Avoiding Toxic Masculinity in BDSM

[TANSTAAFL58]

Yes...but maybe that's the actual toxicity.

It's not:"Wow, you are very masculine logical and analytical.", it is:"Wow, you are a male emotional cripple!"



But...it does. That's the problem.

In any given situation, you are either perceived as strong or as vulnerable. If you appear as vulnerable in all situations, you will not be perceived as strong anymore. There is no way around it.

And here we finally end up back to the topic:

"emotional insensitivity" or "stoicism" being labeled as "toxic masculinity".

Is it?

Okay, but a lot of the "masculine" things I was taught by men are now not exclusively masculine. Hell, my profession (Engineer) was well over 99% male when I started University in 1977. It is very different now. A lot of toxic behavior comes from men who don't accept that the world has moved on.

 

[wicked woman]

I’d say it’s complicated. In a stereo typical normal relationship I would say all or most of the behavior would be toxic. But we’re not talking about a stereo typical normal relationship.

Goldenfinger would you comment more on this please? I don't quite grasp your point.

 

[Goldenfinger]

Goldenfinger would you comment more on this please? I don't quite grasp your point.

Well in A normal stereotypical relationship, controlling your partner I would think it’s frowned upon. In a BDSM relationship control or being dominant is a part of it. because those behaviors are not good in a normal relationship they would be considered toxic would they not.

Is not being afraid considered toxic?

 

[wicked woman]

Okay, but a lot of the "masculine" things I was taught by men are now not exclusively masculine. Hell, my profession (Engineer) was well over 99% male when I started University in 1977. It is very different now. A lot of toxic behavior comes from men who don't accept that the world has moved on.

I agree, having been a female in a very male profession, when I first joined it. That said, I still think there is a lot of societal expectation on men to be a 'real man'...both in encouraging some of the negative traits and and treating me badly when they are just being human, but demonstrate traits that are traditionally considered feminine. It's not as bad as it used to be but it's not changing fast enough.

 

[wicked woman]

Well in A normal stereotypical relationship, controlling your partner I would think it’s frowned upon. In a BDSM relationship control or being dominant is a part of it. because those behaviors are not good in a normal relationship they would be considered toxic would they not.

Is in being afraid considered toxic?

Thanks for the clarification.

I guess for me, the more important aspect is whether it's consensual or not. If there is, it's fine. If there isn't, it's not. More so than who does the controlling.

I think there are non-BDSM relationships where someone controls various issues, or even all of the issues (although that is becoming less common). Someone has to make the final decision, even if there is discussion, unless both always agree.

 

[Goldenfinger]

I agree, having been a female in a very male profession, when I first joined it. That said, I still think there is a lot of societal expectation on men to be a 'real man'...both in encouraging some of the negative traits and and treating me badly when they are just being human, but demonstrate traits that are traditionally considered feminine. It's not as bad as it used to be but it's not changing fast enough.

There is also expectations on men to be a real man. Women pick and choose what traits are acceptable. My wife is dominant I’m submissive, when there is a suspicious noise I am the one that goes investigates. When there’s a spider I’m the one called to take it outside.

Yes I take them outside. So not only am I tough, but I’m Sympathetic to the plight of the spider.

 

[Goldenfinger]

Thanks for the clarification.

I guess for me, the more important aspect is whether it's consensual or not. If there is, it's fine. If there isn't, it's not. More so than who does the controlling.

I think there are non-BDSM relationships where someone controls various issues, or even all of the issues (although that is becoming less common). Someone has to make the final decision, even if there is discussion, unless both always agree.

So this is the point I don’t understand and can’t grasp the concept of. I think there should always be consent. I can’t think of doing some thing without consent. So doing something outside the realm of consent is my mind is unacceptable.

 

[TANSTAAFL58]

No, because of consent. Limits. Communication.

This.

