John Price
Bet
- Sep 19, 2008
- 373,878
- 24,843
Useless Thread MDCCXLI: Toaster Strudel Edition
- Thread starter John Price
- Start date
- Status
John Price
Bet
- Sep 19, 2008
- 373,878
- 24,843
John Price
Bet
- Sep 19, 2008
- 373,878
- 24,843
John Price
Bet
- Sep 19, 2008
- 373,878
- 24,843
John Price
Bet
- Sep 19, 2008
- 373,878
- 24,843
Kingsley: We're very Hufflepuff here. Wouldn't you be happier in Slytherin? JP: I'm not a f***ing witch, Kingsley .
Mantis
I am a doctah
Deficient Mode
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2011
- 60,348
- 2,397
Ceremony
blahem
- Jun 8, 2012
- 113,273
- 15,588
I've only seen a still image of the moment of, er, projection
And I enjoyed seeing still-by-still analysis of his Sky interview in the paper
John Price
Bet
- Sep 19, 2008
- 373,878
- 24,843
Mantis
I am a doctah
I am a beer guzzling redneck from saskatchewan. Before I went gay and vegan I used to love deer meat
John Price
Bet
- Sep 19, 2008
- 373,878
- 24,843
Siamese Dream
Registered User
This was of course a hot topic of conversation in the office today, with a debate about whether or not he should be sacked
Ceremony
blahem
- Jun 8, 2012
- 113,273
- 15,588
Please tell me more stories about your workplace, it makes me feel better after a day in hell where I spend my time thinking about running away and joining the circus
Siamese Dream
Registered User
Ceremony
blahem
- Jun 8, 2012
- 113,273
- 15,588
I hate my life and I enjoy revelling in the misery of others, sorry
And because the conversation in my work isn't nearly so stimulating (mostly)
Siamese Dream
Registered User
One of the guys was showing us the other day where he used to live in Bulgaria (what an absolute bin of a place it was) after he moved out there to be with his girlfriend, and worked in a car wash for about £1 an hour and then told us the very sad story of how she broke his heart and dumped him after he'd been there 4 months.
He also said he was annoyed when me and the other new lad turned up on our first days because he wanted girls
Ceremony
blahem
- Jun 8, 2012
- 113,273
- 15,588
Sounds like a lucky boy. Where exactly did he find this girl and what compelled him to move to Bulgaria for her?
Siamese Dream
Registered User
I think he met her in college or something, I don't remember all the details. He moved there because he was in love!
He also has a picture of his car (an Audi A1 or something) as his desktop background, which you will probably find amusing.
Siamese Dream
Registered User
I don't know, I think it was just him washing cars, not her. It was probably the only job he could get since he couldn't speak Bulgarian
Deficient Mode
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2011
- 60,348
- 2,397
Since becoming the parent of a son, I've become interested in looking at how men police each other's expression of masculinity. It seems especially sad to me that men – and young men in particular – are conditioned against embracing the pleasures of a physically expressed platonic love with each other from fear that the authenticity of their manhood may be challenged.
You may have heard the homophobic rejoinder of "no homo" to anything that even vaguely implies an expression of affection or admiration between men determined to maintain their reputations of strict heterosexuality.
The phrase in this context is intended to be humorous rather than threatening – a way for otherwise straight men to share feelings with each other, but maintain what ethnographer CJ Pascoe referred to as "compulsive heterosexuality" in her 2007 book, Dude, You're a Homophobic Slur: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School.
Pascoe coined the phrase to describe the particular ways masculine power is codified within a community of teenage school peers, but it's a concept that can be easily recognised alongside the ongoing paranoia about men and homosexuality in a culture that still valorises hetero-masculinity. Pascoe conducted field research for 18 months at a racially diverse high school in California, interviewing more than 50 students about how gender, sexuality and how the concept of masculinity played out for both the male and female students.
In the male students' interactions with each other, she found that homophobia was rife as a bullying tactic between both enemies and friends. The "compulsive heterosexuality" she writes about becomes the institutionalised antidote to the emasculation always waiting to undermine boys and their place in the broader social hierarchy.
This wasn't always the case. In fact, prior to the 20th century it was common for men to be physically intimate with each other without their intimacy being assumed to be sexual in nature. There have been thousands of photographs collated by historians that show men reclined in a comfortable and physical expression of friendship. They are seen leaning against each other, hands draped across each other's thighs and often holding hands.
Some sociologists theorise that this freedom was the result of different social assumptions made about homosexuality, and the pathologisation of sexuality at the turn of the 20th century was what changed things.
Others suggest it may have been a response to the increase of women's power and their burgeoning presence in public life. Simply put, that with women moving more determinedly out of the domestic sphere and into the public one, men looked for ways to distinguish themselves from them and their inherently "feminine" traits.
Whatever the cause, western society quickly adopted the view that "respectable" masculinities maintained a safe distance from one another, even as it proved detrimental to men themselves. In an article for Uplift, Mark Greene writes: "And where does this leave men? Physically and emotionally isolated. Cut off from the deeply human physical contact that is proven to reduce stress, encourage self-esteem and create community. Instead, we walk in the vast crowds of our cities alone in a desert of disconnection. Starving for physical connection. We crave touch. We are cut off from it. The result is touch isolation."
It was only after becoming a stay-at-home father that Greene realised how much this touch isolation was negatively impacting his life. He describes the feeling of holding his son in the crook of his arm, his son's hand held at the back of his neck.
"The physical connection between us was so transformative that it changed my view of who I am and what my role is in the world. Yet it took having a child to bring this calming experience to me because so few other opportunities are possible to teach men the value and power of gentle loving touch."
