Sunday, August 12, 2012

I love you mate! (No homo)

There is one thing about men that both fascinates and amuses me.
Well, one of many actually :-)

And I suspect it is a deeply 'male locker-room' phenomenon (read: which means 'don't go there') but I am sufficiently curious about it that I might just venture to the threshold of this locker-room...
If I get thrown out unceremoniously, that's OK. I'll take it as one of those 'hand in the fire' lesssons you learn as a 4 year old.

If however the men indulge me, well, that would be super.

On several Manosphere blogs (or any other blog where mainly men congregate), how many times have I seen these lines?

"I love you man! (No homo)".


"You rock my world, Sir (No homo)".

Or some variation thereof.

This amuses me no end.

As a woman, I have never felt the need to explain to another woman that I am not a lesbian, no matter how 'inappropriately' close I get to her, in words or physically.
I find it increadibly easy to tell a beautiful woman she is beautiful, or the wearer of a nice dress that it brings out her nice figure, or even (perhaps bordering on the limits of decency) that that she has nice breasts.
And yet I know I am not in the least gay. And more importantly, more often than not, I am very secure in the knowledge that I am not being perceived as gay by the recipient of my 'attention'.

And I daresay a lot of non-gay women might say the same.
(If I am wrong however, it is because I haven't ventured out of my head to do an 'on the road' spot questionnaire...yet!).
I realise that whilst it may be totally inappropriate for a (strange) woman to comment on another's breasts or other similarly intimate body part, it is less creepy than when a strange man does it. The creep factor only rises sharply if a woman is particularly 'lesbophobic', which most women simply are not.

Which begs the question:
Are we women 'closet lesbians'? But in a 'normal' kind of way? Whatever 'normal' means?

Women can get incredibly close to each other. I see how I am with my female friends and I instinctively know that men just aren't that way with their friends.
There is always a certain 'distance' between two men no matter how close they are mentally/socially/psychologically.
Women will breach each other's 'personal space' all the time without a moment's thought.

And what's even more interesting, this is cross-cultural. Even in the 'coldest' of cultures, women are still 'warm' to each other. I find this interesting.

I noticed this male phenomenon on Danny's blog a long time ago, and asked him about it. He gave me a very good explanation, which I found interesting in itself especially as it turns out to be even more deeply complex than I once imagined.
But I feel the need for a refresher course on this if the gentlemen here would like to give me their particular take on this.

Female bonding is characterised by a lot of tactile contact. We simply do not lose this tendency until we die.

As children, we are all touched a lot. I watch a mother and child and of course the first noticeable thing about them is that they are in physical contact for much of the time. It could be by virtue of the child being carried, being kissed on the head, being breastfed, being patted on the bottom if he's been naughty (or simply being lovingly acknowledged)...the possibilities of tactile contact are endless.
Children who lack this 'touch' thing get psychologically damaged somehow, I read in a lot of psychology/popular sociology journals or just articles we all get fed with our breakfast on the 'interwebz' as Danny would say.

Princess Diana once famously started a 'hug' campaign, because she felt that some children were lacking this in their lives. I think she was right - there are many children in Britain who are not touched enough. In this, the Europeans - especially Southern Europeans - far outrank the Brits.

Touch is 'healing'. Women understand this very well. And we will do whatever it takes to touch or be touched. Purely for the sensation of touch, nothing more. (Perhaps infuriating for a man who might want more than this? ;)
Is this an intrinsic part of femininity that even feminism cannot steal from womanhood?

I once read about an old woman who, though was not Catholic would go to Mass at her local Catholic Church everyday. I forget whether she was a never-married woman, a widow or a divorcée or whether or not she had had children.
The author of the article is a well-known writer for a Catholic newspaper. She had come across this old woman at Mass one day and got talking to her after Mass. She was surprised to learn that the old woman was not even Catholic and asked her why she came to Mass everyday.

The old woman replied that she came to Mass everyday because she had heard that at Mass, you get to shake someone's hand.
She came to Mass to touch and be touched by someone else, or other people depending on how many people she could manage to shake hands with during 'the rite of peace'.

That touch would be her only physical contact with another human being for that day.
To get her daily (tactile) fix, she had to make it to Mass. In times of bad weather or when she was too sick to get to Mass, she was denied this luxury.
The writer of the article (who was a married woman with several kids) was so touched (no pun) by this that from that day, she made it a point to either go herself to visit this old lady or send one of her older kids to go do chores for her or to just go say hello. They adopted her as 'granny'.

They do say that women have a greater fear of dying alone than men.
I wonder, is a big part of this to do with this lack of touch that 'aloneness' entails?

I mean, if I were to use myself as an example, I could talk the hind legs off a donkey even if there were no-one in the room with me. (The operative word is 'could'. The reality is that I am not actually that much of a talker in real life. I just write a lot lol).

I could quite happily make it through weeks or months without seeing anyone (um, theoretically I believe this would be feasible for me, yes).

I could certainly live a whole lifetime without smelling anyone (!)

Taste? Please, let's not go there :-)

But can I do without touch?
*sharp intake of breath*
Just ask my 'cuddle bunny' why he exists in my life :-)

I see a small child or a dog or a cat or some such small thing or person (that poses no potential harm to me) and the first thing I want to do is touch it. I have never come across a baby and not tried to persuade its carrier to let me hold him or her for a while.

If it's a living being (actually, this is not a strict requirement - see above comment re 'cuddle bunnies') and it is not dangerous, I am touching it, or having it touch me come what may :-)

Is this true for all human beings? Or just the XX variety...

Lack of touch is just one aspect of increasing loneliness as we all get older. My guess is, men suffer too from this lack of touch. Please confirm (or refute) gentlemen!
But when men are younger, it seems to me that their need for touch may be more... um, specific in some ways than for women?
Correct me if I am wrong!
The reason I have been made to think this (note I am alibi-ing for myself here - if I have got this wrong, it is because you are to blame for giving me the wrong impression lol) is that men are much more selective about who they will allow in their physical 'space' and it would typically include the women in their family (wife, mother, sister, girlfriend if she is worth it).
But somehow (and again this is my impression) they are much less selective about who they will have sex with! As The Kings of The Manosphere will confirm, a man with an SMV score of 8 will have no problem with getting friendly with a woman who is a 5 (but granted, he may not go much lower if he is self-respecting and has 'options').
It is the reverse with women, generally-speaking, although (again granted) there are increasing sightings of exceptions to this rule.

