The Lack of Gentle Platonic Touch in Men's Lives is a Killer

The Good Men Project ^ | June 2018 | Mark Greene

[CondoleezzaProtege]

In American culture, we believe that men can never be entirely trusted in the realm of the physical. We collectively suspect that, given the opportunity, men will collapse into the sexual at a moment’s notice. That men don’t know how to physically connect otherwise. That men can’t control themselves. That men are dogs.

There is no corresponding narrative about women.

And where does this leave men? Physically and emotionally isolated. Cut off from the deeply human physical contact that is proven to reduce stress, encourage self esteem and create community. Instead, we walk in the vast crowds of our cities alone in a desert of disconnection. Starving for physical connection.

How often do men actually get the opportunity to express affection through long lasting platonic touch? How often does it happen between men? Or between men and women? Not a hand shake or a hug, but lasting physical contact between two people that is comforting and personal but not sexual. Between persons who are not lovers and never will be. Think, holding hands. Or leaning on each other. Sitting together...And if you are a man, imagine a five minutes of contact with another man. How quickly does that idea raise the ugly specter of homophobia? And why?

I doubt its a question the average Italian man would ever ask himself. But here in America, generations of Puritanical sexual shaming have made it a central question. By putting the fear of the sexual first in all our interactions, we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, avoiding all contact rather than risk even the hint of unwanted sexual touch.

American culture leaves boys few options. While aggression on the basketball court or bullying in the locker room often results in sporadic moments of human contact, gentleness likely does not...

[Chickensoup]

actually I was watching a European show, Danish show actually, called Ride Upon the Storm, and I was surprised at how often the men touched and held each other. Friends and family. I thought Scandanavians were cold and distant but apparently not Danes.

[bagster]

Do you think men are just made from evolution and Nature? Or do you believe that they have an ultimate spiritual source, and evolve in other ways than just from the material?

Whatever "soup" caused the current nature of men, which you seem to disapprove of, is what it is. Nature, social evolution, cultural evolution, religious evolution. All those together.

Bottom line is, both men and women have evolved successfully into what we are and that has brought us to our current state of civilization.

Now we seem to be in a comfortable lull and people (like you) have the effrontery to, based on their own whim, seek to change those thousands of years of human evolution and the very nature of the male of the species.

And in further response to your missive. I'm no expert, but it seems that the Bible bears no "evolution" so that spiritual evolution does not evolve but remains a constant, and as you put it, the "WAY".

And I believe that WAY conforms with what I'm saying much more than what you are.

But again, no expert.

[Jamestown1630]

I don’t think it’s an ‘either-or’.

Different times and situations require different approaches; and I think that God arranges things so that we have what we need, when we need it, to further His goals for us.

Individuals tend to find their places in that order, and seek and find what they personally need, and their personal missions.

[Jamestown1630]

our current state of civilization

is in some respects pretty sad, in my estimation.

I see that you mention 'religious' evolution, but not 'spiritual'.

I'm not really interested in Religiosity; but I have a lot of interest in Spirituality. I'm not trying to change the nature of the male of the species. I'm trying to open it up to more power.

[bagster]

All this macho complaining about “feminization of men” is bogus.

Is it?

Let's tell that to the LGTBers, the soy boys, cucks, girly men, SJW's, male feminists, and democrats across the board.

No, not bogus, but very real.

Have news for you: our very cultural background of CHRISTIANITY started this “feminization”. Men of western - Christian - culture are much kinder and gentler and fairer than other cultures, by its demands.

You confuse "civilizing" with "feminizimg".

It is true, Christianity has a largely civilizing effect, on both men AND women. It does not, however, call for men to behave like women, as much as you would like it to.

Humanity needs balance and what both sexes bring to the table. You may find that in the Bible somewhere. No expert.

Or are you saying men should be the full-throated “masculine” stereotype of cut-throat heartless blowhard tyrants allowed and demanded by other religions?

No. Why would I say that?

The only religion I know of that fits that bill would be Islam. I do not advocate for Islam.