Greene believes that men involving themselves more as the carers of children is a path to breaking down some of these barriers to touch and connection.
It's sad and surprising to realise how many men don't express gentle intimacy with their sons, particularly as their sons enter adolescence. Hugging, kissing and exchanging "I love yous" drop away between many fathers and sons, and that touch isn't necessarily replicated in their friendships with other men because of the pressures that compulsive heterosexuality presents.
This isn't to say that men never touch at all. But as Jared Keller writes in GQ: "Bros high-five, hug and slap butts after a touchdown or other more emotionally charged moments all the time ... but prolonged physical contact holds the risk of stepping over that invisible line between straight and gay – or just plain weird."
Keller points to the work of respected sociologist Michael Kimmel, author of Guyland and Angry White Men. Kimmel references sports (and the rise of the sports bar) as a place where men's "heterosexuality is assured the moment we walk in, simply because we can get to enjoy that male bonding with our masculinity intact because there's sports everywhere".
The consequence of touch isolation for men isn't just the denial of platonic emotional and physical intimacy with other men. It can also increase aggression and lead in some cases to harmful behaviours expressed against others.
The use of sexual violence or coercion as a bonding activity among some male peer groups has been well-documented, not to mention the use of bullying to keep other men in line.
Failing to teach and encourage men to express healthy intimacy – not just with women, but with other men – is causing significant damage. Touch isolation is real. And for those of us raising boys, it's vital that we try to counter not just Pascoe's sense of compulsive heterosexuality, but the homophobia that keeps men in isolation from true connection with one another.
You may have heard the homophobic rejoinder of "no homo" to anything that even vaguely implies an expression of affection or admiration between men determined to maintain their reputations of strict heterosexuality.
The phrase in this context is intended to be humorous rather than threatening – a way for otherwise straight men to share feelings with each other, but maintain what ethnographer CJ Pascoe referred to as "compulsive heterosexuality" in her 2007 book, Dude, You're a Homophobic Slur: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School.
Pascoe coined the phrase to describe the particular ways masculine power is codified within a community of teenage school peers, but it's a concept that can be easily recognised alongside the ongoing paranoia about men and homosexuality in a culture that still valorises hetero-masculinity. Pascoe conducted field research for 18 months at a racially diverse high school in California, interviewing more than 50 students about how gender, sexuality and how the concept of masculinity played out for both the male and female students.
In the male students' interactions with each other, she found that homophobia was rife as a bullying tactic between both enemies and friends. The "compulsive heterosexuality" she writes about becomes the institutionalised antidote to the emasculation always waiting to undermine boys and their place in the broader social hierarchy.
This wasn't always the case. In fact, prior to the 20th century it was common for men to be physically intimate with each other without their intimacy being assumed to be sexual in nature. There have been thousands of photographs collated by historians that show men reclined in a comfortable and physical expression of friendship. They are seen leaning against each other, hands draped across each other's thighs and often holding hands.
Some sociologists theorise that this freedom was the result of different social assumptions made about homosexuality, and the pathologisation of sexuality at the turn of the 20th century was what changed things.
Others suggest it may have been a response to the increase of women's power and their burgeoning presence in public life. Simply put, that with women moving more determinedly out of the domestic sphere and into the public one, men looked for ways to distinguish themselves from them and their inherently "feminine" traits.
Whatever the cause, western society quickly adopted the view that "respectable" masculinities maintained a safe distance from one another, even as it proved detrimental to men themselves. In an article for Uplift, Mark Greene writes: "And where does this leave men? Physically and emotionally isolated. Cut off from the deeply human physical contact that is proven to reduce stress, encourage self-esteem and create community. Instead, we walk in the vast crowds of our cities alone in a desert of disconnection. Starving for physical connection. We crave touch. We are cut off from it. The result is touch isolation."
It was only after becoming a stay-at-home father that Greene realised how much this touch isolation was negatively impacting his life. He describes the feeling of holding his son in the crook of his arm, his son's hand held at the back of his neck.
"The physical connection between us was so transformative that it changed my view of who I am and what my role is in the world. Yet it took having a child to bring this calming experience to me because so few other opportunities are possible to teach men the value and power of gentle loving touch."
Greene believes that men involving themselves more as the carers of children is a path to breaking down some of these barriers to touch and connection.
It's sad and surprising to realise how many men don't express gentle intimacy with their sons, particularly as their sons enter adolescence. Hugging, kissing and exchanging "I love yous" drop away between many fathers and sons, and that touch isn't necessarily replicated in their friendships with other men because of the pressures that compulsive heterosexuality presents.
This isn't to say that men never touch at all. But as Jared Keller writes in GQ: "Bros high-five, hug and slap butts after a touchdown or other more emotionally charged moments all the time ... but prolonged physical contact holds the risk of stepping over that invisible line between straight and gay – or just plain weird."
Keller points to the work of respected sociologist Michael Kimmel, author of Guyland and Angry White Men. Kimmel references sports (and the rise of the sports bar) as a place where men's "heterosexuality is assured the moment we walk in, simply because we can get to enjoy that male bonding with our masculinity intact because there's sports everywhere".
The consequence of touch isolation for men isn't just the denial of platonic emotional and physical intimacy with other men. It can also increase aggression and lead in some cases to harmful behaviours expressed against others.
The use of sexual violence or coercion as a bonding activity among some male peer groups has been well-documented, not to mention the use of bullying to keep other men in line.
Failing to teach and encourage men to express healthy intimacy – not just with women, but with other men – is causing significant damage. Touch isolation is real. And for those of us raising boys, it's vital that we try to counter not just Pascoe's sense of compulsive heterosexuality, but the homophobia that keeps men in isolation from true connection with one another.
- Status