 

[wicked woman]

There is also expectations on men to be a real man. Women pick and choose what traits are acceptable. My wife is dominant I’m submissive, when there is a suspicious noise I am the one that goes investigates. When there’s a spider I’m the one called to take it outside.

I agree with you that there are expectations on men to be a 'real man'. That's what I'm referring to when I say I think society gives men a bum rap because those expectations usually exclude a lot of excellent traits/qualities that make up a whole person.

There are also expectations of women to be women. Have more responsibility for the kids, not outshine her man (especially financially), her looks and style are judged more than a man's. Again, all generalizations, of course.

I think both sexes get caught in society's expectations of us. Thankfully it is improving over time. We're just not 'there' yet.

 

[wicked woman]

So this is the point I don’t understand and can’t grasp the concept of. I think there should always be consent. I can’t think of doing some thing without consent. So doing something outside the realm of consent is my mind is unacceptable.

As it should be. Refer to Fara's response.

 

[wicked woman]

Okay, but a lot of the "masculine" things I was taught by men are now not exclusively masculine. Hell, my profession (Engineer) was well over 99% male when I started University in 1977. It is very different now. A lot of toxic behavior comes from men who don't accept that the world has moved on.

I think it's not just that they don't accept that the world has moved on. I know there are men who feel very hard done by. With all the affirmative actions and everyone else's lot in life appearing to improve, they feel everyone advanced at their (as a white man's) expense.

 

[Goldenfinger]

As it should be. Refer to Fara's response.

We all have our toxicness. Mines just not in regards to woman or sexuality. Thanks thou.

 

[Acktion]

Personally I'd rather think of toxic or non-toxic traits without a gender descriptive added to it. I think 'male/man' gets added to it though because that's where you see it more often. Not only, just more often.


For example, I've seen more than one Dom, expect anyone who was a sub to call him by his preferred honorific. I've never seen a Domme do that. That said, I've also seen Doms, when addressed with an honorific by someone who wasn't their sub, reply with 'hi, please call me Tom'.

Yeah, see. I just absolutely do not understand this AT ALL. For me, it's like some strange woman walking up to me on the street and calling me "husband."

No, no, no, honey. You've got my name right there and it's not like it's "'kummanayawannabanga" or something. I've unbent enough (recently) that I will allow "Sir" to pass unremarked, even though it makes me cringe. But, Master, Daddy, Lord, Maestro, Professor... and any other title I've worn over the decades, unh-uh.

If I've got to insist on it, it doesn't mean anything anyway.

And if she tries to use it before I think we are at that point in the relationship, I won't hesitate to correct her, gently at first and then with more vehemence if necessary, that she has not earned that aspect of me...



Oops.



Sorry. Shutting up now.

 

[wicked woman]

Yeah, see. I just absolutely do not understand this AT ALL. For me, it's like some strange woman walking up to me on the street and calling me "husband."

No, no, no, honey. You've got my name right there and it's not like it's "'kummanayawannabanga" or something. I've unbent enough (recently) that I will allow "Sir" to pass unremarked, even though it makes me cringe. But, Master, Daddy, Lord, Maestro, Professor... and any other title I've worn over the decades, unh-uh.

If I've got to insist on it, it doesn't mean anything anyway.

...

Sorry. Shutting up now.

Exactly, says a lot to me, negatively, about a person who expects an honorific when there is no relationship that warrants it. I've seen many a sub who thought all Doms/Dommes needed to be called by their honorific, but it was because they weren't knowledgeable and thought that was expected of them.

 

[KatieDoes]

I assume you mean traits, not appearance:
Collaborative, vulnerable, empathetic, caring, encouraging, self-sacrificing

Thinking that being collaborative, vulnerable, empathetic, caring, encouraging and self sacrificing are feminine traits and for women to possess, but not men, is an example of toxic masculinity.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I'm pretty sure the traits are required to be a decent human female being, too.

So...is this going to be the wrap up?

"There is no non-toxic masculinity, because either it is masculinity, then it is toxic or it is just decent human behavior."