And certainly, women have this amazing ability to hug any other woman with no awkwardness whatsoever.
And I have never heard a woman say "I love you, girl! No lesbo".
I just haven't.
A woman might check that the other woman is not too creeped out, sure.
But she just won't worry that she will be thought of as a lesbian.

Yes I have received a few funny looks from women I have said 'You look really nice!' to.
But even if I thought they were mentally labelling me 'a lesbian' in their minds, this hasn't bothered me in the least.
Am I right to believe that I am very much an 'inlier' in this regard?

Fear of being labelled homosexual is just not a prevailing problem on Planet Woman.
But somehow, it is, on Planet Man.

Back to my original question: Are women intrinsically 'almost gay' and we just don't care about this?

In a crude bit of evidence in support of my hypothesis on this, one of the prevailing male fantasies out there is the idea of 'threesomes'. Um, Metak can concur, lol.
And in threesome activity, the two women um, focus on each other in a manner which Metak might define as his own version of 'Feminism' ala Ali G in the first video here. (The particularly relevant discussion about this starts at 1:55).

Will women simply do anything to please a man or is it a case of ...well, 'feminism' is already there and it doesn't take much to 'bring it out' sort of thing...?

Is there a tendency to 'masculinism' in non-gay men in a similar manner to 'feminism'?
I shouldn't have gone there, I know, I know, it's a Sunday and all....but blow me down with a feather I am having difficulty considering that this could possible.
Hence the 'no homo' proviso...

And with that I make a very swift exit from this particular locker-room.
Almost as swift as these two...

See? It doesn't hurt, does it...

Why don't men do more of this?

Why does it have to take a world record for this to happen?



Marellus said...

I feel so honored to be the first comment. All of my hard work and dedication has paid off. Getting the first comment has been a dream of mine for many years, and I would like to thank those who have helped me along the way. First and foremost I would like to thank God for giving me this opportunity.

Next I would like to thank my parents. I want to thank my friend Peter Griffin for being really skinny and always there for me.

I would also like to thank my pet tadpole for surviving against all odds for over a week. Next I would like to thank the squirrel that lives in my backyard for climbing trees because that gives me inspiration that I need to get through the day.

This is a special moment in my life and I would like to thank any of my unmentioned friends and family that have helped me along the way. This moment will be a moment that I will never forget.

I just remembered a few other people I would like to thank; facebook, the fish I caught in the third grade, my light in my room because I wouldn’t be able to see the keyboard without it, the internet for letting me go on this blog, my house because without it I would be homeless, and last but not least, I would like to thank all the people out there that actually took time out of their day to read this.

I cannot stress how much of a big deal to me this is. I have been trying to be the first on a post for years, but that has not been possible until this amazing day.

Hopefully my good luck will continue, but this is undoubtedly a rare occasion. If you asked me how I did this, I would say, you can achieve anything you set your mind on. To all the kids out there reading this, I would like to tell them to follow their dreams.

Being the first is truly amazing.

Thank you everyone.

Spacetraveller said...

Are you trying to disprove my point?
That's the gayest speech I ever saw, mate!


Very funny.
Now you really DO deserve an Oscar :-)

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

My working assumption with you is that you always are asking questions in good faith.

In the OP, your earlier ideas are more accurate. Guys put a lot of value in personal space, or more accurately, people value personal space when dealing with guys. You are correct in thinking of this as a barrier to closeness. You are correct in identifying this as a barrier to emotional closeness.

This barrier is natural needed because in our not too distant tribal past, any man who was not in your inner circle was a potential threat. During the late Victorian era with the formalism and sway of religious starting to fade from parts of society, the people of the time created a convention that lingered on for some time...namely that close physical contact between men was viewed as a possible sign of homosexuality. This served the purpose of helping to delay the degeration of men into milquetoasts and helped to keep up the moral fiber of the country even after overt faith had died off.

That said, men are allowed to hug each other in times of great emotion. It's common and normal for men to have feelings, even if they are typically not allowed by society to express them.

Viewed in this context, when a man says "no homo", what he is doing is acknowledging his breaking of social convention stating that this particular interaction doesn't qualify as sufficiently emotional, he's stating his need to express emotion at that particular time.

Let me give you a few examples.

No "no homo" required:
-- Son's pet of 7 years dies, father hugs son. (greater than 2 seconds)
-- 2 old man students struggle through math for a year, require intensive help from the instructors, hug instructors when they finish. (less than 2 seconds)
-- A football team wins the superbowl, validating their entire life's work, group hug. (greater than 2 seconds)
-- A middle aged park leader leaves a sports/crafts club. During the goodbye ceremony, his mentor and his student (both younger) get up before the audience. The younger one presents him a token of goodbye (specially made piece of sporting equipment), the middle aged man then hugs both the two younger men.

These are examples of situations that are highly emotional to men. It's by no means an exhaustive list. The common factors running through these are the men all knew each other well enough to have a working relationship. Investment of time and effort was involved. Special circumstance such as loss or achievement was involved.

just visiting said...

Is there a tendency to 'masculinism' in non-gay men in a similar manner to 'feminism'?

Lol, Ohhhh ST, the forbidden locker room at that.

The stories that have been relayed to me over the years would tentatively suggest.....kindofsortof.
Lol. I've never had a beta friend relay a homosexual experience, but, I have had alpha friends tell me.

I don't know if that is because they have more confidence and are less worried of telling me this than a beta guy would be. Perhaps because they have pushed the envelope with women it's easier to cross that line. Debauchery? Higher testosterone? I don't know. Though, I suspect that a lot of people who know them would never believe me anyways if I were to blab about it.(Which I wouldn't) Seems to be more of an experimentation thing by the sounds of it. And not something up for general discussion.

That said...
For the most part, from the alpha to the omega, most hetero guys will work at not being identified as "homo"

Anonymous said...

I'm just going to read a few more comments before I respond....

Bob Wallace said...

Women are wired in their brains for relationships. Men are wired for manipulating things and creating systems.

That's one of the reasons men don't do the touchy-feely stuff. It feels weird to us.

Spacetraveller said...