I don't think you have a very good grasp on what it means to be "masculine". It is not the extreme "stereotype" as you have defined it here.

See, this is the problem when feminists talk about men and "toxic masculinity". Those that do, know nothing about men or what they believe and they come at the topic from a purely feminine perspective.

[bagster]

our current state of civilization
is in some respects pretty sad, in my estimation.

Very true. And it is caused by people "monkeying" with basic truths and destroying thousands of years of societal evolution because they think they know a "better way".

Everything effects everything.

I see that you mention 'religious' evolution, but not 'spiritual'.

To me, religion and spirituality are closely related so that one can speak, for the sake of brevity, with just the one word.

I don't think the basic values of any "spirituality" change. Truth is truth, and certain fundamental truths cannot and should not be changed.

I'm not trying to change the nature of the male of the species. I'm trying to open it up to more power.

Yet this entire thread is you stating your dissatisfaction with how males ARE and telling us what they SHOULD be. For us to become what you would prefer us to be requires us to change, no?

And how do you know that there is not more power in men behaving as the prototypical "masculine" man as civilization (and all previously stated) has trained us to be than this new "feminized/emotionally free" male that you would like us to be?

That is a woman's power. Men have a different kind of power. And we are quite happy with our own power style.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Oh good God. Not “bogus” so much as overplayed by FR men.

It is NOT just Islam that produces brutal men. None as consistent, but plenty under Hindu and Buddhist Shinto were brutal and ruthless. And that ruthless coldness was the purview of men, not women,who were to be truly “the little woman” and put up with their abuses.

Frankly I’m experienced with FR discussions relating to this same old topic and anything relating to it, and it’s the same stuff. In our particular topic “what is a male”, by FR braggadocio you’d think indeed men are supposed to be these very brutal careless heartless stereotypes. At the very least they sing praises of the very worst of redneck hicks as the epitome of manliness...I.e., any good manner is seen as “womanly” and thus an unfair imposition on men.

Luckily I know better by my wonderful father and grandfathers, who are no blowhard macho men but REAL men, and my husband, as well as cousins, etc. And I think mostly on FR it’s a lot of reactive big talk. I certainly hope so.

[Jamestown1630]

Huh.

My American-American husband of Italian descent just told me that this is a stupid argument.

He says, if you are comfortable in your sexuality and are a ‘manly man’, you should be OK with giving another man a hug.

He says, “there is nothing sexual about that. And if that gives you the ‘oogies’, then you need to explore that reaction.”

Then he said, ‘it’s bedtime.’

G’nite :-)

[the OlLine Rebel]

LOL that’s probably pretty much how my dad would be.

Neither dad nor husband have any problem holding our purse our buying unmentionables. My husband was proud as it was a sign “I got a woman!” LOL

[bagster]

Oh good God. Not “bogus” so much as overplayed by FR men.

Thank you for that concession. There is posturing and there is truth. Some truth is often contained within posturing.

Don't define all men by guys yukking it up anonymously on the internet. Nine times out of ten, these very same men that you revile on FR are some of the finest men this country can produce.

It is NOT just Islam that produces brutal men.

No, but they codify their behavior in their religion, which is what I thought we were talking about.

The civilizing effect of Christianity and other more passive religions does not, of course, have a 100% effective rate.

Any good manner is seen as “womanly” and thus an unfair imposition on men.

I have never seen this on FR. I think you are hugely exaggerating with this statement.

Good manners is feminine? What a bizarre concept.

This conversation started out talking about men needing to touch other men more and has devolved into manners being feminine.

We're off track, I think.

The bottom line is this. Stop trying to make men into breastless women. You may find that you need "macho" men sometime in the future.

[Yaelle]

Look. It is ok for men to touch or choose not to touch. My point was, we don’t have a problem. No one today (except maybe. Few lonely older men?) is starved for touch solely because they feel men should not touch lest they be thought gay. That’s ridiculous.

I’ve seen plenty of sons helping elderly dads walk, plenty of men friends greeting with arms and hands in some way. It’s not a big problem.

[Jamestown1630]

LOL!