I have been thinking about this a lot lately.
It sometimes does sound like the traditionally masculine traits are inherently bad.

Yeah, I was expecting that ... I honestly don't know if I can put it into words. I just prefer a burly guy, who can put a bit of strength into his fucking, who can make a decision (but also admit when it was the wrong decision), who can make me feel like I want to submit to them, not because they think they're fucking entitled to it. And who isn't threatened by a woman who can speak her mind. And who smells like a man.

This.
The smell! The large hands and rumbling sound in the chest…

I think it is hard to define because we are trying to define what is sexually attractive to us but also what is the necessary for friction free cohabitation and trying to define a huge and diverse group of people at once.

I assume you mean traits, not appearance:
Collaborative, vulnerable, empathetic, caring, encouraging, self-sacrificing

Almost all of those are traits I would find appealing in a man as well. A masculine man.

But maybe you don't want a "masculine man", maybe you want a "burly feminine man"?

Because the corresponding masculine traits are
Competitive, strong, logical and analytical, independent, ambitious

Which leads me back to the question - are masculine traits toxic by definition of being masculine?

Is a competitive masculine environment toxic, as it is not a feminine collaborative one?

I don’t think so.
I think both the types of environment have their problems. In my personal experience, conflicts in the latter are a horror to handle.

Yes...but maybe that's the actual toxicity.

It's not:"Wow, you are very masculine logical and analytical.", it is:"Wow, you are a male emotional cripple!"



But...it does. That's the problem.

In any given situation, you are either perceived as strong or as vulnerable. If you appear as vulnerable in all situations, you will not be perceived as strong anymore. There is no way around it.

And here we finally end up back to the topic:

"emotional insensitivity" or "stoicism" being labeled as "toxic masculinity".

Is it?

I think you two are getting to the real core here.

I think most traits are neutral. It is a question of how and when you use them, just like a hammer can be a great tool in some situations and very bad in others.

Aggession and stoicism are useful, even necessary at times. Not being able to put those tools down when they are not necessary causes more problems than it solves.
Being vulnerable, empathetic, self-sacrificing is a good, even necessary things in certain situations but harmful in others. We are just not talking about that the same way.
Part of the reason, I think is because we insist on deeming them masculine and feminine, thus failing to see the competitiveness, aggressiveness etc among women, because it tends to manifest differently but just as harmfully.

Oh, sweet summer child.

- shaming men for being too soft
- calling women out for wearing the same dress twice
- excluding women for being too girly or too manly
- giving advice that they need to act dumb to attract men
- piercing a 3 month old female baby for earrings
- attacking women who don't want children
- attacking women for the SAHM life
...

Case in point:
Yup, passive aggressiveness, being judgemental. The way teenage girls can look at the odd one out to make them just…shrivel…
”I think it is so important for kids to be in a lot of different extracurricular activities, but I guess everyone doesn’t see it that way”
”Oh I love that dress on you.It really draws attention to your…curves”

Somewhere around here (maybe the DD/lg), I mentioned that as the capitalized side of the slash, it was my responsibility to make myself grow larger so that she (and only ever she, sorry fellas) wouldn't have to diminish herself to remain in my shelter which she would otherwise find too confining.

I think this hits at what confuses me most about the arguments about traditional masculinity being threatened. If these (whatever they may be) masculine traits are inhererent, they will be there anyway. If you can only be master of the universe because they are letting you, it isn’t inherently there.

I think you are quite right, that if you want a relationship with a power gradient, it needs to be a great fit from the beginning or a collaboration like you describe. In the long run, probably both.

I'm not a man, but I've often thought that society does our men a huge disservice, especially in thinking that as men, they aren't allowed to be vulnerable or emotional, but need to remain stoic to be 'a man'. How terrible. Even little boys are told they can't cry. How barbaric.

Yes, this! So much this!

I think this is valid, and women are much more toxic to other women.
Toxic men are toxic to everyone.