LOL. I DO ask these questions in god faith!
Even the more outlandish ones :-)

I just report what I notice, and then try to make sense of it, using tips I get from people who have noticed the same thing or already have a firm idea about the subject matter at hand.
Necessarily, a lot of my questions would be about men and male behaviour since I am overly familiar already with females and female behaviour.

"This barrier is natural needed because in our not too distant tribal past, any man who was not in your inner circle was a potential threat."

Perhaps this mirrors Bob's words that 'touchy-feely' is not natural to you (straight) men.

It feels weird to me not to touch someone or something, unless they are an overt risk, but even so...
Like Princess Di once did, I too would touch a leper if I thought that the interaction would help them in some way (even with the non-negligible risk to me). But there are limits. I wouldn't touch a dangerous animal in a zoo for instance...
Um, where's Bell...I wouldn't necessarily 'kiss a giraffe' lol.

Mind you, as to kissing frogs...let's not go there :-)

Thank you for the great examples you cite about events/circumstances that move men to display high emotion.

This whole topic reminds me of a little theory I have: which is, there are things women and men do 'all the time' and things they do 'in short bursts'.
Perhaps same as men are 'ready' all the time for aherm, physical intimacy (potentially), women are always at some level on an emotional wavelength which is generally higher than that of the average man. Women's sexuality fluctuates on a monthly basis whilst men's emotionality fluctuates depending on events.
Is this a useful summary?


Now you have me intrigued. Alphas and homosexuality?
*wide eyed*
If it's not too much of a repetition, 'tell me you're kidding'.
Lol, this might start a new trend where in every post I shall have to make this request to you, as you seem to have titbits of info that I never heard before. Hahahahaha!

Bellita said...

Um, where's Bell...I wouldn't necessarily 'kiss a giraffe' lol.

I wouldn't, either! How it ever occurred to Frankie is beyond me. :P

If I've been quiet, it's because it occurred to me that all the men I can think of who are openly physically affectionate with each other might be considered soft and effeminate by the men who comment here. Certainly, none of them meet Ceer's criteria!

But now you've said something I can reply to, even if it means I take everything drastically off topic . . .

Like Princess Di once did, I too would touch a leper if I thought that the interaction would help them in some way (even with the non-negligible risk to me)

When I was very young and wanted to give some money to the street children whom I'd see begging, the adults in my family would give me permission only after I promised not to touch the other children. It sounds extremely harsh, but they had good reason for thinking that the street children would have been digging through trash heaps not an hour before. In a tropical country, where many people are afraid to flush toilet paper down the toilet because it might cause clogging (so guess where they dispose of it), that was a sensible precaution.

But I'm with Diana on this: touch can be one of the greatest signs of compassion, especially to someone who is used to being marginalized. A few months ago, after I gave some money to a young boy at a certain street corner, I smiled and patted him on the shoulder as well. This gesture has turned out to be a double-edged sword . . . Now he expects me to give him money whenever I pass by! :P We have a "relationship" now, you see!

The bigger problem is that other homeless children have noticed, and they want some money, too . . .

Helping never ends, ST!

Spacetraveller said...

Oh Bell,

I am thrilled you commented.

It seems you have your own 'What's in the bag' story here :-)
(Remember my little girl at Mass?)

Now your little boy expects 'a necklace' so to speak!
(GOsh, now I make him sound gay...).

You are right about touch. Touch (and looking at someone) is the purest sign that you accept them. When a couple are fighting, the man might say 'I can't even bear to look at you' and in fact he may disappear to avoid having to look at her. The woman might say, 'I can't bear to touch you or to be touched by you', and unfortunately for him, that also means sex is out of the question until she can get back to feeling like getting close to him again...
I understand your family's concerns of course about touching the street kids, but as you discovered, when you did touch one of them, it became a powerful and perhaps motivating them for them. Like that woman who went to Mass just to get touched, perhaps this was this child's only display of affection. Technically, you gave him a PDA (public display of affection)! So yes, I agree you are in a relationship there, Bell :P

On a more serious note, this brings me onto something that I notice a lot with tabloid newspapers. They always try to 'judge' how in love a celebrity couple are by their PDA or lack thereof. If they are not touching in some way or looking longingly into each other's eyes, they are deemed to have a relationship 'on the rocks'. I wonder if celebrities have cottoned onto this and therefore will play up their 'affection' for each other...the result is gestures which appear forced and fake. They may actuallly love each other genuinely, but what the pap cameras pick up are the forced displays...

Touch, although is a beautiful thing, can of course get women into 'trouble', some worse than others. I know many nurses for example who have touched a patient on their arm (eg. as a doctor delivered some bad news to them), to console them...only to have some crafty ones take the opportunity to touch them back inappropriately, eg.on the thigh, bottom, and in one case even on the breast (witnessed by me). A nurse whose 'healing touch' is abused in this way is denied the chance to use a big part of her skills as a nurse. NC's story in a recent thread where he is in a hospital where wonderful nurses are looking after him reminds me why this can be so wrong...

Bellita said...

Yes, I did remember your little girl at Mass, ST! :) And I would have been more explicit about this as a field report on "Fascination" if I hadn't worried that some men might be insulted by any parallel between them and these poor children.

But since you have already brought it up, I guess it's now safe! ;)

By the way, I usually see this boy on my walk to church! But I'll bet that doesn't surprise you!

dannyfrom504 said...

i work some true wolves. combat vets of iraq and afghanistan. the locker room at work is no joke. and guess what.

we make gay jokes ALL THE TIME. if one of my friends does me a favor, i'll mimic giving him head and make over exaggerated slurping sounds. NONE of these men are gay. but gay humor is par for the course among wolves.

WHY do we do it. honestly....couldn't tell you. it's not submission, it's more of a bringing a feminine aspect (even if fake) into a largely masculine setting.

i've never met a man that i respected that didn't giggle at gay innuendo. but....i wouldn't hug a team-mate for his great performance, i'd just high five him. hugging would be

if he's experiencing some trauma or tragedy....acceptable. don't ask, just accept your insight of the locker room ST.

the pack LOVES gay jokes and innuendo, we're confident enough in our sexuality to be able to laugh at it. it's almost a testament to a mans manliness by being able to endure "gay" jokes. remember my post about Marines where one of my guys dropped trough and pulled his ass apart as he left my BAS? i told him to "get the fuck outta here Jarhead." but i still giggled as her left.

hope this helped.

