This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

NathanielThomas, in I'm a trans man. I didn't realize how broken men are

Interesting perspective. It would be really mind-blowing to see the other side of the gender, even though I have no interest in being trans.

One thing I will add to this article is that men are also viewed as little more than bank machines after divorce. People always have the utmost sympathy for any mother who is separated from her children, even if only for a few days. Movie plots can revolve around mothers finding their lost children and being reunited. But for men? We’re only the providers, the ones who pay the child support.

I lost my kids (not legally, just boring old classic parental alienation) six years ago following the divorce. Nobody cares, because I’m just a man. Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.” None of my cousins or other parts of my family care either. So long as I’m paying my “support.” And I can’t complain about it on social media because I’m a man. I’m a stoic. Boys don’t cry, remember?

The lack of emotional support for men mentioned in the article is another thing that really exacerbates divorces and leads to suicides. I do feel like if I were the type of person to contemplate suicide (I’m not), I would have definitely done it when my ex took my kids from me. And there would have been no male friends to pull me back from the edge. Those friendships are, to quote the author, superficial to a large degree, or even the ones that aren’t are men who are now focused heavily on their own families and wives.

I mean, it’s also true all the other stuff about the male privilege and feeling safe and the good things that come with being a man. But it’s nice to see the perspective of how we lack emotional support and we’re expected to grit our teeth and “walk it off.”


Nobody cares, because I’m just a man. Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.” None of my cousins or other parts of my family care either. So long as I’m paying my “support.” And I can’t complain about it on social media because I’m a man. I’m a stoic. Boys don’t cry, remember?

That is the worst. So sorry you’re having to deal with that and not get support from the men in your life.


I’m sorry about the parental alienation you and your children have suffered, that’s terrible for everyone.

Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.”

I’m confused why you wouldn’t want him to see them. Isn’t in your best interest to have people who love you and think you’re a good dad in your kids’ lives? Somebody to counter the alienating narrative in whatever ways they can?

MDKAOD, (edited )

Not OP, but yes, obviously. It’s still different than being in their kids’ lives and even if the grandfather is supportive, it’s no replacement for direct interaction. I also think there is the question of weather the grandparent will be supportive of OP or protective of the relationship with the grandkids when faced with a difficult decision with regard to who they need to win favor with.


Oh I’m fine with him seeing his grandkids but he has no empathy for my situation, considering it a dispute between myself and my ex. He even shares details from his trips to see them, as though that wouldn’t hurt me to hear about it. His lack of empathy is the problem.

My mother, on the other hand, criticized my ex for the situation and was “cut off.” So, despite the fact I’m sad that my mother can’t see her grandkids because she, unlike my dad, did take sides, I feel like she had the empathy to stick up for her son and point out it the situation isn’t right.

I will also mention my brother was “cut off” because of his close associations with me.

Neato avatar

You have 0% custody? Otherwise your mother could see your kids whenever you have them, right?


In “theory” or “legally” I have 50-50 custody. In practice, it’s nearly impossible to enforce visitation with older children. My kids were 15 and 9 when we split. Immediately, the courts said enforcement on the 15-year-old was impossible. I spent a few years battling enforcement on the 9-year-old but she soon also became unenforceable. At a certain point you can’t win if the kids also don’t want to see you or make your visit a nightmare by passively resisting.

I was in the middle of one of these court battles when my daughter became anorexic and told the medical staff she didn’t want me to visit her in hospital. She was about 13 and that was the last I saw her.

Legally, I am a 50-50 parent but in reality the only thing I’m entitled to do is pay their mother $1,000 a month.

guyrocket avatar

I am very low contract with my mother and sister because they kept my ex as a friend after all her bullshit through the divorce. I put on a show for my son to have sort of normal family times at holidays, etc. but I mostly do not connect with them outside of time with my son. We are NOT friends.

So, internet stranger. I understand the crazy bullshit that comes with divorce for a man.

And it is amazing how quickly and thoroughly men are discarded after a divorce. Disposable indeed.


Sorry to hear that you went through that.

In a perfect world I could have had an amicable divorce from my ex and everybody could have stayed in touch and been happy.

Instead I had a “Michael Bay” divorce where everything went really explosive and badly. It’s sad because I see a lot of example – such as our own prime minister – who have a great divorce where everybody is respectful and mature and life goes happily on.

I’ve tried to explain to my dad how screwed up it is that he maintains a relationship with my ex despite my zero contact with my kids but he doesn’t care. Actually, he went to my exes wedding with her new husband last month, which involved him flying to my city. He didn’t visit me, which is really the extra cherry on the shit sundae.

guyrocket avatar

Yeah, divorce was similar for me. I was discussing and considering collaborative divorce with my lawyer until I was served the restraining order...which I got dismissed. That started about 2 years of legal theater propelled by stupid amounts of money.

You do find out just how selfish your family is when you go through a divorce, don't you? And how little they really care about you.

At a certain point I went "Bush" on family/friends: If you're not for me then you're against me. I still think it brought me back to some sort of sanity in dealing with people. And taking the trash people out of my life.

RagingNerdoholic, (edited )

A story all too common. Someone I know mine got divorced a number of years ago. He’s a fun, charming, kind, decent looking fellow in good shape for his age, and I can’t imagine he did anything to deserve what happened. I don’t know all the details of their divorce, but I know all but one of his children was poisoned against him by his (now ex) wife, and it’s only because the one happened to be away long term at the time.

His ex has several advanced degrees and is more than capable of earning six figures. And yet, he was still ordered to pay her spousal support and a sizable chunk of his pension. The divorce and family court system is absolutely fucked for men and it’s a small wonder so many of them contemplate drastic measures when their lives are ripped away from them.

Feminism gave women all of the same rights and privileges as men and then conveniently “forgot” to balance out all of the exclusive rights women get just for being women.


Feminism gave women all of the same rights and privileges as men

Feminism hasn’t done that yet, we’re nowhere near equal rights and opportunities for women and if you don’t believe me, look at the gender balance in US government roles and who has the money and power.

Let’s focus on dismantling patriarchy and the harm it creates for men as well.


This is BS, currently feminism looks to only strive after the cozy office places and various places of power. I didnt seen feminism once to call for equal numbers of female rig workers, construction workers, Alaska fishing jobs and similar… Feminists are mysteriously somehow always just after the lucrative office jobs…


Gender balance in government and business is not a proxy for equality.

Woman are not institutionally prevented from campaigning for office. If they’re not voted in, that’s just democracy.

Women are not institutionally prevented from climbing the corporate ladder. They largely prefer to have a more comfortable work/life balance.

But they are accepted into college 2:1 compared to men.

They do receive scholarships, educational, and career opportunities just for being women.

They do receive an egregiously unfair advantage in family and divorce courts.

Those are institutional.


When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.


I literally pointed out several factors that are objectively institutionally unequal. Pithy quotes won’t change that.


Hey, you can argue with me all day, but the people taking men’s slice of the pie ain’t the feminists.

Let’s focus on the people shooting themselves into space on dick rockets and suits on the hill, and we’ll all benefit from it.


They can both be problems simultaneously, and it’s disingenuous to argue that there aren’t militant feminists pushing to keep all of the advantages from earlier eras.


This is a men’s lib forum, and men’s liberation is pro feminist (feel free to check the wiki or that nice bell hooks quote trending on this forum if you disagree).

