Manliness VS Sentimental in Men?

[Labyrinth]

EDIT:

I only ever sleep with manly men like myself.

Sensitive types are gay.

Wait, fuck, forget everything I said.
Forget everything anyone said.
The thread is over. This guy has fucking got it.
Everyone sleep with Ultrajoe. Hop to it.

It takes a man, to take a man. Really.

I wear pants, a lot, in many different circumstances. I also find them a very amusing metonym for power within a relationship because they imply that it's a masculine position and expectation. Within relationships I prefer to share it. Mutual respect is key. What occurs in the bedroom or whatever is not a representation of 'power' so much as it is mutual fun, see?

Power imbalances in relationships tend to be toxic, though it does depend on the people. For me? They really don't work.

I suppose that's somewhat of a tangent from the point of this thread. I personally think that "Stoic and manly" is just another way to say "repressive and too immature to handle emotional expression." Being able to deal with and acknowledge ones emotions is an important part of adult life, for all genders.

 

[ca_jas]

So if people are mixing up sensitivity with being a wimp then aren't people also mixing up manliness with being confident? It's all relative.

I'm saying that for men, the mindset is a lot more rigid. As a sensitive guy I detest "macho" guys who show off and desire competition. I have plenty of confidence and drive but I think those things are irrelevant to what we are talking about.

I believe it's Freudian: either you have a desire to kill or a desire to procreate.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

Many people today cannot distinguish between being manly and being a douche.

 

[Canid117]

Cracked.com had something to say on this.

http://www.cracked.com/article/206_6-ways-you-can-accidently-attract-ladies

I don't know if its true but it sounds possible.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Manliness does not exist...

Because last time I checked, if they have a penis, they're a man. Every other quality attributed to the gender is completely arbitrary.

That's looking at it from a physical biological point of view and not for a social view which many consider various actions and social interactions to be manly, such as boxing is considered manly because it requires stamina, discipline and endurance along with all that you are getting massive amounts of testosterone and you're being punched in the face. Thus boxing is considered manly.

OT: I think a balence is require, be to manly and you just look like a soulless douchebag but if you're too emotional then people find you unapproachable because they know you will react badly to many social activities such as jokes which they may take as a personal insult.

Many people today cannot distinguish between being manly and being a douche.

To be fair the line between the two is ridiculously thin and getting the right balence is really hard.

 

[latenightapplepie]

For the ladies reading this, what do you think? If you had to choose, manliness or emotional/sentimental? Do you find it hard to find both in a man?

And for the men reading this, what's your take on it? Think I'm right or what?

I'm going to respond to both. Because I'm damn well qualified.

Personally, I'd prefer a guy I was dating to be some kind of mixture of the two. I don't want to the habitual emotional supporter or the habitually emotionally supported. Otherwise I would personally feel it wasn't equal or fair. Does there have to be these two roles in a relationship? Perhaps I'm foolishly imagining an ideal scenario.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

I will talk about my feelings if I feel I need to but then I will immediately wrestle a bear afterwards so I can regain my manliness.

 

[capin Rob]

I suppose Manly is good to a point, as is Sentimental. But I agree, a man should make a woman feel protected.

As for myself. I don't think I'm either. A whole difrent entity

 

[AhumbleKnight]

I don't think the_bearpelt knows what she is really looking for. Perhaps she needs to define exactly what it is she is looking for in her MANLY man. There are plenty of guys out there who are sensitive and in touch with their emotions and would fight, no holds barred, to protect the ones they care about. Half the guys I know are like that. Honestly, I think that the_bearpelt is completely wrong in this (and so does my wife).

 

[AhumbleKnight]

For the ladies reading this, what do you think? If you had to choose, manliness or emotional/sentimental? Do you find it hard to find both in a man?

And for the men reading this, what's your take on it? Think I'm right or what?

I'm going to respond to both. Because I'm damn well qualified.

Personally, I'd prefer a guy I was dating to be some kind of mixture of the two. I don't want to the habitual emotional supporter or the habitually emotionally supported. Otherwise I would personally feel it wasn't equal or fair. Does there have to be these two roles in a relationship? Perhaps I'm foolishly imagining an ideal scenario.

I don't think you are. I think it is not only desirable to aim for that type of equality/partnership in a relationship; it is possible. My wife and I have exactly this. There are times when she wears the pants and times when I do. Most of the time, and overall, there is no doubt that we share equally in all roles.

 

[Labyrinth]

y'know OP the feminists would burn you for saying you want a man to protect you but anyway the thing you object to is largely the fault of such women.

Hi. I'm a feminist. I don't object to someone saying "I want a protective male partner" I object to the notion that all females everywhere should want a protective male partner, and that that is the only worthwhile kind of male to be.