I’ve never asked my husband to hold my purse - but he’s very good at finding other sizes while I’m in the fitting room. He’s pretty good at finding bargains, too...:-)

In turn, I find him bargains on meat.

[bagster]

My American-American husband of Italian descent just told me that this is a stupid argument.

Well, then it must be a stupid argument since he's of Italian descent.

He says, if you are comfortable in your sexuality and are a ‘manly man’, you should be OK with giving another man a hug.

This is true. But that's not what this argument is about. The article clearly states that men should touch MORE. Ask your husband about the hand holding advocacy of this author.

Have him read the article and then chine in again. Here's a remindful excerpt.

How often do men actually get the opportunity to express affection through long lasting platonic touch? How often does it happen between men? Or between men and women? Not a hand shake or a hug, but lasting physical contact between two people that is comforting and personal but not sexual.

Between persons who are not lovers and never will be. Think, holding hands. Or leaning on each other. Sitting together...And if you are a man, imagine a five minutes of contact with another man. How quickly does that idea raise the ugly specter of homophobia? And why?

So no. Not a simple manly hug.

Goodnight, J-Town.

[21twelve]

“...holding our purse our buying unmentionables.”

I don’t mind either. Except I take a picture of the feminine products to make sure I get the right kind. Sadly it took me a few times to figure out to bring the old box with me (and then in more modern times a photo.)

“No - I wanted the medium extra long with liner and NO wings and no perfume.”

Of course on the shelf they have every permutation of those options imaginable!

[bagster]

No one today (except maybe. Few lonely older men?)

You don't have to be an old man to be lonely. Elanor Rigby was lonely, and she was a woman.

#WhereDoTheyAllBelong

Picks Up The Rice In A Church Where A Wedding Has Been

[Jamestown1630]

About five years ago, my husband spent many weeks nursing his father who was dying of cancer. There was lots of intimate touching, helping, hand-holding, lifting up off of the floor, and kissing.

God help you, if you never have an experience like that. It could be your father, your brother, or your best friend. There would be many moments when your heart impelled you to simply hold the other man, and kiss him. I’d be very sorry for you, if you didn’t respond to that impulse - and, frankly, very sorry for you if you never experienced it.

Life often sends you sidewinders; and when it does, you find out what you’re really made of.

[bagster]

God help you, if you never have an experience like that. It could be your father, your brother, or your best friend.

Now you know this isn't what the article was about, right?

Let's not cheat, young lady.

The article was talking about casual platonic touching between men in general. Not family members, dying fathers, etc.

Another helpful reminder.

How often do men actually get the opportunity to express affection through long lasting platonic touch? How often does it happen between men? Or between men and women? Not a hand shake or a hug, but lasting physical contact between two people that is comforting and personal but not sexual.

Between persons who are not lovers and never will be. Think, holding hands. Or leaning on each other. Sitting together...And if you are a man, imagine a five minutes of contact with another man. How quickly does that idea raise the ugly specter of homophobia? And why?

[Jamestown1630]

The article was about men and their approaches - and inhibitions - when it comes to the physical expression of affection/compassion/concern.

What did I get wrong?

(I still think its a nutsy argument. Individuals are going to act as they FEEL is appropriate, in any given situation. There’s no quantifying of that - it’s always a wildcard.)

[NFHale]

“...The guys quite often are leaning on each other or have their arms casually draped over one another’s shoulders....”

That’s because they had the living sh*t shot out of them, they’re exhausted, they’re beat, but they’re alive, and joyous at the fact.

My old man was WWII Airborne. He was 5 feet 7 inches worth of North Philly Badassery in a compact ass0kicking frame.

The whole “gentle platonic touch” thing was NOT part of his, nor his generation’s lexicon.

They had shared experiences of war; they truly were a Band of Brothers.

We’re not supposed to be “genteel” except when it comes to our wives and children.

What I got out of that article was something different, maybe, than you did. No offense.

[NFHale]

Thank you...

I was RAISED by Men that did those feats. And they were 55 feet tall to me. And still are.