I have seen women being very toxic to men. It’s less open and confrontational usually, but just as hurtful.

I believe in toxic personality traits but non of them are gender specific.

But if I believed your premise, I’d have to say telling primalex to not get their panties twisted would be toxic masculinity.

Yup.

We all have our toxicness. Mines just not in regards to woman or sexuality. Thanks thou.

Ultimately, I think that’s it.

 

[Primalex]

I think this hits at what confuses me most about the arguments about traditional masculinity being threatened. If these (whatever they may be) masculine traits are inhererent, they will be there anyway.

Oh, well, you need to choose your religion.

Variant 1:

Do you agree that the differences are primarily cultural? "Women would be more assertive, dominant, competitive, ..., ..., if we would raise them differently."

If you follow this religion, then of course it works vice versa, too, and society can suppress masculine traits in men the very same way as it is done in women currently.

"Don't sit like that, it's not appropriate!" works for knees spread for both men and women. And the endgame is going to be that society could not only in theory do this, but has to do this to get rid of those undesired masculine traits.

Variant 2:

Now...if you don't follow this religion and think that we are primarily a vessel of our hormones with some cultural sugarcoating, it's getting more complicated because then you are starting to invalidate the physical existence of this person. If masculine traits are bad and they are also fundamental to the male body, then my existence is an abomination.

Please tell me, which point of view should I be happy about now?

 

[IrisAlthea]

Oh, well, you need to choose your religion.

Variant 1:

Do you agree that the differences are primarily cultural? "Women would be more assertive, dominant, competitive, ..., ..., if we would raise them differently."

If you follow this religion, then of course it works vice versa, too, and society can suppress masculine traits in men the very same way as it is done in women currently.

"Don't sit like that, it's not appropriate!" works for knees spread for both men and women. And the endgame is going to be that society could not only in theory do this, but has to do this to get rid of those undesired masculine traits.

Variant 2:

Now...if you don't follow this religion and think that we are primarily a vessel of our hormones with some cultural sugarcoating, it's getting more complicated because then you are starting to invalidate the physical existence of this person. If masculine traits are bad and they are also fundamental to the male body, then my existence is an abomination.

Please tell me, which point of view should I be happy about now?

You are talking to an agnostic who thinks the answer to most things is ”it depends” or ”both”.

Hormones are a huge influence and a really complicated one. We all have a mix of mostly the same hormones. There are differences between the two groups, men and women but the difference is bigger between individuals within the groups.

The huge vat of cultural sugarcoating that we are marinating in is no less complicated. Class for example is a very big part of how assertive you are supposed to be and in what situations.

Not much to be happy about when it comes to this debate. It is less than nuanced to say the least and I totally get why a lot of people feel unjustly and onesidedly called out.

For the record, I think you do quite well at not being toxic. It seems to me like you choose how you treat people more based on what they do and the situation, than on what or who they are.

 

[midwestyankee]

Here is the tl;dr version of a reply that disappeared into the ether because Lit signed me out for inactivity while I was composing it.

Some men are assholes. Among male assholes there seem to be two types. Some men are assholes toward everyone around them and we just call them assholes. Some men pick and choose the objects of their assholery to include ONLY those people, usually women but sometimes other men, over whom they believe that their Y chromosome ENTITLES them to superiority, deference, and even submission. These are the assholes that gave toxic masculinity it’s name, for their assholery has its roots in a belief that the very fact of their being male gives them rights and privileges not bestowed on women.

 

[sweettalk4u]

Parts

I see examples of toxic masculinity in daily life and our culture is growing less and less accepting of this behavior. But I see the same things promoted and often aspired to in the BDSM community.

What are some ways we can grow and mature and embrace our men in BDSM without the toxic traits?

Some examples:

• the need to be/or be perceived as tough always

• heterosexism or the inability to share space non-sexually with queer people

• emotional insensitivity

• the need to dominate women (in a non sexual way)

• stoicism/arrogance

Just curious if this is on anyone else's radar?