I don't think there's "fault" to be ascribed here. It's a paradigm shift, not a crime. What I think you're referring to is something which was explained by a scientific study which indicated that being on the pill meant a woman was more attracted to 'effeminate' men. This is explained by the pill making a woman's body think she's pregnant so she subconsciously begins to look for a partner who would help with child-rearing. Understandable considering how much of a ***** that job can be. Over the decades of pill use this has shifted perspectives with regards to what is attractive in men.

Should a contraceptive pill for men be established, we may see a similar thing. Not sure how though, considering you can't make the male body think it's pregnant.

 

[Dags90]

This may have something to do with relationships being based more on emotion and romance rather than cultural and economic considerations. Modern women want a relationship, not just a marriage or a man. I also don't agree with the OP vague idea of "manliness". Even as a slight gay man, I don't feel the need to be protected by anyone.

 

[Hurray Forums]

Okay, so I know that, within the last decade or two, being "sentimental" or "in touch with his emotions" has become very popular amongst the women today. Ladies just seem to want guys who are more open with their feelings.
As a fellow female, I've found this to be less than desirable because it's hard to find an emotional/sentimental guy who's still MANLY.
For me, I don't WANT to be the one in the relationship to have to wear the pants. HE has to. I want to be with a guy who will make me feel PROTECTED. (I'm not saying, of course, that he has to be a control freak/chauvanist/etc. You guys know what I mean, right? Do I need to outline this?)

For the ladies reading this, what do you think? If you had to choose, manliness or emotional/sentimental? Do you find it hard to find both in a man?

And for the men reading this, what's your take on it? Think I'm right or what?

It's fine for you not to like those sorts of men, but it's also perfectly fine for those types of men to be more common. It's not "less than desirable" just because it doesn't fit your personal taste. In fact it's quite desirable that it's more socially acceptable for men to fit whatever role they please, not just manly "pants wearer".

 

[RooftopAssassin]

I think what your asking for is very rare, not to mention that you also have a conflict of interests. Some of the ladies tell me I'm both, but then again they also tell me I'm the guy they want to marry, and not the guy they want to... you know...

I think your right on the money though, a guy that is too masculine probably had the "gay fantasy" that bothered him so much that he thinks he has to like every manly thing that any man who ever manned in the past liked. Then again the guy who is too sentimental may be the pussy who runs away when your getting mugged or the guy who is too clingy.

 

[the_bearpelt]

Personally, I'd prefer a guy I was dating to be some kind of mixture of the two. I don't want to the habitual emotional supporter or the habitually emotionally supported. Otherwise I would personally feel it wasn't equal or fair. Does there have to be these two roles in a relationship? Perhaps I'm foolishly imagining an ideal scenario.

I think I get what you mean.

I dunno, but everyone seems to take what I said too extreme. I didn't necessarily mean you'd have to give up one trait for the other. I just wonder what people PREFER. *shrugs*

 

[the_bearpelt]

It's fine for you not to like those sorts of men, but it's also perfectly fine for those types of men to be more common. It's not "less than desirable" just because it doesn't fit your personal taste. In fact it's quite desirable that it's more socially acceptable for men to fit whatever role they please, not just manly "pants wearer".

When I said "less than desirable" I meant just to me. I totally get that not everyone agrees (obviously). That why I threw out those questions at the end. I'm jus curious what other people think is all. I'm not looking to say that I'm correct right now; I'm looking to see what the masses say to see if I learn something. So far, I have; be very careful with how you phrase things online. *shrugs*

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I want to be with a guy who will make me feel PROTECTED. (I'm not saying, of course, that he has to be a control freak/chauvanist/etc. You guys know what I mean, right? Do I need to outline this?)

I know exactly what you're talking about. And I am EXTREMELY turned off by women like you.

A woman that I constantly have to "protect" isn't a very interesting one. I'd rather have a woman I can just toss a gun to and be confident that she'll watch my back the way I'll watch hers.

To put it bluntly, I want a warrior woman/valkyrie/femme fatale-ish woman. Mincy little cry-babies who needs to "feel" (and thus ultimately be) protected won't ever become interesting...

 

[Cody211282]

It's ok for a guy to be "in touch with his emotions" as long as it's only with a girl that loves him a lot and he has been with for a long time, and only every now and again, but in public and around other people he needs to man up. Personally I don't like doing it, hell it took me a year to tell my ex anything and even then I didn't tell her a lot of what was going on unless I needed help with it. I was there for her needs and for when she had problems but I didn't want to burden her with mine.

 

[the_bearpelt]

I know exactly what you're talking about. And I am EXTREMELY turned off by women like you.

A woman that I constantly have to "protect" isn't a very interesting one. I'd rather have a woman I can just toss a gun to and be confident that she'll watch my back the way I'll watch hers.

To put it bluntly, I want a warrior woman/valkyrie/femme fatale-ish woman. Mincy little cry-babies who needs to "feel" (and thus ultimately be) protected won't ever become interesting...

Ouch. That was a bit harsh.
I can see that too. That's actually a bit surprising; rarely have I heard guys speak of interest in warrior women. It's actually kind of refreshing.