By being a strong ally to women, men benefit too, and I choose to keep doing that.

You can have the last word if you like, I’m gonna peace out here.

FatalValentine, avatar

I hope I’m not intruding on men’s spaces here as a transwoman,

But after my transition that was one of the biggest, most drastic contrasts between the two binary gender’s social dynamics. Men just don’t get to talk about their feelings- whether it stems from homophobia or misogyny, men are generally seen as an island to themselves and if you display otherwise, it is seen as a weakness worthy of admonition and disrespect. There is still a societal expectation that men are supposed to be stoic, stable providers while women are increasingly allowed liberation. Hard fought, and rightly so but what’s the point of “equality” if we don’t lift everyone up to the same standards?

I have never felt more emotional support in my entire life than when I stepped into women’s spaces, seen as a woman. This just isn’t fair or right, regardless of the other privelages men may have. Justice is for everyone, not just minorities.

Yet, it is up to men to decide this. Yes, women can and should support you, but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men. It is the same here for emotional liberation.

*An edit for an addendum: I hope nobody reads this feeling that I’m blaming men, or being accusational. I want to clarify that I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.

Specific_Skunk, avatar

I have never felt more emotional support in my entire life than when I stepped into women’s spaces, seen as a woman.

As a women that, granted, had some serious questions about gender in my younger years this has always blown my mind because it’s so multi-faceted.

Women are more emotionally supportive, but it can quickly spiral into an almost gross-feeling and superficial reinforcement. Everything seems to be “valid” or demands an emotion-ridden hullabaloo, whereas the men in my life have always been more direct and straightforward, unafraid to call out my general jack-assery or quip “yeah, that sucks” when there’s not much else to be said about my general state of affairs.

The flip side of this is that women tend to be more sympathetic/vocal to general life events and encouraging to mild up or down days, whereas men tend to cock an eyebrow and ask what you’re so excited/upset about when you show up to work “having feelings” on a random Tuesday because your spouse threw a fit about leftover spaghetti that morning.

The dichotomy is fascinating to me, to watch unfold every day with every interaction. I find myself (not correctly or incorrectly) leaning towards men in times of crisis (muted response), and towards women in times of -life in general- (exacerbated response) because it gives me the mean/median output of (normal human response).

However, this doesn’t mean men only have “regular” mode or “crisis” mode, or that women only live in an amplified wave of “normal” and “slightly less normal”, and I think that’s where we find our faults. Our definition of the masculine and the feminine revolve around a dead sun that no longer serves us well. Men ARE emotionally supportive, and women ARE reserved/stoic, it’s just not always what you expect at the time so it gets glossed over and deleted, to the detriment of everyone.

Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men. It is the same here for emotional liberation.

Spitting straight-up facts.


Our definition of the masculine and the feminine revolve around a dead sun

Damn that’s a raw line

HappyMeatbag, avatar

I don’t see this as an intrusion. I see it as a relevant, valuable perspective. Thank you!


Rather than intruding, transitioned individuals ought to be seen as the strongest allies - on both sides of the fence. The lived experience you being to the table is tremendously valuable because it is so indisputably valid.


Your perspective is absolutely welcome here! I’m transfemme myself


Thank you for sharing. I haven’t figured out the magic words to communicate this well. I worked at a company that proudly announced longer maternity care for newborns, an astounding (for the US) 6 months. Fathers got 2. I’m a dad and wasn’t going to have any more kids, but some of us spoke up and suggested that dads deserve time with their children as well. It was explained that mothers have special connections with children (nursing) and are genetically (yuck) more loving caretakers. Their brains are wired for empathy, so they deserve more time. Remember when we all agreed it was awful to say men are better at logic and reasoning? Me neither because it was so long ago. How is this okay? And we wonder why far more women drop out of the workforce to become full time parents.

There’s a theory that women quit to care for kids because they don’t have enough support, so let’s give them extra time off, extra health care benefits, recovery support, reinforcing stereotypes and gender roles. It’s the most ass backward approach to what should be the goal to encourage husbands to take larger roles in families. When a man speaks up, he’s part of the patriarchy, suppressing women’s voices. Women need to be heard and supported, not mansplained. If anyone can suggest how to change the conversation without being labeled a bully while simultaneously being bullied, I would love to learn.


First, this is a long comment, and I don’t want to come off as dissing it. I agree with you. Except for that concluding thought.

I used to think that that was true, women vs. men for voting rights. But about ten years ago, I wandered into the Berkeley Historical Society. They had a bunch of materials on display about the women’s suffrage movement, including just boxes of documents. One of the first ones that I pulled out was a poster for an anti-suffrage meeting. A meeting organized by women.

In fact, they had lots of documentation about anti-suffrage efforts by the society women of Berkeley. That completely shocked me, given Berkeley’s crunchy reputation. But I did more research later, and found that it was not at all unusual.

Up until the early years of the 20th century, most women were against it! Even when the 15th Amendment passed, a large minority of women still opposed it. As well, quite a lot of men supported it. (Obviously, they had, to since they were the ones voting to pass it.)

Anyway, the framing of the issue as women demanding the vote from men is oversimplified.


but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men.

Not really. Power has traditionally been held by couples, with men putting on the act and women pulling the strings behind the scenes. Our forefathers even created an entire institution known as marriage to establish these alliances formally. In fact, for a long, time women were more likely to be a part of the anti-suffragism movement than of the suffragism movement.

Even voting rights at the time were attached to land, not people. Before industrialization, it was impractical to own land without an entire family available to tend to it. A single man would never be able to cut the wood, grow the crops, care for the animals, and do all the household chores. There isn’t enough time in the day. As such, land ownership too was for couples – thus voting was for couples.

Industrialization was the turning point. It brought increasing opportunities to live a life alone, and those alone started growing more and more disgruntled about a world made for couples.

I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.

I don’t. Such movements happen because of technical advancement. Industrialization, as mentioned, was a pivotal time not only for suffrage but a number of movements. The rise of automation, freeing even more hands from the kitchen, was also a significant period with respect to these topics. These things would have never happened without those new, at the time, technologies changing the way we live.

When the world changes, then people change. There is little evidence that people can change ahead of the world. After all, things happen for a reason. There was logic in giving power to couples at some point in history – until the world changed and it no longer made sense.

Similarly, men are guarded today for a reason. Until some technical advancement lifts that reason from hanging over their heads, it isn’t going anywhere. Going to war against an immovable object doesn’t yield well.


It’s not only a question of men. If you want a romantic relationship, you need to fit the society’s standards for the sex you are looking for. If women are looking for toxic virility, the sad truth is that men who embrace it will have an easier time finding a relationship.

This is not something you take from anyone. And this is the biggest problem many men have with the #metoo era: we acknowledge toxic masculinity is toxic and can even be deadly, but what is the alternative? There is none currently.

There is no model for modern men that is worthy of both modern men and women. This is why we have incels and other hardcore conservative going hard on hating women or even more toxic masculinity.

But I digress. The solution is not in a fight, it’s in acceptance from both men and women.

HappyMeatbag, in I'm a trans man. I didn't realize how broken men are avatar

I’m a white, cis, heterosexual American male. I’m supposed to be privileged in every way, feel endlessly guilty over things I cannot control and try not to perpetuate, and never, ever dare suggest any kind of dissatisfaction with my situation.