Your POV is spot on. Often guys glance at bdsm in general and D/s in particular and think, oh I got this. When they really have no clue. Some learn, some don’t.

 

[Primalex]

Your POV is spot on. Often guys glance at bdsm in general and D/s in particular and think, oh I got this. When they really have no clue. Some learn, some don’t.

Like...waving your cock around?

 

[sweettalk4u]

Waving

Like...waving your cock around?

exactly

 

[sweettalk4u]

I can get on board with both of these sentiments. YES, yank.
I want to make taht a sticky.

Also.
If you lead with your cock, it doesn’t make me want to look further, and while I don’t think it’s “toxic” to have a cockatar, I think it takes a “special” kind of dude to have one.

My fet profile isn’t like that and I’m not like that. But I can see where it looks like I am. Not too good with pics on here and when I finally got one to stay I stopped trying. Be glad to change it. Any ideas?

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Watching this for a while and thought I’d kick in my two pennies.

I think there are some things which we would agree both sexes want in their partner, things critical for any healthy relationship. Regardless of where the toilet seat winds up, I think we’d all like our partner to be:

• Confident, both in us and in themselves
• Trusting
• Warm
• Possessed of a healthy and happy sexuality
• Supportive
• Forgiving
• Loyal
• Empathetic
• Patient
• Honest

These are not sex-related traits.

Most people are pretty well in agreement what constitutes toxic masculinity – violence, attempted domination of a partner or group, physically abusive, etc.

I think this is valid, and women are much more toxic to other women. Toxic men are toxic to everyone.

I would suggest that toxic femininity is very much exerted against men, too.

What behaviours which might be considered ‘toxic femininity’? For a discussion point, how about these:

• Nagging
• Holding grudges
• Excessive neediness
• Guilting
• Excessive jealousy and possessiveness
• Lack of self-value (as an example, an excessive preoccupation on personal appearance)
• Related to that, greed, in the sense of clothing and accessories. If I said, “Jack went all Imelda Marcos with shoes,” nobody would understand it. Acquiring large arrays of clothes, shoes, purses, jewellery and such is a female trait.
• Using sex as a reward or a punishment.
• Expectation of sex-based entitlements, including using gender or menstruation as an excuse for inaction or bad behaviour. As a very trivial example, how many men expect their women to deal with spiders or mice? If there’s a flat tire, who’s out in the rain with the jack and spare?

We’re quick to recognize the evil in physical abuse, but the psychological damage of excessive such behaviours, I think, is also very damaging.

My point is not to defend or attack either sex and I would be the last to deny that there are both men and women guilty of all kinds of bad behaviour. There are certainly men who nag and women who are physically abusive, etc. I merely am trying to point out that toxic femininity is very real and has an effect on all of us.

Moreover, we have a alarming tendency to pull out the ‘toxic’ label for things which are merely different. I read one article which claimed that failure to do housework is an example of ‘toxic masculinity’. OK, that’s annoying, but is a slovenly woman - and they most certainly exist – by that logic also guilty of toxic masculinity? Moreover, turning it around, there is a decided gender imbalance in dangerous professions, with far more men than women in mining, high-seas fishing, roofing, high-voltage electrical work, etc. Using the same logic, could the failure of women to do their ‘fair share’ of the dangerous things we need to keep society running be legitimately termed ‘toxic femininity’? My point is that tags and labels are convenient and quick but very often imbalanced and unproductive.

I think healthy men and women are inherently different in a lot more than genitalia. Thought experiment time. How many women would want as a lover a person with a penis and a completely (letting you define it) female personality? How many men would want a woman, no matter how pretty, with a completely male personality? There are vast differences and that’s all to the good, provided they don’t go overboard.

It’s when behaviour goes too far to either end of the scale that ‘toxicity’ creeps in

 

[Primalex]

Most people are pretty well in agreement what constitutes toxic masculinity

if you are picking the simple things.

What about "manspreading"?