# "Men deserve access to non-sexual love"



## Ormazd (Jan 26, 2010)

Yup! - Men Deserve Access to Nonsexual Love

Thought at least some of you would enjoy this article.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

It makes me sad to think about this. Even I have been prone to slip into the assumption that men are primarily sexual beings, though I know that this is not true for all or even most men. I think that this also puts a warped standard on men looking for a relationship; they might assume that a relationship will work based on sex because this is the social expectation, which only continues the cycle of misunderstanding. It is extremely unfortunate that men in the US are not allowed to hold hands, hug or touch each other in a friendly fashion without having their sexuality questioned. It is also unfortunate and slightly ironic that men who desire physical affection are labeled as sexually deviant while men who only use affection in a sexual relationship are socially accepted.


----------



## ficsci (May 4, 2011)

^ Agreed. On top of that, I suspect that this stereotype on men is partly caused by women, who still get social pressure to be ashamed of their sexuality. Because they feel reluctant to express their own sexuality, they put the sexual burden on men, hence helping to build up the image that men are primarily sexual beings.

de Beauvoir is not happy about this, I tell you


----------



## Aizar (Mar 21, 2011)

I wonder. In Western pop culture, there seem to be two main portrayals of men: the big tough guy with no emotions and a bad temper, and the touchy-feely homosexual guy bordering on silliness. Could this be partly stemming from that these are two major stereotypes, and there aren't many role models for two guy friends to show affection with one another? Probably a lot of other factors than just that, but it's a thinking point.

Either way, I think it's sad. Aren't we as a society divided enough without the notion that men can only show affection to their sexual partner(s)?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Ormazd said:


> Yup! - Men Deserve Access to Nonsexual Love
> 
> Thought at least some of you would enjoy this article.


I think about this a lot, and it causes me a lot of distress knowing how limited most males are by so many horribly unfair external pressures that restrict their authenticity. I would thank this more than once if it were allowed, because the author has stated something I have been trying to say for a long time. It is vital for this to be understood and for it to be taken seriously. Until it is addressed, "gender equality" is just a nice-sounding phrase that doesn't mean anything about how we actually treat each other. 

We need to start the next phase of what the feminists started, only this time instead of making it all about female empowerment, we need to raise awareness about how men are being harmed, and how it can be stopped. I feel like we gave up too soon, falsely imagining that we had already crossed the finish line. There is still a lot of work for us to do.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Ormazd said:


> Yup! - Men Deserve Access to Nonsexual Love
> 
> Thought at least some of you would enjoy this article.


This reminds me of that time I saw this preacher guy on campus... Garden-variety conservative hate-mongerer, but more extreme. He talked about how even the least bit of physical touch is to be condemned because it leads to temptations. So I decided to start hugging a few guy friends just to be a douchebag. (I would have made out with a guy, but I didn't know anyone who would do it.) Some of the guys were so concerned with being hugged. It was kind of... lame.

When he comes next year, I need to buy a bunch of T-shirts and shout, "Worship Satan and get a free T-shirt!".


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

This is part of why i wish to be in the military, so i can set a standard of emotional variety as being ok, and to have those labels not be applied to me because of the tough guy nature of the military ^^

But these are some big problems and it is a huge reason why the largest percent of suicides are males between 18-24. There is no support socially and we are taught from a young age that crying or showing emotion or talking to people about our problems is wrong and that's unacceptable so i wish to change these nefative views and expectations along with alot of other ones.

Not to mention the huge double standard and hypocritical nature of society putting this insane pressure to not feel anything then to say that an emotional guy is needed in a relationship and then so many of those relationships fall apart because of this conditioning

However it's not so much that the emotions are openly targeted it's more like there is this huge social awkwardness whenever we do show these emotions, nobody really wants to talk about them because it's too awkward and we tend to try to change the subject or make a joke to dull down the emotion because we dont know how to deal with them anymore except later on in life after we have been able to soften (If we do indeed soften at all)


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

This reminds me of a conversation/debate I had with a friend in which I argued that women were usually depicted, societally, as either objects or typical housewife-soccer moms. Men have the advantage in that respect, seeing as they are already stilted as having 'the power.'

Now, more to the issue within this thread, this is another problem in America's societal views. Stigmas and collective stereotyping spread like wildfire, especially when brought before impressionable young people whom may internalize it every day. Unfortunately I've fallen prey to this thinking at times as well, for it seems like such a modern-day norm. I hadn't thought about it as deeply as that essay expounds. I'm glad to see this is recognized. The _perfect_ example of this is easily seen as the recurring theme in That 70s Show. *sighs* Men and women all certainly are entitled to expressing unbridled love, happiness and uninhibitedness in their relationships, whether it be platonic, romantic, or sexual. Strength and emotion have no gender.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Vaan said:


> This is part of why i wish to be in the military, so i can set a standard of emotional variety as being ok, and to have those labels not be applied to me because of the tough guy nature of the military ^^
> 
> But these are some big problems and it is a huge reason why the largest percent of suicides are males between 18-24. There is no support socially and we are taught from a young age that crying or showing emotion or talking to people about our problems is wrong and that's unacceptable so i wish to change these nefative views and expectations along with alot of other ones.
> 
> ...


The military isn't the answer. 

But I agree with almost everything else you said. Males are far more likely to be the victims of emotional invalidation than females, and none of us are ever really safe from it.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

snail said:


> The military isn't the answer.
> 
> But I agree with almost everything else you said. Males are far more likely to be the victims of emotional invalidation than females, and none of us are ever really safe from it.