I wouldn’t know how to express my feelings the way the author has. I’d feel like a misogynistic neckbeard, callous racist, or ungrateful whiner. If, somehow, I didn’t feel these things, someone would quickly, loudly, and condescendingly remind me that I should. They’d then be applauded for putting me in my place.

I can’t thank the author enough for writing this article.


I didn’t feel these things, someone would quickly, loudly, and condescendingly remind me that I should. They’d then be applauded for putting me in my place.

Those people are racist, sexists. If they didn’t have you to target, they’d find another group. Don’t give them the time of day.


I’m supposed to be privileged in every way, feel endlessly guilty over things I cannot control and try not to perpetuate, and never, ever dare suggest any kind of dissatisfaction with my situation.

Why are you supposed to e.g. “feel endlessly guilty over things you cannot control”?


Yeah, just because we’re encouraged to understand our privilege doesn’t mean we’re supposed to feel guilty about it. That doesn’t serve anyone.

HappyMeatbag, avatar

You’re completely right. It doesn’t serve anyone, but the feeling is there anyway. I have a history of feeling guilty about stuff that’s not my fault.

Neato avatar

"Check your privilege" has only ever meant that people want others to understand how situations and histories might be different. White guilt is a thing white people made up to make it about them.

blanketswithsmallpox avatar

It's generally just people not being able to accept being wrong about something. They take it as a personal insult and hit to their pride rather than just going oh? Verify? Oh shit, neat.

Instead it's I must be a piece of shit. Other people must not like me now. They must be talking about me...

Mother fucker nobody paying attention to you but MAYBE yourself and MAYBE your closest loved ones lol.

If you walk around in life with a chip on your back, everything becomes an insult though. It's the literal republican modus operandi primed mostly through religion via guilt.

HappyMeatbag, avatar

Fortunately, it’s not anger in my case. It’s “just” poor self esteem and a tendency to feel guilt for things that I know (rationally, at least) aren’t my fault.

blanketswithsmallpox avatar

Yeah it's definitely a hard habit to break. Largely depending on how you were raised with a bit of natural tendencies here and there.

It absolutely is a mindset though. One which you can get out of given enough challenge, time, patience, and professional help if you're not good with executive function.

HappyMeatbag, avatar

People who share some of my characteristics have historically done, and are currently doing, absolutely horrible things. Empathy with the victims isn’t enough for some. I’m part of the problem simply by being born, until I prove otherwise.

I can’t blame people who feel some suspicion and resentment, either. It’s justified.

darq avatar

But that doesn't mean you have to feel guilty. That's, usually at least, not what people are asking for either. Guilt isn't helpful.

Being aware of the social systems we live under, the power structures those systems create, and the blind spots we might have. That's what's being asked for.

HappyMeatbag, avatar

No, it isn’t helpful. Part of that guilt comes from not being able to do enough. Yeah, I try to learn as much as possible, but that only goes so far. I’m not rich. I’m not powerful. There’s so much injustice that I want to change, but can’t.

I know logically that guilt is useless, but the feeling persists.




I’m part of the problem simply by being born, until I prove otherwise.

Again: who is saying that? I’m sure there are some people who do, but in my experience that’s a really tiny minority. And the majority of texts I read about e.g. (male) privilege explicitly state that being privileged does not mean you’re guilty or a bad person.

I can’t blame people who feel some suspicion and resentment, either. It’s justified.

I mean yeah, I can understand why a women might prefer to walk on the other side of the street from me at night. It hurts of course, but I understand it. That doesn’t mean I need to feel guilty about it though.

HappyMeatbag, avatar

What I’m saying is confusing and irrational. I appreciate that you’re trying to understand.

I know that what I feel isn’t healthy or productive. It doesn’t make sense, but it sticks with me.


Honest question, what’re your thoughts on the racial reparations discussion? I was surprised to hear that it exists tbh, mostly cause of how impossible it seems as a target. But my understanding is that there are people getting some real attention saying that white people should give enough money that they can’t pay their bills to make up for their privilege.


I haven’t heard of it. In Germany there is some discussion about reparations for societies colonized by Germany, the genocides against the Herero and Namaqa and every once about further reparations for the Nazi crimes - all of which make a lot of sense to me, especially the former two as they haven’t received any significant reparations that I know of.


I’m not American but the minister for Family/Sexual Violence in my country publicly said that “it is white, cis men” who “cause[s] violence in the world”. Was pretty gutted to find out that my ex (cis woman) treating me like shit is entirely my own fault according to the MP who is supposed to represent all victims of family, sexual, and relationship violence.


feel endlessly guilty over things I cannot control and try not to perpetuate, and never, ever dare suggest any kind of dissatisfaction with my situation.

Because of things our ancestors did long ago that has nothing to do with us right now as people.

HappyMeatbag, avatar

Yup. Exasperating, I know. It isn’t reasonable or healthy, but I feel that way anyway.

paultimate14, in We Know “NoFap” Is Misleading Men About Masturbation. It Might Be More Dangerous Than That.

I got a lot of downvotes on Reddit for pointing out that there’s no scientific evidence supporting porn addiction. It’s just the latest version of religious indoctrination. ISIS was using that as part of their recruitment process: men who are sexually repressed are easier for them to manipulate.


I think it’s a lot like weed or video game addiction.

Is it going to send you to the hospital? Probably not. But if you let it take over your life to the extent that it’s detrimental, then using strategies that help people kick physical addictions can be effective.

These religious groups seem to hate a lot of things that appeal to basic pleasures, want to make you feel bad for wanting to feel good.


The basic mechanism of psychological addiction is there: a behaviour that creates an immediate reward.


I’m anti-religion and been addicted to porn. Your views are pretty extreme as well. Not everything is a religious conspiracy.


Big “As a gay black man…” energy over here lol

Porn addiction does not exist. No one qualified to diagnose addiction would diagnose you with that because it doesn’t exist. You’re delusional and self-diagnosing if you really think that.


Define addiction

monke avatar

If you don't believe in porn addiction, surely you also don't believe in gaming, internet or junk food addiction right?


I feel addicted to porn and games as well. I feel weird when I’m not getting either one of these for a long time and I don’t see any way to get out of this. But I guess games addiction is still not that damaging to my mental health unlike porn where I start to fantasize intensely even if I get slightly distracted with such feelings. Then I try to make an elaborate scene in my mind with all sorts to kinks or fetishes that I like until I get enough dopamine out of it.


Is fantasizing a bad thing? Imo its fine as long as it doesn’t impede normal functioning, whatever that means to you.


I feel lost at such times and couldn’t focus on what someone else is saying like in lectures


As with most things, there are a lot of problems with the porn INDUSTRY that we as a society ignore, and instead tell individual people that all the ills are their own fault.


There’s problems with pretty much every industry. Welcome to capitalism.


seriously. I see so many people argue that OF is some sort of eco-friendly organic wholesome family-friendly form of pornography.

It's so bizarre to watch the marketing nonsense people tell themselves to make themselves feel like they are ethical consumers.


Same, I got in arguments about it. Quoting Wikipedia did not convince them.

Ask any psychiatrist and they will confirm porn is okay.

Imagine the mannosphere and incels being nofap. Imagine all that repressed energy, all this contradiction with their normal nature, just because of beliefs.

That’s a good way to brew crazy people.

