that is then made from this is:
"When you display masculinity, it is just an expression of being a victim of toxic masculinity that merely continues on the abuse."

 

[KimGordon67]

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...ulinity-in-bdsm.1555427/page-10#post-94954158

It's a circular contradiction.
"You can display your masculinity to prove that you are man, but not in a toxic way."
"When is it toxic?"
"When you display it just for the sake of proving that you are man."

When I point this out, all I read is:"YoU aRe dEfendinG tOxIc mAscuLIniTy!"

And the next level is:
"It is toxic masculinity, because you should not have to prove that you are a man."
But the logical consequence that is then made from this is:
"When you display masculinity, it is just an expression of being a victim of toxic masculinity that merely continues on the abuse."

This is just a willful 'misunderstanding' of what's been said. So there's zero point in actually responding.

 

[Primalex]

This is just a willful 'misunderstanding' of what's been said. So there's zero point in actually responding.

Okay, but I will respond.

The reality is that people start with a good idea and while pursuing this idea, they end up in not very good implementations. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

"Women have the same worth as men!" -> "Women don't just belong in the kitchen and bedroom!" -> "You are seeking a 1950s relationship?! You are a disgrace to women."

Maybe some of the contributors here are genuinely somewhere at the "good idea" part of it and I wrongly position them somewhere else in the chain. Then this is not a malicious act. The reality though is that we have reached the bad implementation ideas stage in society, especially in the corresponding echo chambers. I don't mind bad ideas in echo chambers, I mind when they spill over and extremists try to implement them. If I don't know where your point of view is on the chart above, then I will more likely assume you are supporting the bad implementations stage, too. Especially when I get the impression that you are merely regurgitating slogans from the echo chambers.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding some contributors because I'm seeing them through the stage 3 glasses. Maybe you are misunderstanding some contributors, because you are seeing them through the stage 1 glasses.

PLP19s first two contributions were not worded as stage 1 post. That's a hill I'm going to die on.

 

[IrisAlthea]

When you talk about stage 1 and stage 3, are these the ones you mean?

"Women have the same worth as men!" -> "Women don't just belong in the kitchen and bedroom!" -> "You are seeking a 1950s relationship?! You are a disgrace to women."