I believe that socially both sexes have it very unfairly and it seems that these very negative things are perpetuating each other, like objectification of women is stemmed from the assumption that all men are sexual beings and we are taught that etc

So when we think about it the problems we face are linked so i would feel like a complete hypocrite to point the finger at any sex over these issues because it's collective societies fault in the end

Also yes it is the answer, our military is very culturally influential, we love our army and the military has shaped alot of our ideologies, values and image from these wars so if i can become influential to the military and can influence the ideologies of the military then it will have a massive effect of the ideologies of society as a whole

If you can make the tough guys/alpha males lead the way then the rest of the males will follow and thus our ideologies change and how those ideologies perpetuated the female's problems will also collapse because of the change of ideologies


----------



## Napoleptic (Oct 29, 2010)

snail said:


> I would thank this more than once if it were allowed, because the author has stated something I have been trying to say for a long time.


Same here - a lot of separate thoughts and themes that have been kicking about in my head are nicely arranged here into a cohesive and well-written article. Much, much, much to think about.

Thanks for posting this, OP.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

It really doesn't surprise me, considering that the issue brought to light in this blog is just another piece of evidence that supports the theory of Hegemonic Masculinity. Men are expected to have masculine traits: physical strengths, bravado, exclusive heterosexuality, suppression of "vulnerable" emotions, economic independence, authority over other men and women, and an intense interest in sexual "conquest". Those who fail to meet these criteria are ridiculed and labeled by both sexes as not real men. On the flip side, females who don't fit the mold of feminine face the same type of social stigma. So long as M-F support male dominance and female subordination, though, I can't see the author's ideals being realized. Consider that these traits in both sexes have been desired for thousands of years, and you have to wonder if society as a whole benefits more from these roles than not. Certainly the balance each other, and while I see this as a positive, I think we can ease up and stop seeing things so black and white. 

Males and females are more similar than not, and my view is that society still plays the largest role in our divide. Nurture plays a bigger hand in differences than our biological makeup. Just remember there are two sides to every coin, and while these gender expectations might cause some distress for both sides, they also have their own set of advantages. Still, while reading this article, I couldn't felt but to feel angry, sullen, frustrated, powerless, and trapped at the same time, since it's not just some piece of information I'm reading, but reality. MY reality. I still say whoever you are, society has it in for you in some way or another, maybe even several. It has helped me adapt, but I never for a second thought of giving up my individuality just to fit someone else's definition of what I should be. That's for me to decide.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Are People so starved for affection that they need multiple sources of it?


----------



## STU KATZ (May 28, 2011)

Of course men need non-sexual love. We wouldn't get married if we didn't.

I think men really appreciate relationships because we can express love all the time, in private, without anyone else's influence or judgement.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

lol, I have absolutely no respect for these "rules of masculinity". I usually just flirt with everyone I like or when I'm in a goofy mood, and I flirt with men and women alike. I call guys "honey" just for fun of it and I am able to be emotional in public if I feel like it, although I don't often feel like it because I'm not the emotional type. But I hug people if they want me to and if I want to hug them. I have never really cried in public yet, but I don't rule it out as a possibility and I think that I should be able to cry in public if I feel the need. I think guys should just act the way they want... I don't really see this problem in my social environment either, this article seems to be describing the situation of 30-40 years ago and before. However, it might be that the author is from a more traditional sociocultural background than I am.


----------



## Napoleptic (Oct 29, 2010)

android654 said:


> Are People so starved for affection that they need multiple sources of it?


Does wanting multiple sources of affection automatically mean someone is starved for it? Affection feels *good* - why should someone have to defend their desire for it?


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Elwood92 said:


> lol, I have absolutely no respect for these "rules of masculinity". I usually just flirt with everyone I like or when I'm in a goofy mood, and I flirt with men and women alike. I call guys "honey" just for fun of it and I am able to be emotional in public if I feel like it, although I don't often feel like it because I'm not the emotional type. But I hug people if they want me to and if I want to hug them. I have never really cried in public yet, but I don't rule it out as a possibility and I think that I should be able to cry in public if I feel the need. I think guys should just act the way they want... I don't really see this problem in my social environment either, this article seems to be describing the situation of 30-40 years ago and before. However, it might be that the author is from a more traditional sociocultural background than I am.


This reminds me of the time my brother hugged another boy in kindergarten, and in return was pushed away promptly. After that, he didn't try to show affection with another male, or person for that matter, in a public setting ever again. I remember my mother was angry when she found out, and thought the other kid's reaction was uncalled for, but I think what's deemed as socially acceptable behavior for males probably had something to do with it, as they were friends and quite close to each other. Personally I've always been a bit uncomfortable with PDAs, but I do appreciate the thought behind them, even if I appear detached on the surface.

We're human, after all.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Napoleptic said:


> Does wanting multiple sources of affection automatically mean someone is starved for it? Affection feels *good* - why should someone have to defend their desire for it?


If you need affection from almost everyone in your life? Yes, you're starved for it. It simply seems a little ridiculous to want to be tethered to everyone you spend time with, its suffocating.

You don't have to justify it, I was just asking a question.


----------



## Ormazd (Jan 26, 2010)

android654 said:


> Are People so starved for affection that they need multiple sources of it?


I don't think that's the issue. It's about being able to show affection for people that you love and care for.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

> This reminds me of that time I saw this preacher guy on campus... Garden-variety conservative hate-mongerer, but more extreme. He talked about how even the least bit of physical touch is to be condemned because it leads to temptations.


Sounds more like an authoritarian than a conservative. I'm a conservative and I hate authoritarians since they're so hateful, controlling, and sexually repressed.


----------