Laticauda, (edited )

I mean a porn addiction is absolutely a thing, but it’s not an issue inherent to porn, humans can form a mental addiction to anything and porn can be an easy target. It’s just not porn itself that causes the addiction, since it’s not physically causing a chemical dependence, and porn addictions obviously aren’t anywhere near as prevalent as addictions to physically addictive substances. Porn addictions are certainly much much rarer than religious institutions act like they are, but they do exist, they’re just psychological in nature rather than physiological. And to reiterate, porn itself doesn’t cause addiction, or addictive behaviour if you want to be pedantic about it, but some people can form an emotional dependence on it just like they can form an emotional dependence on anything. If not porn then something else. But pretending they don’t exist at all is just ridiculous. The term addiction isn’t only used in one specific medical or physical sense and never has been, even in the medical community.

Poggervania avatar

You mean like it doesn’t exist? Asking that as a genuine question since Terry Crews has talked about his addiction to porn and how it almost ruined his marriage, and it doesn’t seem like a crazy stretch to believe that you can be addicted to porn (or, maybe more accurately, addicted to getting off).

That being said, the NoFap community is pretty fuckin weird and unhealthy as a whole. The stuff like semen retention is unscientifically proven, and treating any orgasm (including from sex) as being bad is just plain dumb. There’s tangible health benefits to jacking off, and I would wager that it’s better to lay off the porn because of how much it can fuckin warp people’s minds about partners and sex (and to help curb an excessive whacking off habit - I mean like “this is interfering with my life” levels).

Niello, (edited )

People can be “addicted” to everything and anything. It just requires the “right” mindset to turn that thing into more than a habit. Saying people has innate tendency to be addicted to something is totally different, however. The latter also happens to be what matters in the medical field for obvious reasons.


Addiction has a very specific clinical meaning as is stated in the article. Porn usage doesn't fit that meaning. That isn't to say that someone cannot compulsively masturbate or watch porn. But, again as stated in the article and a lot of other literature, it doesn't have the same physiological or psychological effects as an addiction. And most of the people doing something compulsively like that are doing it as a symptom of an underlying problem (likely depression in many cases), not as the cause of the problem itself.

In other words, crack and Xanax create a problem. Porn can be used in response to certain psychological problems.

I like Terry Crews. Wholesome guy. But he isn't a doctor or scientist.

angstylittlecatboy, (edited )

“Porn addiction” is actually more like “porn compulsion.” Colloquially, compulsions are often called addictions (“video game addiction” is also a compulsion, an addiction would be something like crack) but it’s worrying with porn because it’s treated as an actual addiction, and the theories behind the modern worries about “porn addiction” are pseudoscience by unqualified people (Gary Wilson and Marnia Robinson) with a very strict idea of what a sexual relationship should look like.


exactly. lurking underneath all thi s'porn is bad for people' nonsense is the same anti-sex beliefs that the only 'correct' form of sexual behaviour is heteronormative monogamy for procreation.

god forbid people want to feel sexual pleasure and holy mary jesus christ forbid that they EVER enjoy watching someone else's sexual performance.

ADHDefy avatar

IIRC, isn't there a distinction between chemical and physical addictions? Like a chemical addiction is drugs, booze, tobacco, caffeine, sugar, etc., a physical addiction could be basically anything that isn't making you chemically dependant, but becomes compulsory enough to interfere with your life/mental health (gambling, video games, porn, shopping, etc.). Or do I have that wrong? I honestly can't remember how I came by that information.


It’s “psychological” not physical, but otherwise yeah, I learned it the same way.

theodewere avatar

a very strict idea of what a sexual relationship should look like.

which is why this social phenomenon dovetails so well with extremist religious sentiment


Nicole Prause, a neuroscientist who researches human sexual behavior at the University of California and the co-author of a recent study on NoFap, believes that there’s no objective basis for pornography addiction, an opinion supported by numerous peer-reviewed studies and experts in the field.

. “If the public uses terms like ‘I’m addicted to chocolate,’ that’s fine. I’m not gonna police language like that,” Prause explained. “But when you use it to refer to a disorder, it has a very specific meaning that pornography just does not fill.”

“Addiction” is a specific word with legal and medical meanings. “Porn addiction” is not recognized as an addiction.

Some porn, along with a myriad of other factors, can contribute negatively to an individual’s sexual health. Not all porn is crazy and unrealistic. Not all porn is unhealthy.

Some of the other quotes in the article address how most people who diagnose themselves with “porn addiction” actually have another underlying disorder, often depression or bipolar.

I don’t know Crews personally, but I can guarantee a licensed professional did NOT diagnose him with porn addiction. Because that’s just not a legitimate diagnosis. The world, and particularly America, has enough issues with mental healthcare. Making up fake disorders to self-diagnose hurts the medical community that’s actually trying to help people with real disorders.


The scientific paper linked from the article, stating there’s no evidence for porn addiction, in case anyone would like to read more and missed it.


I guess it makes sense that the psychology community would push back against the claim that pornography fits a scientific definition of addiction. The same deal goes for sugar: many people talk about sugar being addictive, but it’s pretty absurd to classify sugar as addictive substance, and the article raises this point very explicitly:

That isn’t to say that people can’t use pornography compulsively, as you may compulsively eat donuts or bacon every day against the best interests of your heart

And that’s what most people usually mean when they’re addicted to it. So I wouldn’t say that it’s indoctrination or “hive mind”, it’s just how people use the word “addiction” in day-to-day, non-scientifically-precise ways. You’re absolutely right to point that out because people should not seek addiction treatment for porn consumption, but it’s also understandable to seek treatment for compulsive consumption of whatever. Just like sugar and junk food, while the science doesn’t say it’s addiction, it also presents endless evidence on the negative effects of common patterns of consumption.


Idk just because it’s “natural” to compulsively consume such both sugar and porn to classify them as non-addiction is a bit wishy washy and kinda stinks to me.
Humans literally have evolved to consume as much sugar as possible and same goes for porn because the human sexual response can’t differentiate between real or fake sexual stimulus. Humans see naked bodies, humans get aroused. No matter wether digital imagery or not.

villasv, (edited )

because it’s “natural” to compulsively consume such both sugar and porn to classify them as non-addiction is a bit wishy

Well, that’s not the argument I’d make, nor does it seem to be the one presented by the sources for the article. I agree that this would be very wishy washy!

snooggums avatar

Yeah, lay usage of addiction is like lay usage of theory. Very different meanings than the clinical or scientific usage of the terms.

guyrocket, in Men In The US Are Peeing Incorrectly According To Urologist
guyrocket avatar

I think an elongated seat/toilet makes sitting down much easier and more comfortable. Round seats/toilets really suck for a man.


Round seats are best because you can tuck your willy under the seat and there’s no chance of it popping up. Also the cool ceramic underside of the toilet seat helps stimulate urine flow


What a terrible day to be literate.

ADHDefy avatar



I hear you there, you must suffer Long Dong Syndrome as well…


Nah, it's a problem across the board

Bizarroland, (edited )
Bizarroland avatar

Even if you have the world's tinkiest dinky you're going to want an elongated bowl just to have some room for the pee to arc out so you don't piss all over your balls.


I’m really confused reading this thread. Why isn’t it possible to just twist and tuck it left or right? I’m a dude and have never had a problem peeing sitting down on a round toilet.