Anonymous said...

Strange post. I've never really given a crap one way or another. I've never had any difficulty enduring "gay" jokes as Danny points out, but I've never felt the need to point out that I'm not gay, to anyone. I've been called gay, because of my long hair, girly, sissy, and I've been called other names for my ethnicity, too.

I still don't give a crap. The world is full of asses, why add to the population by becoming one?

The Navy Corpsman

Anonymous said...

P.S. Yes, touch is a wonderful thing... healing, supporting and much more.

It also can be painful, dangerous and even life threatening, if done in a certain way, i.e with a fist. Men, being aware of the potential aggression in other males, have a generally unspoken agreement about personal space and touching without some sort of permission. Men are the victims of violence in large numbers compared to females, yet few people talk about making the streets safe for men.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bell,

No it doesn't surprise me at all that your little boy is to be found near or at a church. It makes sense that if you are looking for money/compassion/help that you position yourself in the field of vision of religious people, especially Catholics, for the maximum guilt-effect which will help your cause. Hahahahahaha!

Danny, can I summarise what you have written, just so I get it right in my own head?

(Straight) men will happily indulge in gay jokes, but will refrain from doing anything that could give an onlooker the idea that they could be gay...
Is this a fair summary?


I admit this is not the first thing on a man's mind - there are more important things in life to worry about than the fear of being mistaken for homosexual when you are not. I just wondered how this issue sits with men because of this 'No homo' stipulation after comments/posts on blogs that I keep seeing. It made me think there must be more to it than just 2 words added onto a comment.

Touch by a fist is no longer touch, NC! lol

I only refer to the gentle/sensual/compassionate kind of touch. It never even occurred to me about the other kind of touch - i.e. the violent type. Great how men and women think so differently, huh? You are right of course to think about it - violence IS all around us. Good to know that while I am going about doing my 'touchy-feely' stuff ala Bellita (lol) there is someone thinking about the danger aspect.
Remind me why we all decided to do away with men in society again?
In the fem-centric world the feminists are so hell-bent on creating, who is doing the 'high-tower duty' to watch out for danger?
Exactly. Precisely no-one...

metak said...


I was joking as usual back then when I wrote that.. but I do like the "category" you've put me in in your mind.. ;-)

I can compare my views on lesbianism and threesomes to women's reaction when they watch cute cats + boner..

one cute kitty = ooooouu... ;-)
two cute kitties = ooooouu... + they're adorable... ;-)
three... you know how this goes on.. ;-)

I actually never saw or heard anywhere this 'no homo' comment. Culture (environment where you live) defines what is 'acceptable' in general (and you have to go against it.. sometimes just to piss them off). ;-)

just visiting said...

@ ST

Yes, I could see where it would seem contradictory. I'm not sure what to make of it my self.

The story about the woman going to church so that she could shake hands saddens me. Sometimes I wonder if some of the hook up culture comes from the same place.

dannyfrom504 said...

"(Straight) men will happily indulge in gay jokes, but will refrain from doing anything that could give an onlooker the idea that they could be gay...
Is this a fair summary?"

no. anytime you can make a male friend uncomfortable with gay jokes and by "going gay" with him.....FUNNY. but....

guy code- hugging is fine in a celebratory or sorrowful situation.
family....hug upon greeting...acceptable. just a guy i'm friends with....nope. no hugging.

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said...

I admit this is not the first thing on a man's mind - there are more important things in life to worry about than the fear of being mistaken for homosexual when you are not. I just wondered how this issue sits with men because of this 'No homo' stipulation after comments/posts on blogs that I keep seeing. It made me think there must be more to it than just 2 words added onto a comment."

I have to admit, I've never seen that posted anywhere, but I also admit I'm probably not looking at the same places you are. Might I ask if this expressed 'love' for another male is a form of agreement/homage to a posted commentary? That is, are the posted comments about non-sexual love for another male generally in the form of agreement with a stated opinion?

My gut feeling is that this is an internet phenomenon wherein subtleties of expression are completely lost, body language is non-existent, and likewise, emoticons become commonly used to indicate mirth, satire, or other intended nuances of conversation.

When people do not know each other, except through a common interest such as the 'manly men blogs' perhaps these added words are meant to reassure the object of expressed non-sexual love that it is indeed not a homosexual attraction?

I freely confess, if some random male I did not know spoke to me in person thus, the first thing I would suspect is that I'm being hit on. Luckily for me, one of the benefits of being so ugly that trains take a dirt road to avoid me, is that not even gay guys hit on me.

The jury is still out on my wife's vision test.

The Navy Corpsman

Marellus said...


Is it true that Lady Gaga and Adele are on poor terms because Lady Gaga made some remarks about Adele's arse ?

I hope Adele retorted like this :

Honey, I have an ass and a voice, while you're an ass with a voice ...

To them ladies that can shed some more light on this, I solemnly promise to give you a long sloppy French Kiss ... unless it's you ST ... then you and I are gonna share a tub of the smoothest crunchiest Gino Ginelli ice cream ... while we plot a protest march towards the nearest Weigh Less office ... What ?! ... oh ??? sorry my darling, you're getting half of that tub ... no more ... no less ... it's because of sigh-cocky-chiatry my darling ... yes, it's a brand new science, my darling ... and they treat their worst patients with The Da-Wow-Wow-Kaboom-Roaring-Hog-Masala-FireWater, my darling ... are you thirsty, my darling ?

Spacetraveller said...


"The story about the woman going to church so that she could shake hands saddens me. Sometimes I wonder if some of the hook up culture comes from the same place."

I have no doubt there is an element of this, yes. And it is superlatively sad indeed!


You are in several categories in my head ;)


I see what you mean. Men can make 'gay jokes' with each other, but a woman mustn't join in...
Makes sense. The message is still very much 'keep out of the locker room!'
OK, get it ;)


Hahahaha! I am sure your wife's vision is just fine. And, well, it's great that you don't get hit on by fellow men. I get the feeling you're not complaining. Hahahaha!

metak said...


There are always men that 'enjoy' that kind of humor. When I was in high school for a few of them that was a way to 'hide' their homosexuality. That's why it wasn't a surprise to me later when one of those classmates 'came out of the closet'.

Even stand-up comedians are pushing more and more with gay jokes and imitating gay behavior. Next stop: Gaywille! ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

Hm Metak,

I wonder if other men here agree with your theory??

I am not sure it computes...but then again, I am not a man, so I wouldn't know...

metak said...


It's not a theory. Just another funny story. ;-)

dannyfrom504 said...


i wrote a post about this just for you. it will be up tomorrow. gayest post i've ever written. lol.

Leap of a Beta said...

I don't think it's about touch. Not at all.

I think its the trend of disassociation our society has between real biological facts and our lifestyles. The average man doesn't get naked in a locker room any more, doesn't have communal showers any more. The average man doesn't kill anything with his bare hands. Fewer and fewer men have ever shot anything for food, nor fished, nor gutted something. Biology class introduces some dissections, but that's in a laboratory, controlled environment of sterility and is more and more often done as a group instead of individual level.

As such, you see men less and less comfortable with their bodies and the bodies of others in terms of nudity. Which then translates to the 'no homo' thing.

Another factor is the undermining of male sexuality. Right now both straight and gay sexualities are villianized depending on what social setting you find yourself in. Lady Gaga, Glee, and other things make it great to be gay and shameful to be straight. Especially if you're white. Meanwhile conservative churches bash a good deal of heterosexual urges AS WELL as homosexual ones.

So, if you're afraid of your sexuality as a whole, don't have a good body image, no ego, are uncomfortable with the idea of seeing other men nude.... Well...

I've actually never felt the need to say No Homo. I grew up taking group baths with boys and girls within and outside of my family. I've gone skinny dipping. I've killed things, gutted them. I've drank, played truth or dare, kissed guys sober and drunk that are better kissers than some women who I still enjoyed more than the men. I'm straight, have no desire to ever be with a man, and every desire to have sex with a multitude of women and father children with one of them.

No Homo need not apply. I am a man. And that's the beginning, middle, and end of it.

Spacetraveller said...


No comment...
I really don't know much about these two people you mention. Maybe because I am in the older generation from them?


Hahahahaha, you and Marellus are hell-bent on making me squirm for writing this post, aren't you? lol
I look forward to your post...


Whoa, no homo there, for sure :P
Spoken like a man...
If JV's theory is to be brought to the fore again, might I reiterate the sentiment that you are actually alpha?

JV, is this the sort of thing you were referring to?

Jacquie said...

I really like what Leap said. The first paragraph especially stirred some thoughts of my own. We live in an area where hunting is still big. Boys, and many times girls also, are brought up on it; going out on hunting trips with dad while mom waits at home. The men teach the younger generation all the aspects of the hunt. There are also men who do not hunt but will go out to the range and shoot skeet or on the rifle range. Reading Leap’s comment made me think about the difference between the men who hunt and the men who go to the range. The commune with nature vs. the sterility of the range. I am sure something is triggered in the men who go out into the woods, getting dirty and sweaty, connecting with nature around him; maybe something primal, something that does make him comfortable with who he is. While what the world keeps thrusting on us as a society that dirt is bad, don’t get messy or if you do make sure it’s in a controlled environment so that you can immediately clean up. We have sanitizer everywhere and I see mother’s who constantly put that stuff on their kids, not allowing them to get grimy.
I know that there have been times during our marriage when Mr. D was working hard on something around the house or just got in from work and he would be filthy and sweaty. I’d meet him to give him a kiss. He’d kiss me back trying to avoid getting near me anymore than he had to, telling me, “you probably don’t want to get near me right now I’m all dirty.” The truth of it was I wanted to get closer. I honestly didn’t think he smelled bad at all, and the dirt and sweat only brought out something that made him more manly to me. I wanted to be close to that. But society had taught us so well that this was bad that my husband felt uncomfortable being in a manly state around me. I loved the rawness of a man working hard. But should I?
So, yes, I would have to agree with Leap that most men are afraid of their sexuality and uncomfortable with their body image; the more sterile the world they live in the more so they are. It’s what society has taught. The men I’ve known who were avid hunters were much more comfortable with themselves than the men who only went to the range and even more so than those who didn’t shoot at all or get up close and personal with the outdoors in one way or another. Perhaps going back to enjoying nature up close, the land and the dirt is what could bring men back to being comfortable with who they are.

Anonymous said...

Thank you.

I hunt. I LOVE to hunt. Being in the woods calms me, hones my senses, helps me focus. I can run down rabbits, I can fish and gut them. Oh, and I prefer bow hunting.

Anonymous said...

I think this observed phenomenon is restricted to the internet, on these male oriented blogs or other websites dedicated to preserving the rights of males. And I think they're just using the words to point out that they agree with something someone said, in the strongest possible terms, without being mistaken as a sexual advance.

It seems a non-issue to me. One could sit here and analyze it, but I doubt seriously that this ever happens in person, in real life discussions.

Jacquie said...

"Perhaps going back to enjoying nature up close, the land and the dirt is what could bring men back to being comfortable with who they are. "

To a certain degree, I agree with your observation here, but I'd point out that, in today's society, the correct way for a man to sweat is in a gym, not in the forest, not around the house. Manual labor is associated with being too poor to hire an illegal alien to mow your lawn or do the house maintenance that is necessary all year long. Also, as long as men allow the media to define what is masculine, as long as feminists get a free pass to downgrade men for being men, there WILL be adult men who are uncomfortable with being who and what they are...

Back in the late 80s, a TV show called 'Roseanne' became very popular, with much media attention for it's sometimes controversial issues that it aired. The male lead, played by John Goodman was a regular blue collar guy who knew how to fix everything around the house, and eventually ran his own motorcycle shop/sales. I recall dozens of articles saying that even though Goodman was overweight to the point of obesity, and not terribly handsome like most TV male leads, he was becoming a bit of a sex symbol for women as the backlash against 'sensitive men' became apparent.

Yet nowadays, young men under the age of 30, at least in the USA, are bombarded with multiple mixed messages about masculinity, only one of which is consistent... that men are BAD. Many many young men were raised without contact with their fathers, regardless of the reason why, is it any wonder why some men go to the Manosphere to figure out who they are? And more to the point, it is any wonder they feel the need to be clear about their sexuality?

The Navy Corpsman

Marellus said...

Maybe because I am in the older generation from them?

... sorry my darling, but the only way you'll be treated with the Pomp & Ceremony accorded an experienced spacetraveller ... is by changing your moniker to MadamSputnik.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Space Traveler
"If JV's theory is to be brought to the fore again, might I reiterate the sentiment that you are actually alpha?"

Ask nicely and I'll consider the possibility.

I think I'm going to copy/past and edit the previous comment I had, as well as one I just made on Dalrock's, into my own blog.

It was a fun reminder of some of the things that have brought me to where I am that I forget about - the hunting, my Christian upbringing, sports, boy scouts, and that night at a hotel where all of us played truth or dare. I didn't say it in the original comment, but after kissing the guys I also had the most perfect breasts to motorboat as well as someone go down on me infront of the others in the hot tub.

Man. I worry for the rest of men when I still consider myself to have 'strong beta leanings, but now with a very masculine and alpha grounding and framing.' I think its that I don't take the time to practice a lot of those activities any more with theatre as a career. That or they're out of my current price range.

just visiting said...

I think that there's something to be said about being in the out doors that centers a person. I always feel more alive when I'm in the mountains.

I've often wondered if the large divide between between alpha and beta has come about with modern living. Men being robbed of confidence that was gained by learning self sufficiency. I keep thinking of those beta men leading their gently reared wives and children in covered wagons. Defending themselves from Indians. Building their own homes and clearing their own land for farming. Without crop insurance. Such men would be very similar to alphas in terms of confidence, courage, strength and leadership. The differences would lay in family and wildness.

just visiting said...


The difference would be family, wildness, and rules. (Either adherence or disdain.)

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Space Traveler

Post just went up. I think you'll enjoy it.

@ Just Visiting

I think that the main difference between being Beta and Alpha is found in being able to accept the world around you, with all its gritty, harsh, dirty details to contrast the pure, stark beauty of it all. Both the physical as well as the mental

The easiest ways for Men to do that are, in my beliefs, a firm grounding of the physical needs of man to butcher life around him in order to feed himself and his family. Hunting, fishing, sports, athleticism.

He also needs a good grounding in the morality, the power structures of good and evil, how each of them thrive in different environments. How is actions can create, alter, or kill environments where each of those elements thrive. How to defend against evil while cultivating good. How the best way to cultivate good is a combination of living well and SHOWING that you live well and with strength - aka Game.

Those are what separate Alpha's from Betas.

just visiting said...

Your definition of alpha is spot on to mine. And the distinctions are clearly divided in this day and age. It's pre 20th century that I have a fuzzier time of it.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Just Visiting

I believe that it varies by time you're looking at it. I'm going to stay in the western world because my education and understanding of them is the best.

Greeks and Romans - The Alphas were the men that were land owners and heads of households. They owned slaves, could vote, were citizens. They were able to speak publicly and it was clear that they were expected to do so.

After the fall of Rome the Alpha's were the heads of the church, the monarchy, and again, land owners. Anyone able to organize and lead the community is an Alpha, but society was mainly set up so that a man both had more alpha traits, but less need to use them, because society took a larger part of the responsibility of controlling hypergamy. This responsibility is actually what was able to free men up to concentrate on advancing the goals of humanity - whether it be on a familial, communal, country, or planet wide basis. This continued until feminism, though I'm not going to waste time repeating it.

The printing press changed the name of the game again. I won't say that anyone that was able to influence society's thinking was inherently Alpha, just that it allowed a man's thoughts to be a larger contributor to Alpha status for the first time since the fall of the Roman empire.

Any man that went out, explored, founded a new farmstead, or trapped, that was also able to establish a familial clan, was also an alpha. This saw it's hayday in the Irish clans most notably. The Americas has a wealth of fun familial history from the 1700's through the early 1900's of this.

Basically though, through out most of history, I'd say that nearly every man had the Alpha potential within him that was also reinforced by society and the church. The defining feature of an Alpha pre 20th century was that his actual abilities to lead were greater than other men's, so they followed him. There was a greater value of these traits and a greater ability for men to follow them as a community leader without making issues out of it.

Every man had Alpha qualities in abundance, then they picked the one with the best of these to be the actual Alpha

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I couldn't imagine an existence where I didn't kill my own meat source.

A man that us uncomfortable in the woods scares me. Since I was a boy, I LOVED being in the woods. I'd spend the whole day exploring, tracking, looking for patterns, building a shelter, recognizing wood for fire vs useless moist wood. If I wasn't in the woods, I was on the pier fishing.

I can't wait to get back to Louisiana.

just visiting said...

@ Danny

Louisiana is in your blood. I think that your boyhood adventures and the culture has helped shape you into the man you are today.

Danny said :

A man that us uncomfortable in the woods scares me.

Yes. If you ever want to get a good idea about someones character, take them camping or hunting. I've noticed that my friends who complained and couldn't enjoy themselves despite a few hardships , would reveal those tendancies in other areas of their lives. The outdoors just brings those traits to the fore quicker and in a more exagerated fashion.

just visiting said...

@ Leap

Good points, and I'm going to ponder them a bit longer.

This part jumps out at me...

Every man had Alpha qualities in abundance, then they picked the one with the best of these to be the actual Alpha

Yes! And This is what I was trying to articulate. And no doubt, the laws and culture supported that. But I can't help but think that the confidence in developing survival,self sufficiency and success skills and being tested from an early age gave them an edge.

In this day and age, we make a big fuss about self esteem. Children are protected in ways they never were before. In many cases over scheduled and hovered over by helicopter parents. Barely a moment to dream,to explore or take a risk, or feel their own power by developing skills. We give them affirmations instead of the opportunities to fail. And to learn from failure. To pick oneself up after failure.To learn a health respect of it, but not to fear it. And to go on to feel and earn success.

So many are crippled by fear of failure that they wont try. And I lay this at feet of the cult of self esteem.

Self esteem is passive, and therefore, fragile. It's something that happens TO YOU. Ex (I have low self esteem because my mother didn't like me.)

Self respect is active. You build it with your own efforts. It's in your hands to control.

In this, I see the manosphere. That despite laws and culture, men are building self respect. But for many, this is a journey undertaken in adulthood.

Would it be beneficial to boys to bring them up with the old skills and challenges to allow the opportunity for earned successes and failures in order to build self respect from an earlier age?

just visiting said...

@ ST

Looks like I went down the rabbit hole again. It's interesting what can branch out from discussions of an idea. But, getting on topic again.....

Female bonding require touch. Unsolicited hugs, sometimes for no reason. Even cuddling up on a couch to watch movies. I've only met a handful of touch adverse women. We didn't bond, lol.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Just Visiting

Yes, I do believe that in order to raise men, you need to give them space to grow. This is easier to accomplish in a rural or semi rural environment where they can participate in the same kind of activities men have done for centuries.

It's harder in urban settings because everything in a city belongs to someone. A tree belongs to the neighbor, or a company, or the government. Alleys have dangers that aren't nearly in the same level of danger as rocks, thorns, and typical wildlife. Humans are much more dangerous to kids than any wild predator, and much more manipulative, subtle, and deceitful about it.

My only solution to giving them room to grow in an urban environment is homeschooling, with them joining neighborhood sports, scouting, and camping on weekends. Obviously, not everyone can afford to home school kids for various reasons.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Jacquie,

What a great comment.
In particular, this caught my attention:
While what the world keeps thrusting on us as a society that dirt is bad, don’t get messy or if you do make sure it’s in a controlled environment so that you can immediately clean up." "

This is of course 'female thinking'. Nothing wrong with this of course! It makes for a clean house an' all...
But I can see how it is very deleterious for a young boy's development as a man, and for that matter, for the self-expression that a man needs to feel like he is still a man (or to put it in a crude way, that he still has his balls). This highlights why sons of single mothers with no male role models in their lives feel so robbed of 'something' when they get to adulthood. That 'something' is their masculinity that their mothers could never give to them, no matter how much they love them. By the way, wanting a clean house is the least of all the evils when it comes to women applying 'female thinking' to men. This is something I recognised in CD's displeasure at Danny's way of life, which she saw as 'less moral' than hers. She may be right, from a female point of view, but will she (or any other woman) score highly when judged by male standards of morality (which might include things like valour, honour etc)? I think not (in general). This is why I took her to task, because I can see that this attitude is unhelpful for a woman. But alas, she left in a huff...
But I sincerely hope she learns this - maybe from a 'cleaner source'. As JV once said, some people will learn even from those with dirty faces...others will only learn from you if you have a clean face. To CD, I definitely posses a 'dirty face' because I mix with the Manosphere crowd who are the great unwashed...
But so be it. I'd rather be dirty and happy than clean and miserable...

@ Leap and Danny,
Yes, masculine activities for men SHOULD be encouraged. Same as feminine activities for women. You guys know you are men because you do what men do. There is no internal conflict. That's great. Some men are not so lucky, and I think that comes out in all sorts of ways. Like JV said, most people self-correct in adulthood, but for some, it's only after a lifetime of misery that they 'get it'.
Leap, thanks for your excellent post. I learned so much from it. I am beginning to understand more and more why (christian) morality has long been a sticking point for men. If God is a man, would he ever judge a man by feminine standards? I think I know the answer to that one!

"A man that us uncomfortable in the woods scares me."

You are not the only one, mate! Consider for one moment how true this can be for a woman. If YOU as a man can be this uncomfortable near a man like this, imagine the distress this can cause a woman whose life may depend on this man! Gentlemen, it is not without a lot of thought that I support Game, even if it is only a charade to mimic true masculinity. Even better of course if the man actually possesses inner Game too. But a 'scaredy cat' man is highly dangerous to a woman. And we have very strong feelers for this sort of thing...something we can't shake off no matter how educated or 'civilised' we are...

@ JV,
"And I lay this at feet of the cult of self esteem."

This had howling with laughter. That whole 'pseudopop psychology' stuff popularised by the likes of Dr. Phil that panders to political correctness and feminist ideology...God defend us!
Great for entertainment, but sadly nothing more...

Anonymous said...

When I body slammed the guy that pushed my gf in Japan; her attitude towards me changed immensely.

She was more calm, relaxed, feminine. Never met a woman that was turned off by a man that would protect her, or be able to survive in the wild.

Seriously- drop me off in the middle of the woods and I'll be just fine. If I have my gear and a rifle....I'm safe as a kitten in a 15 year old girls bedroom.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Love. You're most certainly welcome at my fire.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Danny
I have the same thing with survival and feeling comfortable in the woods. For me, working in theatre as a designer and carpenter, it shows itself when actors, directors, or randoms decide to volunteer. Occasionally a company has a policy that forces them to be slave labor.

These people hold a knife that isn't used to cut steak a few times a year, tops. Men and women both. They don't know how to use tools. And I'm expected to lead them. Usually it's more stressful and time consuming than doing it myself. I've been injured far more times the few times I've been around well meaning, nice, idiots than by doing truly dangerous stuff myself as a skilled carpenter.

just visiting said...

Thanks Danny.

Anonymous said...

Well they are theater types. I know nothing of carpentry, but would LOVE to learn. My dad is an ace mechanic and handyman. He never taught me shit about either. When I mentioned this to him he said, "you never seemed interested in it." *sigh*

Father failure.

Yer one of the good one's Love.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Danny
I was actually the same way growing up. I was outdoor and into sports all the time, but showed no interest in carpentry until the summer before going off to college.

If you want to learn, I would try picking up an issue of "The Family Handyman" from a bookstore. If it appeals to you, either sign up for a year subscription or pick up issues as they appeal to you. It's basic stuff around the house to large projects. Everything from fixing a door, to building your own bar, to a porch/patio/deck.

Good for everything from basic maintenance to being able to craft major pieces of your own home.

Spacetraveller said...


Safe as a kitten in a 15 year old girl's bedroom?

That's a beautiful and at the same time a very funny analogy.
Where do you get your expressions from, Danny?
Your blog is full of these gems.

I remember one about teabagging and a woodcutter. Didn't quite get it, but it made me laugh nonetheless.

And then there was one about progeria.

Honestly, mate, you really are comedy gold :-D

Marellus said...

… I should have happened onto this earlier .. oh fuckit … oh just plain fuckit … I’m drunk … I AM Deliriously drunk … I am gloriously drunk … ST, my darling, if you’re a brunette I am going to marry you … and Julia Roberts … and Scarlet Johnsson … and Nuttily Portman ... yes yes yes, I know ... so I'm going to UTAH to become a bloody MORON !!! ... so it’s a Law Of Nature … Prepare Yerself … and if you’re not a brunette … pleeheewse give me Bellita’s e-mail will ya ? … there are things that a drunk mna comez tooo reeheeelize that no Sober man ever will ?... HA !!!! … IN VINO VERITAS !!!!!!!!


[… “and we’ll all feel gay when Johnny comes marching home” … “and in eighteen-hundred-and-sixtry three ”… ‘HURRAH HURRAH’ … “and we’ll all drink Stone Wine when Johnny comes masrching home !!!” … “… and we’ll drink Stone Wine when Johnyy comes marching home” … “ COMDR AND READ THIIISX GBFM … HA … IF YOU’VRF COME DUS FARRRR, YOU’CVER BEEEN ………..
…. MARELLIFIED !!!!!!!”]

…. it’s 10pm where I live … and as strange as it appears to you, I’ve got an idea … so here goes … if any of you 'ave read ST’s post closely …


… now let’s see if I can write cogently before the alcohol kicks in …

Here is the situation :

Men that behave towardS other men ,like they were women.

It’s that simple isn’t it ?
Now kindly read this bloody article where the PashtunS in Afghanistan are such devout Moslems, that they’ll only have sex with beyewwwtiful young boys before they get married …

.. ha …

So what has this got to do with ST’s article ?


I’ll say it again : It has to do with isolation !!!

The fact that men will turn for relief in the company of other men, because they have been ISOLATED from women.

And in Afghanistan that barrier was created by Religion.

So what is the barrier here in The West ?

I’m too drunk to speculate … but any MRA will be able to give a very good answer to this question
… and whatever else may be said about MRA’s, one cannot dispute that they have a poinjt … fuckit … that ‘j’ in ‘point’ is stayin …

… IT’S BECAUSE I LUVS YA ST !!!! Reallyh !!!! nsnd you won’y believe s me ??????? Why ????
Barman !!!! More wine pleeeease !!!!


… beer is better …

Marellus said...

So before I go totaslly tits-up, I’ve gotts ta formulate a theorem via muy drunken-self before ,mas sober self … censors it !!! … ha, Sober-Marellus … this is Drunk-Marellus … and I am da 1 that’s commenting … ha, and I am one irrrreeee-sisssrtable bastard !!! … just tell ST that I … Oh Nevermind Sober Marellus … maybe you’ll thank me for this later …

ST, what is this Great Isolation that would drive men into the comforting arms of other men ?

We are, or some of us are, just like them boy-buggers in Afghanistan …

And why is it that in this tragic set of circumstances, Game was developed ?

Why is it that such a devious theory had to be developed, to combat the drifting apart, this isolation of the sexes ?

None of us wants to be alone.
And yes ST, they’re talkin g abouwt Anal Sex in that linked article …

Anal Sex ST ? … yes yes yes my darlink … I know you’ve nevers heards about it before … hush … hush … hush … all you need to know about it, is that it is the one Shit-Test that no amount of Pick-Up-Knowledge will EVER allow a guy to pass … Oh ? … Lemme explain then :

It’s like Jim and John at the Bar. And Jim is sitting there with his dilapidated calculator ,nursing a beer, while staring at (what is most obviously) a Tax Form. And Jim sighs. And Jim stares at the roof. And then Jim glares at John and says :

"John, I don’t get it. I’ve done this by the book. In fact, I’ve done it this way enough times, to know what happens … and now THIS happens to me !!!"

"What happened Jim ?"

"John, I got the brown envelope with the absolute stinker of a message."

"Jim, I’m sure you’re not the first guy to have said this."

"I know John, but what really hurts, is that it is implied that the fault is NOT due to them !!!"

"Well, what can I say Jim … shit happens"

"John … the only way I’m getting out of this … is by kissing arse like crazy …"

"… need a drink Jim ?"

"… can you make it a double John ?"

"…yes Jim …"

"… you’re a mate, John …"

Now, ST plehewse aske me about anal sex when I’m sober again … cuz then I’m gonna have to drink a few drinks before I respond … thanks ... you’re a real darling.

Leap of a Beta said...


Coming from someone that occasionally talks in his sleep, texts in his sleep, and once emailed Riv and Yohami in his sleep.... this takes the drunken/asleep cake.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Leap,

N'est-ce pas?
Undisputed king of...
Actually this is beyond weird, no?

I didn't want to go there, but now you have chipped in on this, could you help me out with a new word to describe Marellus' comments?


Anonymous said...

It's hard to believe that this is the same Marellus that could stand his ground in an argument with KingA (Matthew King.)The brilliance is there indeed. And something else as well. All in all, I hope I don't get "MARELLIFIED !!!!!!!” for saying this.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Anonymous,

Could you dish the scoop on this? ;-)

There is a name for Marellus' commenting style...I just can't think what it is for the moment...I need help identifying this syndrome.

I like this word 'Marellified'.
I'm afraid I've been marellified a few times lol.

just visiting said...

Can't think of the name of the philosopher, but his comments remind me of him. A monument with a dog on top was put up in his honour. Ring any bells for anyone?

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Space Traveler

Can't help you girl. I have no idea what to call this kind of posting he does. I usually just classify it under 'drunken ramblings with gems amid the dirt'. Then I read it when I have the patience, skip it when I don't.

My mind can roam, and loves to do so. But it doesn't appreciate the lurches drunken writing can do. Even going back and reading my own if I wrote while drunk is a pain.

Marellus said...

I'm afraid I've been marellified a few times lol.

*Leans back on his chair*
*Steeples his fingers*
*Stares at her over his glasses*

... and how does that make you feel madam ?

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

No idea :-(

@ Leap,
Thanks for even trying. Can't say this is a fair 'mission impossible' to dish out to anyone...
This is a unique situation :-)

@ Marellus,
It makes me feel...marellified.


Bellita said...

A monument with a dog on top was put up in his honour. Ring any bells for anyone?

Diogenes? Wasn't he called "The Dog"?

just visiting said...

BINGO!! Thanks, I was drawing a blank.

Spacetraveller said...

I knew Bellita would know!!!
Clever girl...