Le meaninglessness final des actions de l'homme ne devrait pas lui causer le désespoir. Il devrait être plus déterminé à démontrer comment sien fort-mettra en boîte créent des buts, des valeurs, et la signification pour se

[i]

I would be interested in what the ladies on this forum think about this site as well.

Man up!

I don't like the manipulative type - I run into this style of man at work almost everyday - you know the kind that uses "seduction" techs from that retard who wears the top hat? I can smell them a mile away.

I'm a sucker for guys who are naive, focused on performing justice and like to impress girls by doing fancy things. And they have a sincere approach to life in general, honest and know how to fight but also how to be extremely tender when it needs to be done.

I thought what I read was great. It turns out I didn't have to bother because someone beat me to linking to the hompage.

You are not God's gift to womankind.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and point out that the formerly ridiculed fool in the top hat, (Mystery from VH1's The Pick-Up Artist) actually is mostly about the above stated things. Sure he has some gimmicks, but obviously the guys who do them either won't succeed, or they will.

I am a woman who supports the resurrection of Manliness. I'm tired of meeting men with effeminate handshakes, men who don't take responsibility for their actions, and men that aren't upwardly motivated to improve their own lives.

Man up!

Hats off to all the fellows out there that don't sit at home on the couch, but rather pursue their interests and passions.

The future does not seem to bode well for masculinity.

Simply because I can multi-task, I can speak about unpleasant topics without losing my cool, I can take care of our daughter and I clean the house, military-style. To me, those things are simply qualities, but my wife has a funny way of looking at masculinity. Apparently, masculinity equals simplicity and stupidity in her book.

Being a man is what Rudyard Kipling speaks about in "If". Everything else is just pretense and how your body's built. If you can live your life according to "If", then you're a man. That's how I feel, and that's how I'll keep feeling unless a better definition comes along.

You are correct, though; both shows showed men in a pretty tragic light. Men are depicted as sad, stupid creatures with little in the way of dignity, skill or intelligence.

I have a very powerful masculine side and a well developed feminine side. I have considered it important to be what ever I need to be when I need to be it and have been many things and done some better than others.

When I say, "I like my men masculine, and my women to be feminine."
That is what I like in my bed. If I want to fuck a chick, then I fuck a chick, not some emo crying metrosexual man. That was the point I was making.

Society doesn't play a role in that. I make that choice.

As for gender roles/traits, they have some uses but don't define me or how I view my life. They are tools.

It's all options, choices, but you still choose what you like and how you define yourself.

M

As for the male you are, no one cares. You just come across as kinda metrosexual mixed with emo.

Traditional gender roles vary from rational to complete bullshit. To deny the obvious differences between the minds of men and women is just plain ignorant.

Men love blowjobs, and will do almost anything for them. Women want love, therefore most will do anything including blow jobs for it.

So your saying that heterosexual desires are the ONLY ones that are correctly natural.

I guess we better round up those gay penguins and shoot them up with hormones.

I'd like to know where you get your biased bullshit from?

Here's my hypothesis. Natural selection/planet Earth created bisexual and homosexual animals/humans in order to:
1.) slow down overpopulation

2.) allow the particular animals/humans to focus their talents and attention on things other than reproduction.

3.) find pleasure and release tension even when a "mate" of the opposite gender was not available.

... Art Deco is thus a blend of exotic, mysterious antiquity and the image of the machine. When human figures appear, they are similarly mysterious, exotic, and streamlined machines.

As if this is not enough, they are also oddly cold and de-sexed as well. The 1920s was a period of flourishing homosexuality among both sexes, caused in major part by the relative sundering of males and females by World War I and the war’s toll of many millions of male lives. Men had spent years largely in the company of other men, while many women now had no chance of getting husbands even had all surviving males been interested. This plight was reflected, perhaps, in the “bobbed” hairstyles and flat-chested fashions of the 1920’s - and in the “unisexualization” of Art Deco.

All of which is to say that Art Deco is beautiful, cold, streamlined, and weird.

At first glance it appears pretty, but there is also something disturbing about it. Like the robotrix in Metropolis, it suggests something subliminally sinister, something vaguely abnormal - as though it is not now dangerous but will be if left to develop long enough.

There is a touch of the psychotic about it, as though it represents a view of the world seen through the eyes of someone who took hallucinogenic drugs while standing in the middle of a 1920s’ airplane factory. Nowhere is this peculiar atmosphere of the art form better exemplified than in the two Dr. Phibes films, where the Abominable Anton constantly surrounds himself with a phantasmagoria of Art Deco artifacts ...

4.) increase potential social bonding.

As for "manliness," some of the manliest men I have met have been Scotsmen who are self-confident enough to wear kilts!

Interestingly, in the Star Trek example there are a smaller number of females. That is definitely a bottleneck of population control. A man can father countless children simultaneously. A woman has her limits.

Just FYI, homosexual people are not sterile. I know plenty with kids!

Darwinism unfolds via mutations. Mutations that enhance survival are more likely to reproduce themselves. In Darwinism there is no intent behind the mutations, it's just randomly mixed up Gs, As, Ts, and Cs.

On the other hand, theories of intelligent design (" Penises are designed to work with vaginas, not rectums, mouths, ears, or nostrils"), guided evolution ("Natural selection/planet Earth created bisexual and homosexual animals/humans in order to"), or some other cosmic order (synchronization in the holographic space-time continuum don'tcha know) pose that there is a life force that decides on traits with a purpose.

Actually there was just about every kind of hanky-panky throughout Star Trek.