Our new place has a round bowl, rather than swap to an oval toilet I bought a split seat and replaced the full round seat. It helps a lot.

o0joshua0o, in I'm a trans man. I didn't realize how broken men are

This really resonates, mainly because it’s so true. I think a lot of men these days are feeling lost, sad, lonely, and angry. Some of us think it’s because we have forgotten what it means to be a “real” man, and the answer is more bravado, more machismo. But maybe what we actually need is to start learning to communicate with each other on a meaningful level, to redefine manhood in a way that allows us to express emotions in a socially acceptable way, and start forming real, close friendships with other men.


It’s an important topic that is often brushed off due to the individuals that tend to bring them up. The problem is though, that the problems these individuals have are in part caused by the lack of emotional support men receive socially.

I’m not defending any of the macho know-it-all “gurus” that I’m talking about, but I’m just pointing out that it’s important for women as well as men to care about this issue and try to change it in their daily lives, because aside from being toxic to men, it also creates more problems and worsens the existing ones.

How do you try to change it? Just open up more serious conversations with men, talk about feelings, even if they look at you weird at the beginning.

o0joshua0o, in High school boys are trending conservative

It’s a confusing time to be a man. Things are shifting in society. A lot of women are deciding that most men aren’t offering them anything they want or need. Unfortunately, when you’re having difficulty figuring out your place in society, and what it means to be a man, you are vulnerable to extremism. Being told your rightful place is on top, and that women, minorities, and LGBTQ are to blame is powerful messaging.


A lot of women are deciding that most men aren’t offering them anything they want or need.

I doubt that’s an accurate description of reality, but I guess that’s a good portrayal of what is perceived by these confused men.


You would think the answer would be obvious, but I guess some men just refuse to offer women what they actually want.

rab, (edited )

What do women want? Maybe men don’t have anything to offer anymore, or no longer can offer what women want

Bonehead, (edited )

What do women want? Every woman is different, so that's for you to figure out. And if you can't figure it out, it's not women who are responsible for that.


Well I am married, but I think that majority of men legitimately have nothing to offer and that’s why so many are single

I also thing that women often expect things from men that are not possible

I believe this mostly stems from the fabric of society being rotted away by social media and neither gender is happy


The problem is that churches and religious zealots have a LOT of money and are willing to spend it on things that make our world more like a Handmaid’s Tale.

I found this video to be really well put together analysis of these religiously-funded redpill outlets staffed by young religious single guys or multiply divored religious assholes who are trying to be experts on love and dsting despite being absolutely horrible people.

The key takeaway is that a lot of what appeals to these American Taliban types is the idea of being able to hold women captive and under control, because they know they are awful and that given free will no woman wants to be with a controlling asshat, so they work to enact “enforced monogamy” and to eliminate divorce.

AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

Supposedly it actually is.

If you think about it it’s not that surprising. Sexism was basically a way to subsidize substandard men and guarantee them a sexual partner. If you can’t open a bank account without a man, you find a man, even if he’s an angry ball of mush.

dumples avatar

That's true. It's hard for this men to compete on the playing field of being a genuine partner.

Ironically, they prefer to compete on the Manosphere standards of money and fake status. Which is an insane choice

AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

“Damn I really want to get laid. Too bad all these women are such bitches and won’t let me fuck their non existent brains out”

Gee, Foster/Tanner/Tracker/Trigger/Dakota I wonder why that is

dumples avatar

The best pickup technique is treat them like a person. It works everytime and when it doesn't you get to talk to a nice person

WiseThat, (edited )

I remember like 10 years back I was 23 and was riding the bus with young guy from one of the clubs I was in in university. He was maybe 19 or so.

We’re on the bus, and a woman boards who looks very pretty and has a satchel with a bunch of enamel pins of the pokemon gym badges on it.

I compliment her flair, and we have a pleasant conversation about pokemon until my stop. Pretty normal stuff.

I disembark with my mentee and he turns to me and goes “WHAT?! IT’S THAT EASY TO TALK TO WOMEN BY JUST ASKING ABOUT THEIR INTERESTS?”

He was just completely unaware that people respond well when you pay attention to them and treat them like people. He was convinced the only way to talk to girls was by using pickup lines.

dumples avatar

Crazy how that works.


In fact I agree many men don’t have a net positive to offer. What I disagree with is the framing that women are “deciding” that, and I wouldn’t discard the idea that the increase in women freedom is contributing factor for an uptick in extremist sexism but I also think that warrants some proper care to back it up as a claim.

AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

I’m confused by what you mean. You mean this is less a revelation about men and more an increased ability to walk away? Sure. I’m damn sure our great grandmammies knew their hubbies weren’t shit.


Yes, that’s the point. I might be splitting hairs here, but I think the portrayal of these “confusing times” as a consequence of women walking away is part of the problem. Them walking away is part of the remedy for extremist sexism, not a cause for its increase in strength.

AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

It can be both. Inspiring a reaction doesn’t mean the action is itself any better or worse for it.


It can, sure. But I doubt it is. Do we have evidence of it?

AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

I mean, lots of it


lol k

AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

This is such a foolish perspective. You’re moralizing outcomes. Women entering the workforce caused a massive inflation spike and for wages to stagnate for decades. That’s bad. Women ended up working in the office AND doing all the housework. That’s bad. Was women entering the workforce bad? Fucking of course not.

Good things ALWAYS inspire reaction. That’s why they’re called reactionaries. This is pretty basic political philosophy. Your resistance to it is nonsensical. If you don’t learn the mentality of fascists you will never beat them.


Was women entering the workforce bad?

I wouldn’t have said so, so I don’t see utility in that analogy.

f you don’t learn the mentality of fascists you will never beat them.

Hah OK, thanks for the lecture. I guess I do need to learn to say “lots” when someone asks me for concrete evidence for a claim.

AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

Imagine being this much a dismissive asshole to someone you KNOW is on your side. Holier than thou morons like you are such a fucking impediment to the advancement of left wing causes.


I think it’s just a matter of wording that might be causing a misunderstanding. I don’t think he said that this is caused by women ‘deciding’ to walk away, but rather, for the first times in history, women as a whole have far more agency than they ever had in deciding to be in a relationship or not.

Take everything I say with a grain of salt because I’m not a man. I’m going to make a lot of assumptions about cis men here.

Under the patriarchal norms, many men are raised to derive their self worth based on things that are not always fully within their control such as wealth, looks, employment, etc, many of which are conflated with their ability to attract a partner. Some of these men may have also been socialized into believing that finding a sexual partner is a valid subsistute for emotional connection, because horniness and anger are the only acceptable emotions. This leads to the idea that all women exist to resolve their repressed mental health issues and sexual frustrations.

It’s a confusing time for these men because not only are many women becoming more selective towards feminist men who don’t adhere as strongly to these ideologies, but many women are also just happily single. Feminism has taught many women, but not enough men, how to live a fulfilling life beyond patriarchal norms. It hasn’t done enough to teach men how to find self worth independent of women, how to embrace and process emotions, how to address mental health issues, how to recognize male sexual assault, how to live by yourself, how to empathize with peers, etc.

Women walking away from men is a symptom of feminism teaching them how to fulfilling lives as people, and we have yet to do so as effectively with men. It’s not that feminism is teaching women to become single, but that a partner with antiquated views is no longer a prerequisite to a fulfilling life.


I think that’s an overall look we can all agree on; and if that’s the high level conceptualization that the original comment was aiming for, we’re good.

On the other hand, anyone who has a decent number of hetero women friends knows that even though the overall anxiety over being single has reduced (not zeroed, unfortunately), most are open to the idea of a relationship. And if you just go out there and ask them if they believe that such relationship could offer something of value, the answer will be: “of course”. And if you have a chat in most groups, stories of recent attempts to build a relationship abound. Women are still very open and as actively pursuant of men - in fact, more than in previous times in some ways.

Hence saying “women are deciding that most men don’t have anything of value to offer” is, in my view, an overly dramatic characterization of the feminist thought. We were speaking of extremism and you know what contributes to reactionary movements? Exaggerated characterizations of the other side. We want men to be self sufficient, not MGTOWs.

feminism teaching them how to fulfilling lives as people, and we have yet to do so as effectively with men


dumples avatar

A lot of women are deciding that most men aren’t offering them anything they want or need.

I think this is the case for some women and isn't just a perception. There are surveys that are showing that single women are the happiest and most satisfied with their life while married women are the least. The old threat that you will die single and alone isn't working anymore. The helpless men (the ones who can't cook, can't clean, can't support emotionally) used to skate by since women needed men. They don't anymore and they are scared.

It's sad because the expectations to be a "good" partner are so low for most men and most still don't meet it. Most women I know want someone with a job, whose clean and nice to them but can't find someone who fits all three.

As a demographic men need to step it up and as a society we failed them. It's so sad the number of men who can't cook a single meal or clean anything. These are important life skills that their mothers and fathers didn't prepare them for because of outdated gender roles. Mother's prepared their daughters for these changes but didn't their sons. That is the issue


This is mostly wrong. While there are many men child, many aren’t. But 1) many women are actually conservative (probably about 30%) and 2) even if they aren’t, you don’t pickup women just by being nice, it takes social skills that you probably don’t know you innately have, but many men don’t.


think this is the case for some women

Maybe? Big difference between “a lot of women” and “for some woman”. And even so, I don’t buy that line of argument.

I take issue with the wording and that’s why I doubt this is a truthful phenomenon:

A lot of women

What is a lot here? 10% of women? 1%? 80%? Does this come from a survey? This is being offered as an explanation, so I think it’s important to not handwave this kind of qualitative analysis. If you’re going to put some responsibility on women’s attitudes, I think it warrants proper research.

are deciding

Is it a decision? Do women get to decide the consequences of the behavior of men?

There are surveys that are showing that single women are the happiest and most satisfied with their life while married women are the least.

Okay. There are also surveys that say otherwise. And even if we’re to believe that single women is the happiest cohort, can you establish a real link between that and more teens getting exposed to sexist ideology?

This all feels cheap philosophy and it’s ridiculously close of shifting the blame of men’s bad upbringing towards women being less accepting of garbage relationships. Maybe teenage men getting out of high school talking shit about alpha/beta/sigma is the reason why single women is the happiest cohort, not the other way around.


Bingo! Say it louder for the fellas in the back.

I sometimes frequent forums where women air their grievances, and so many of the complaints about men particularly are just sad as hell.

One I can recall from a month or two ago was a woman ranting about how she doesn't want to be expected to give blow jobs on her knees, and doesn't want to always do 4-5 positions during intercourse with the strange men she's dating. She says "what's wrong with missionary anyway?" And "all I want is to be treated like a human being, not a throw away sex toy".

Women as a group literally could not make it any easier for men today, and still the throw away/instant gratification/porn culture of it all just persists in many young women's lives, thanks to exactly what you said... Society let men down, and has to do better to change it.

dumples avatar

It's the old sad boomer joke that the mothers least favorite child is their husband


There’s a gap in roles for boys.

Maybe it’s my filter bubble, but I don’t hear a lot of people saying “if you want to be successful, study and go into a trade/profession.” That leaves boys without a plan, which leaves them without a future.

dumples avatar

Well I think a interesting thing this article kind of hide with the title is that in men who identify as conservative are mostly holding steady over time with women shifting liberal and unaligned is growing.

So it makes sense that young women are not buying what conservatives are selling while young men still are at relative rates. This makes the relative difference greater overall but it's driven mostly by one side

Tigbitties avatar

There's all the wrong heros out there for boys. My 9yo was asking about Andrew Tate the other day.


It’s amazing that Tate, a failed athlete turned failed reality TV show participant turned literal sex-trafficker has any pull anywhere…

But the reality is that rich assholes like Peter Thiel want him and his radically regressive beliefs to be popular so they fund him and give him top spots on their platforms (e.g. Rumble, which is owned by Thiel and has him as a featured channel next to Newsmax and Alex Jones).


A lot of women are deciding that most men aren’t offering them anything they want or need.

A lot of women wish that men would offer what they want and need.

Shockingly, most women are straight. They want to have sex with men. They want companionship, love, romance etc.

The old vestiges of toxic masculinity mean that women would rather go without: that’s how bad the old ways are.

Modern men do not have these problems, it’s just relics of the past snatching youth when they all feel like everything is confusing.

Being a teenager is inherently confusing and volatile. It doesn’t take much to plant the poison.


It’s kind of both ways - there’s a lot of messaging out there about ‘low value’ women… and that’s before a lot of messages out there against single moms and aged women.

TropicalDingdong, in Opinion: Why do so many young white men in America find fascism ‘cool’?

Bro Rogan.

Its real simple. It gives them identity and something to go after in a society that offers them nothing. So they get into woodworking, hunting, fighting, only eat meat for a while or some shit.

Males are expendable, the way that all people in capitalism are expendable. But to quote Babe from animal farm: Some are more expendable than others. Males have lower impulse control and have a biological more likely to engage in high risk/ high reward. Most white males are facing the same dilemmas and contradictions around the shittiness and meaninglessness of their existence as everyone else; every one else just doesn’t have a direct pipeline to radicalism engineered for them. For years YT has been trying to steer me down the white nationalist rabbit hole, in-spite of how unappologetically leftist the programing I consume is. I’m a bit older and I’ve been around and politically aware since I was a teen and made the impulsive decision to enlist, then months later we were invading Afghanistan and then Iraq.

To incorrectly quote Michael Brooks quoting MLK incorrectly: “Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”. The right offers a clear moral framework for engaging with young men and giving them a ‘moral right’ to fight for. The left is contradicted on this, and don’t understand what it means to take on a spiritual crusade. But Michael Brooks did. He understood that having something to base your work around is critical.

This same issue plagues young men from all nationalities and walks of life, not just young white men in the US. We have to collectively find a way to give meaning to peoples lives or that innate search for meaning will be taken advantage of.


Some dude building a bench is an issue?

theforkofdamocles, in ‘I prefer women’s jeans – men’s lack design subtlety’: why men are buying womenswear

It reminds me of a Jerry Seinfeld bit:

“I think we should all wear the same exact clothes. Because it seems to be what happens eventually, anyway. Anytime you see a movie or a TV show where there’s people from the future or another planet, they’re all wearing the same outfit. I think the decision just gets made: “All right, everyone, from now on, it’s just gonna be the one-piece silver suit with the V stripe and the boots. That’s the outfit. We’re gonna be visiting other planets, we wanna look like a team here. The individuality thing is over.”


Reminds me of the skant from star trek

jadero, in Where did the construction workers go?

I can’t speak to the general problem, but I can tell you why I left construction and manual labour more generally.

A lot of the work is still as damaging to the body as it was in 1930.

Toxic coworkers enabled and even encouraged by psychopathic supervisors.

Safety is not only not built in to procedures, but actively mocked and even deliberately worked around, even when doing so slows things down.

And all that for less than double minimum wage for experienced workers when it used to be easily triple minimum wage to start.

dumples avatar

Exactly. It's not worth the strain on the body for the pay.


I’m still am apprentice, and I already make more than I ever did in my first career (20 years as a chef). Journeyman rates are over $40/ hour and once you included insurance and retirement theyre around $80/ hour. Oh and were among the lower paid locals in our state.

I walked off a jobsite because they failed to provide us with safe conditions, had the safety officer on site that day, had the local union officers follow up, contractors apologized fixed the conditions and paid me for my missed time.

If you let them joke about it, they will. If you make them follow it, they will. Safety starts and ends with you brother.


Most construction jobs are not unionized like yours.

I refused to do a job because it was unsafe, and mysteriously found my hours cut to almost nothing shortly after. From 60+ hr weeks to <10.


All the more reason to go join a union


Yep 😊👍 … worked many job sites, never bumped into OSHA. Maybe I was supposed to report the unsafe work environment / employer? shrug

SuddenDownpour, in Why men lose all their friends in midlife



Why men lose all their friends in midlife

At some point it becomes suddenly, disconcertingly clear that we have very few pals left

By George Chesterton 24 July 2023 • 8:00am ‘I’m both envious of those who appear to have lots of friends and suspicious of how they’ve acquired them’

Five times a year. That’s how often I see the friends I have left. It feels like slim pickings for a man with my winning personality. What happens to male friendship in middle age? The question comes with a pang. Am I missing out, or deficient in some way? I mean, I have plenty of friends. Well, I have a decent number of friends. OK, I have a few friends.

I’ve talked myself into a kind of loneliness that’s hard to justify given that I’m surrounded by so much familial love. (“Poor widdle me,” as Kim Jong-il once sang in Team America.) I’m both envious of those who appear to have lots of friends and suspicious of how they’ve acquired them.

“Friends” is a dominant theme of the cliché-industrial complex, appearing in an endless feed of Facebook platitudes and Instagram posts. Taylor Swift said, “All you need to do to be my friend is like me”, which is either very profound or very stupid. Let’s assume it’s the former and that a definition of friendship is unconditional affection, rather than needy sycophancy. If I’m Billy No Mates, and Taylor is correct, then it means I don’t like many people and they don’t like me. So I appear to have brought this on myself.

This phobia of being clubbable is perhaps best expressed in a passage from Joseph Heller’s novel Catch-22, when Colonel Korn finally consents to send Yossarian home from the war on one condition.

“What must I do?”

Colonel Korn laughed curtly.“Like us.”

Yossarian blinked. “Like you?”

“That’s right,” said Colonel Korn. “Like us. Join us. Be our pal … Become one of the boys. Now, that isn’t asking too much, is it?”

“That isn’t going to be too easy.”

To truly like a person, you need trust, and that requires emotional investment – an increasingly rare commodity as you age – so as old friends fade away, they cannot simply be replaced. The space to build trust with newcomers is just not there.

Most often your partner becomes your best friend by default, which is no bad thing, while an imperceptible drift from sociability takes place over the years – sometimes it’s because of children, sometimes physical distance, sometimes lifestyle choices, like religion or polyamory.

Lasting significance

It doesn’t help that three of my oldest friends are currently unavailable. Of the men I spent most of my youth and young manhood with, one is in Los Angeles, another lives an alternative lifestyle in Devon and the third joined me in a spectacular falling out that killed our 30-year relationship overnight (mostly my fault, naturally).

It’s easier to be blasé and picky when you are young. There are so many friends to choose from and so many relationships you can roll into and out of again without the sense of any lasting significance. Having so few friends can’t be foreseen at 21, but maturity nudges out the immediate need, with the hours dominated by family and work. Once-intense friendships blow up or become diffuse, yet I still see other men managing it better than me.

Moments of envy that other men my age have armies of besties are countered by the cynical assumption that to have so many must mean a decent proportion are false or flimsy in some way. If friendship means something, then how can it be so effortless for these mysteriously popular men, who dangle their mates like an ageing hipster’s neck chains?

The more I witness friendship groups treating Glastonbury like a middle-aged Christmas (“only six sleeps to Glastonbury”), the less I want to know. It’s the fun that really puts me off. I carry the remembrance of festivals past, which is enough to dissuade me now. It’s great if 250,000 people want to enjoy music and drugs in a pop-up town with less diversity than Antiques Roadshow, but don’t sell it to me as a return to Eden. This is the kind of sentiment that evinces comments such as “I feel sorry for you”. They’re not necessary. I already feel sorry for myself.

Design and necessity

Apparently there is a dire need for a safe space for men, which is a bit like saying grey squirrels need a safe space from red ones. But I would concede there is a particular state of ease that’s only possible for men among other men.

There is also consolation that with those few friends you have left, months or even years between meetings are written off with the wave of a hand. Just as well really. This is when you notice the unfettered affection and loyalty male friends feel for each other. It’s kept simple by design and necessity.

Having lost interest in football I’ve destroyed 50 per cent of my conversation options – and I wasn’t exactly Bantersaurus Rex to begin with. Male bonding is sometimes little more than a home-cooked version of a radio phone-in on an infinite loop.

True male friendship is paradoxical, in that it is intimate without intimacy. Men neither touch each other physically nor discuss anything directly – what is said out loud is trivial and everything important is unspoken. If a subtext is identified, it’s quickly ignored before moving on, since no man wants to turn a subtext into an actual text over a few beers.

Like a lot of things about getting older, acceptance is the only meaningful response. My friends are real. My loneliness isn’t. It’s a product of a faulty memory and an ego that hasn’t yet burnt itself out. At least we have yacht rock to talk about. During those occasional and precious tribal gatherings, you all become carriers of each other’s memories, like the shaman or village poets who guard the oral history of your collective lives.

If you want lots of friends, you will probably have lots of friends. Therefore, if I don’t have many, I must not need many to begin with. Either that or I’m unbearable. Answers on a postcard, please. But don’t expect a friendly reply.

cedarmesa, (edited ) avatar


Fizz, in Why men lose all their friends in midlife avatar

Interesting read and very relatable sentiment.

This part stuck out to me. When I was younger I often got myself into bad situations that presented opportunities form connections through shared experiences. As I get older I’m fucking up less and when I do it’s just me trusting myself and going through it alone.

To truly like a person, you need trust, and that requires emotional investment – an increasingly rare commodity as you age – so as old friends fade away, they cannot simply be replaced. The space to build trust with newcomers is just not there.


I think the unsaid part is just time spent together- when you’re a kid it’s easy to have dozens of hours a week to hang out and bond. As you age, there’s other time commitments - kids, spouse, family, maintaining a house, etc. In order to have that emotional investment you need to get past the awkward first stages of friendship.

I think a lot of people lose/drop their hobbies, or the things that let them bond and meet other people. It’s hard to say “I dropped football and now I lost 50% of male conversation” without more info. If all your friends are only bonding over football, yeah. So find other things to do! There’s a million of them, and people are always passionate about their own interests. Find people with similar interests.

The author also mentions “it feels like they’re always just someone’s partner” and that’s very telling. Are the only men you’re engaging with those who are partners of your own spouse? Well no shit you’re not feeling like you have friends. I like my wife’s friends partners, but they’re firmly in the acquaintance category.



I had a good friend move to the same small town I’m in. Between work and family, we don’t get together for months on end, even though he’s a 5 min drive down the road. We want to get together, but we’re both too exhausted and burnt out.


It’s also the societal loss of “3rd places”. There’s home, work, and then… where else do you actually meet people? And if you do, where do you connect with them? Especially low-cost and not health-damaging like a bar…

BaldProphet, in The ‘manning up of boys begins in the cradle.’ But what boys really need is emotional support from their dads
BaldProphet avatar

Well, this is completely unsurprising and what many people have been saying for decades.

Just a side note, the whole "men's brains don't mature until they're 25" thing is a myth.


So…they never mature?

BaldProphet avatar

From what I've read, both men's and women's brains reach maturity sometime in their 30s.


I think we’ve maybe made a mistake in conflating a cease in development with maturity in a more colloquial sense.


I dunno why you’re getting downvotes… that’s funny!
Guess those guys fathers didn’t properly beat a sense of humor into them.


The human brain does reach its full development during a person’s 20s.

TheGrandNagus, (edited )

The whole “human brains aren’t fully developed until you’re 25” is such an annoying quote that gets thrown around by people just because they’ve heard it online.

I swear half the time it’s used to infantise young adults. I’m glad people weren’t pedalling this pseudoscience “fact” when I was that age, it’d probably get on my nerves.

It’s based on essentially nothing.

There isn’t an age where your brain is done developing. It constantly changes all throughout your life, affected by a whole load of factors we don’t really understand yet.

It certainly goes through periods of rapid change, but this happens predominantly years before you’re 25, or after life-changing events that alter how you think - things like moving out and having to manage your own life more, moving country to a very different culture/language, entering a LTR, having children, using drugs, getting a job, losing family members, even learning to drive can have a profound effect on your brain, evidenced by MRI scans.

Much of that stuff happens in your early-mid twenties, so I see why people would erroneously think that it’s the turning 25 part that does it.


I actually learned it in university studying biology. Which was some time ago and I didn’t follow up on research. But if I remember correctly there is rather large deviation on individual level.

shiveyarbles, in Russia stares into population abyss as Putin sends its young men to die

Amazing how one person can cause so much death and the citizens don’t rise.


Loads of people are dying because of political decisions in other countries too and you rarely see uprisings, only difference is that in Russia the cause of the deaths is more obvious


Sadly, he’s far from being the first, and I’m sure he won’t be the last.


Russian mentality. The ultimate subjects, taking pride in enduring whatever the fuck the government kills them for next.


That’s not Russian mentality at all. It’s more that people don’t believe that they can change things anyway - but Russians are in general not to much into their government, I would say quite the opposite of ultimate subjects.


Thats text book russian mentality: part of why nothing changes over there is because the people are willing to endure terrible living conditions, governments sending them into the meat grinder, corruption, virtually anything wrong, out of a weird mix of stubborn pride and stoic resignation. Perfect subjects: hardy, accepting, nationalistic.


Have you ever been to russia? The mentality is more of a general not giving a shit and nothing really matters. People don’t like or trust the state in general (some love it in stockholm syndrome kind of way) and laws are more like an inconvenience. The corruption is deep ingrained into society and does not just come from the government. Funny thing if, you read Leskov it appears it’s been like this since before the revolution almost 200 years ago.


It’s what Timothy Snyder called “the politics of inevitability” in his excellent 2017 book, “The Road to Unfreedom.” I highly recommend said book to anyone who wants to understand Putin’s larger project. It’s almost like Snyder had a crystal ball that he could see into the future with.


He’s pulling conscripts from rural areas now. When he runs out of those, and turns to the cities, it may be a different situation.

flipht, in Opinion: Why do so many young white men in America find fascism ‘cool’?

Because they are immersed in an ecosystem that pretends that respect for human dignity and unearned respect for authority are identical because they use the same word.

They believe that others should respect the innate authority they feel they should hold as men. Simultaneously, since they don't get that, they don't feel like they need to respect other people's right to exist.

And then a group promises them everything they've ever wanted, if they are willing to do fascist shit. Of course they're into it.


I highly doubt any language is more correlated with authoritarianism, particularly the English language. There is a cultural aspect to collective action over individualism, but I think authoritarianism is a base human personality trait.

LinkOpensChest_wav, avatar

You might change your view about that if you ever read “Mutual Aid” by Peter Kropotkin. I used to think the same, but it appears things like authoritarianism and hierarchies actually run contrary to evolution. Not that the trait doesn’t exist, but it appears to be something that has been exacerbated in cultures that deliberately adopt a hierarchical system vs. something that’s just natural to all humans.


Evolutionary biologist here.

I am someone who believes that multilevel selection is a primary driver of evolutionary dynamics and works at levels ranging from the organism to the ecosystem (at various levels of effectiveness). Kropotkin is nice philosophically, although he is read about far more often than he is read. That’s entirely reasonable, because his theories provide a foundation for lines of investigation we still pursue today but are obviously outdated, as are the ideas of everyone whose work predated discoveries like genes.

If you want a more modern view on the evolutionary benefits of cooperation, I would suggest starting with Harvard biology professor EO Wilson, who specialized in ants and ended up concluding that humans were in fact a eusocial species - unique among primates and one of very few on earth. He invented the field (or at least added additional formalization to the study) of sociobiology - the evolution of social behaviors. It’s the same category as ants and bees. For an anthropological and cross-cultural perspective I’d suggest Graeber. For a mathematical and economic perspective, I’d start with Sam Bowles. For the foundations of pro-social behavior in primates, I’d recommend Frans de Waal.

I’d be happy to try to answer any questions on the subject.

LinkOpensChest_wav, avatar

I’m not qualified to engage in your discussion, nor do I have a good experience trusting random internet strangers who say they’re certain things, but here’s Kropotkin’s book for anyone who wants to read it:…/petr-kropotkin-mutual-a…

Might tell the rest of the story.

i_stole_ur_taco, in Poll finds that fewer Gen Z boys identify as Feminists than Millenials-- and the same % as Gen X.

Gen-X men see eye-to-eye with male Gen-Zers. An identical 43 percent of men in that bracket call themselves feminists, compared to 49 percent of the generation’s women.

I feel like the authors think these 2 sentences are supporting the same argument, and I think they do not.

Asking someone if they “identify as a feminist” is vastly different than exploring their core values. “Feminism” is a badly exploited word that means many different things to many different people, even within a generational cohort.

It’s entirely possible that the sample of Gen-Xers that identify as feminist also carry more regressive beliefs than Gen-Zers that said they were not feminists.

The way this study was summarized in the article smells a lot like an older author (read: Gen-X or Boomer) trying to make sense of Gen-Z by plopping them into buckets created for the older generation.

I don’t know anything about anything, but this smelled less of science than an article reporting a study ought to.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • osvaldo12
  • magazineikmin
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • everett
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • thenastyranch
  • kavyap
  • Durango
  • rhentai
  • lostlight
  • ethstaker
  • relationshipadvice
  • tacticalgear
  • tester
  • cisconetworking
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cubers
  • modclub
  • HellsKitchen
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines