What toxic masculinity really is

[MrMan]

I am not in a relationship though, I can’t commit adultery if there’s no one to commit adultery on.

It needs to keep being pointed out that adultery consists of a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband. It is not possible to commit adultery "on" a woman.

Probably what MrMan was referring to was a misconstruction of what Jesus said to Pharisees about marriage.

Matthew 19
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
(NKJV)

Look how Jesus used 'adultery.'

He is clearly being more metaphorical there in addressing remarriage rather than sex. If the wife were to have sex, as would presumably happen at some time, then because she would in a sense be still married to the original man then that would be adultery, which Jesus is holding the man, as the instigator of the divorce, responsible for.

That explains the second part. Calling the first part just 'metaphorical' if your intent is to diminish it is a cop-out.

Be that as it may, just for plain ol' fornication, I Thessalonians 4, addressing the church, teaches that God gets vengence on those who defraud in such a way. Also, fornicators are listed among those who do not inherit the kingdom of God in I Corinthians 6. And there is a special warning to those who would fornicate with a prostitute.

[Cornfed]

Be that as it may, just for plain ol' fornication, I Thessalonians 4, addressing the church, teaches that God gets vengence on those who defraud in such a way. Also, fornicators are listed among those who do not inherit the kingdom of God in I Corinthians 6. And there is a special warning to those who would fornicate with a prostitute.

You have to take context into account here and not over-generalise. Paul was talking to Christian evangelists and advising them not to get a reputation as drunken perverts. That is good advice for them, not a particular prescription for everyone. If we take Paul at his word then he thought ideally men should be celibate. Clearly he was talking about the men whose calling it was to spread the Gospel, not everyone. What are you going to believe - your misconstruction of Paul's letters uesd to rationalise evil feminist bullshit or the observed nature of how functional human society, including societies under Mosaic and Christian law, actually work?

[MrMan]

Be that as it may, just for plain ol' fornication, I Thessalonians 4, addressing the church, teaches that God gets vengence on those who defraud in such a way. Also, fornicators are listed among those who do not inherit the kingdom of God in I Corinthians 6. And there is a special warning to those who would fornicate with a prostitute.

You have to take context into account here and not over-generalise. Paul was talking to Christian evangelists and advising them not to get a reputation as drunken perverts. That is good advice for them, not a particular prescription for everyone.

What are you talking about? The audience is the church, not specifically Christian evangelists. This isn't I Timothy or Titus. You obviously did not read the chapter before you commented, and you obviously are not familiar with the book. Chapter 5 has his instructions to shun someone who was sleeping with his stepmother and the need for the congregation to judge such a man. Chapter 6 goes on to talk about the need to have judges among themselves to judge cases rather than taking cases before non-Christian authorities, and goes into sins of those who shall not inherit the kingdom of God, followed by a more specific case against sex with prostitutes. Chapter 7 talks about marriage versus celibacy.

If we take Paul at his word then he thought ideally men should be celibate.

He said every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband to prevent fornication, though he wished that all men were as himself. He gives serving the Lord more fully as a reason for celibacy, but does not require that of everyone. Those who cannot contain should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. He doesn't limit celibacy for evangelists.

Clearly he was talking about the men whose calling it was to spread the Gospel, not everyone. What are you going to believe - your misconstruction of Paul's letters uesd to rationalise evil feminist bullshit or the observed nature of how functional human society, including societies under Mosaic and Christian law, actually work?

You would benefit from actually reading the Bible before commenting on it.

[Cornfed]

He said every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband to prevent fornication, though he wished that all men were as himself. He gives serving the Lord more fully as a reason for celibacy, but does not require that of everyone. Those who cannot contain should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. He doesn't limit celibacy for evangelists.

If you interpret it that way then clearly his ideal is for the world to be a sterile death cult and therefore he is a false prophet. The only rational meaning to take is that his recommendations are for some men spreading the good word while normal men live differently. This is evidently how the early and later church understood things given that they didn't seek to ban prostitution and such.

[MrMan]

He said every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband to prevent fornication, though he wished that all men were as himself. He gives serving the Lord more fully as a reason for celibacy, but does not require that of everyone. Those who cannot contain should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. He doesn't limit celibacy for evangelists.

If you interpret it that way then clearly his ideal is for the world to be a sterile death cult and therefore he is a false prophet. The only rational meaning to take is that his recommendations are for some men spreading the good word while normal men live differently. This is evidently how the early and later church understood things given that they didn't seek to ban prostitution and such.

There is no requirement that evangelists had to be celibate. Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied. Apparently, he had had sex. Peter, the apostle, had a mother-in-law. So apparently he was married, and I would imagine he'd had sex with his wife.

And it doesn't say that only evangelists who wanted to devote more of their time to the Lord and not be distracted with family would choose celibacy. There are many ways to serve the Lord.

Paul said that it is better to marry than to burn. I am pretty sure in every generation there are plenty of people who 'burn' if they did not have sex, or marry, or have family. I think I fell in that category. These are strong urges. A small percentage may be drawn to celibacy. Roman Catholicism organized a lot of the celibacy into the monastic system. I think it was the 1200s I was looking at some writing about the population of England around 1% of the population were monks. In the west, that pope had required priestly celibacy instead of marriage. (Paul had written about being the 'husband of one wife' in regard to the church overseership role.) I don't know what percent were priests. I would imagine the marrying part of the population must have been significant... at least it was enough for us to exist.

Marriage is a much better solution for keeping the human race going that sex with prostitutes.

[Cornfed]

He said every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband to prevent fornication, though he wished that all men were as himself. He gives serving the Lord more fully as a reason for celibacy, but does not require that of everyone. Those who cannot contain should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. He doesn't limit celibacy for evangelists.

If you interpret it that way then clearly his ideal is for the world to be a sterile death cult and therefore he is a false prophet. The only rational meaning to take is that his recommendations are for some men spreading the good word while normal men live differently. This is evidently how the early and later church understood things given that they didn't seek to ban prostitution and such.

There is no requirement that evangelists had to be celibate. Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied. Apparently, he had had sex. Peter, the apostle, had a mother-in-law. So apparently he was married, and I would imagine he'd had sex with his wife.

And it doesn't say that only evangelists who wanted to devote more of their time to the Lord and not be distracted with family would choose celibacy. There are many ways to serve the Lord.

Paul said that it is better to marry than to burn. I am pretty sure in every generation there are plenty of people who 'burn' if they did not have sex, or marry, or have family. I think I fell in that category. These are strong urges. A small percentage may be drawn to celibacy. Roman Catholicism organized a lot of the celibacy into the monastic system. I think it was the 1200s I was looking at some writing about the population of England around 1% of the population were monks. In the west, that pope had required priestly celibacy instead of marriage. (Paul had written about being the 'husband of one wife' in regard to the church overseership role.) I don't know what percent were priests. I would imagine the marrying part of the population must have been significant... at least it was enough for us to exist.

Marriage is a much better solution for keeping the human race going that sex with prostitutes.

To restate the issue, all throughout the Bible and all throughout Christian society, prostitution (and alcohol) has been fine. The only thing apparently against it you can point to is Paul. But the question is, was Paul addressing people generally or just the small foundling Christian communities? Since celibacy was his recommendation, albeit not his prescription, for men, we could conclude that either he was a nutcase or he was speaking to a small group of people at the time rather than everyone, which the Church seems to have understood.

This is of course commonplace. For example, when the Quakers were given control over Pennsylvania, they didn't attempt to be pacifists as the government and nor did they impose Quakerism on everyone. It was understood that Quakerism was for people in a certain situation, just like Paul's sexual mores, and it is important not to over-generalise.

[MarcosZeitola]

The apostle Paul was obviously some sort of mangina if he meant for celibacy to be some sort of ideal state of being. If he truly meant that, it sort of invalidates everything he said.

[Cornfed]

The apostle Paul was obviously some sort of mangina if he meant for celibacy to be some sort of ideal state of being. If he truly meant that, it sort of invalidates everything he said.

Right, but you could sort of defend it for Christian men on a mission to spread the good word at that time. Paul's claim to fame is as the world's greatest ever salesman, and that is how he should be understood.

[MarcosZeitola]

Right, but you could sort of defend it for Christian men on a mission to spread the good word at that time. Paul's claim to fame is as the world's greatest ever salesman, and that is how he should be understood.

He basically wanted preachers to be "married to the job". One look at Catholic history of clerical celibacy will teach anyone that it was a silly idea, but it seemed sensible at the time. Obviously Paul didn't want all men to be celibate; we'd all go extinct. Your explanation is the more sensible one, because if celibacy was some grand ideal for us all to aspire to, and he thought it was the highest state of being, it would make Paul from sensible enough salesman to complete madman who doesn't understand human nature at all.

[publicduende]

This is a good take on the subject, courtesy of the Usual Suspect, PJW.

[Outcast9428]

@MarcosZeitola and @Cornfed I think celibacy is just as toxic as degeneracy is, maybe even worse. Love is the greatest feeling in the entire world, nothing comes close to it. The biggest reason why I hate degeneracy is because it seeks to replace love. Sadomasochism seeks to replace loving, affectionate sex with painful, violent sex, and hookups seek to replace loving relationships with short term, casual, and selfish affairs. But lifelong celibacy would be even worse Not by very much in my opinion. I don't consider hookups to be a whole lot better then just being celibate. If I had to create a list of dystopias, I'd probably rank it this way...

Sadomasochistic sex only as being the most dystopian nightmare imaginable. Even lifelong celibacy is better then that.
Lifelong celibacy.
Hookups only.

Apparently the naturalist philosophy of the 15th century felt the same way, that lifelong celibacy was basically an abomination. It is a thoroughly soulless and wasted life.

I do agree with Cornfed that you need legal prostitution, and the vast majority of Christian societies have had legal prostitution so the idea that there is a special warning against prostitutes doesn't make much sense to me... Especially given that St. Augustine said you need legal prostitution in society or you will create a much worse situation.

That being said, I think there's a proper way to use prostitutes and a degenerate way. I think its okay if a man is lonely, single, and is starved of female company. I think its degenerate when somebody uses prostitutes because they don't want to fall in love with a girl or if they are using prostitutes to cheat on their wife. On that issue, I agree with @MrMan. Adultery is a horrible thing to do to either a man or a woman. No man who loves his wife would ever sleep with a prostitute to "get some side action" or whatever. The fact that the man even wants "side action" to begin with shows that he does not love his wife. I believe that is what Jesus meant when he said "looking upon another woman with lust is committing adultery in your heart."

I have heard other Christians use that verse to act like men who watch porn when they are single are committing a sin... I think that's a huge stretch. Violent, fetishy or extreme pornography on the other hand, should not be looked at under any circumstances.

@MrMan, you will be happy to know that as of today, I am watching no more porn. At all. Because I have started dating a girl who is pretty much already treating this like a committed relationship. Like I did last time I was in a relationship, I will not take any actions which may lead my heart astray. Being so committed to my last girlfriend gave me a feeling of spiritual bliss that I believe I can find with this girl too.

[WilliamSmith]

That’s the percentages of girls who have any masochistic fantasies at all. Not necessarily that they are hardcore into it. For that, it appears to be more around 25%-35% of non-Asian girls and 12% of Asian girls who have serious degradation fetishes.

I hope you understand why I am so paranoid about any sign of masochism in a woman now. Also, these statistics have doubled from 30 years ago. Girls of other races in the 90s were more like modern Asian girls and Asian girls back then had virtually no masochistic fantasies of any kind much less serious ones. I believe the porn industry is responsible for making these fetishes a lot more common then they used to be. 56% of people doing this stuff claim to be at least somewhat influenced by porn while 25% claim to have been influenced a lot by porn.

The Asian men also reported being half as likely to have fantasies of hurting someone during sex. Sadistic fantasies are not as common among anyone as masochistic ones are. Asian men were also just as likely as Asian girls to say love was needed in order to have sex, both of whom agreed with this at 64% compared to 32% of White men and 50% of White women.

Crazy world we live in, brother. My goodness I'm kinda scared raising daughters in this day and age. Like my goodness. Even the 'memes' nowadays are kinda hinting at this shit. It's pretty much everywhere lol.

@MarcosZeitola
@Outcast9428
Yeah, I agree 100%, except luckily for me I don't actually have any daughters yet, but meanwhile I live in a state of perpetual paranoia about whether I'm suddenly going to wind up with daughters and wonder how to keep them safe long enough for them to at least grow up and come into their own with intact self-esteem...
Any time periods where you could supposedly leave their education and socialization to schools or "communities" are long gone, unless you're connected to some specific local community somewhere I guess, but that's never been my situation.

But nowadays we have to be nearly as worried about our sons as well as daughters, since besides all the drugs and promotion of being dead-end hoodlums (as though that were the top thing to aspire to), there's literally homosexuals and "groomers" running around in rainbow clown wigs and satanic drag queen outfits exposing themselves to tiny children in the streets and in the schools, getting on the NAMBLA bandwagon to try to legalize and normalize pedophilia and bestiality....
Oops, here I go again ranting about the globohomos... I've been turning over a new leaf lately so gonna stop there and keep it positive instead...

[WilliamSmith]

I agree, what I would say is be very proactive about protecting them from violent porn. That’s the vector for most of this. There are apps and extensions you can put on household computers that block against those websites. As they get older be sure to vet every guy they are dating. I think one can get a pretty good sense for if a guy is a degenerate or not.

I think it’s important to prevent sons from developing an interest in that stuff too. That kind of stuff never shows up in ecchi anime. Ecchi anime is literally designed to be “safe porn for teenage boys” lol. Most of those shows are rated 15+ or even 12+ in Japan because they just show girls in short skirts, panty shots, make out scenes, and nudity for the 15+ ones. Hentai is obviously a different matter. I’ve seen some hentais that people told me were very mild but that’s pretty much it. I have to be careful what I watch because if any porn I watch starts venturing into the wrong territory I get lightheaded and feel like I’m gonna be sick. Going from horny to lightheaded/sick feels like a really terrible transition but I consider it to be God’s amulet of protection.

@Outcast9428
I think you're right about the violent porn being a very bad influence, but you mentioned the pervy Japanese stuff too, and that's actually very on-topic with @CaptainSkelebob 's original post about nasty but weak, effeminate men being a form of "toxic masculinity," because the combination of horrendous social repression and beta male behavior combined with commercialized pervy fetishistic sexualization (including of youths, originally schoolgirls mostly, though I suspect globohomo is now making it all real or imaginary genders) is a MAJOR problem in Japan.
I've learned a bit more about that, and the problem is worse than I thought, though they've made some good changes with legislating that manginosphere betas would probably whine about, but which I saw as positive steps to try to protect children and girls/women from sexual predation there.
I know some Japanese are great, but this stuff is definitely a problem there, and they ought to ban that garbage and encourage the young men to go out and take an actual healthy interest in the women instead of indulging themselves in all that pornography and fetishistic garbage, including their gross quasi-legal prostitution of underage girls and all that train-groping molestation crap.

[CaptainSkelebob]

I agree, what I would say is be very proactive about protecting them from violent porn. That’s the vector for most of this. There are apps and extensions you can put on household computers that block against those websites. As they get older be sure to vet every guy they are dating. I think one can get a pretty good sense for if a guy is a degenerate or not.

I think it’s important to prevent sons from developing an interest in that stuff too. That kind of stuff never shows up in ecchi anime. Ecchi anime is literally designed to be “safe porn for teenage boys” lol. Most of those shows are rated 15+ or even 12+ in Japan because they just show girls in short skirts, panty shots, make out scenes, and nudity for the 15+ ones. Hentai is obviously a different matter. I’ve seen some hentais that people told me were very mild but that’s pretty much it. I have to be careful what I watch because if any porn I watch starts venturing into the wrong territory I get lightheaded and feel like I’m gonna be sick. Going from horny to lightheaded/sick feels like a really terrible transition but I consider it to be God’s amulet of protection.

@Outcast9428
I think you're right about the violent porn being a very bad influence, but you mentioned the pervy Japanese stuff too, and that's actually very on-topic with @CaptainSkelebob 's original post about nasty but weak, effeminate men being a form of "toxic masculinity," because the combination of horrendous social repression and beta male behavior combined with commercialized pervy fetishistic sexualization (including of youths, originally schoolgirls mostly, though I suspect globohomo is now making it all real or imaginary genders) is a MAJOR problem in Japan.
I've learned a bit more about that, and the problem is worse than I thought, though they've made some good changes with legislating that manginosphere betas would probably whine about, but which I saw as positive steps to try to protect children and girls/women from sexual predation there.
I know some Japanese are great, but this stuff is definitely a problem there, and they ought to ban that garbage and encourage the young men to go out and take an actual healthy interest in the women instead of indulging themselves in all that pornography and fetishistic garbage, including their gross quasi-legal prostitution of underage girls and all that train-groping molestation crap.

Ur right! Thats exactly what I was saying brah
Men who love women and love to f**k women are only doing what is natural!!
It is in our nature to want to f**k beautiful women and spread our seed!
To become the pollinators of our own lineage!!!
How is that toxic masculinity???
Toxic masculinity is when you get some weak little shit stabbing faggot talking about how women hate ugly men and all that self hating garbage!!
That attitude is weak!!!
It makes men look weak!
It makes men hateful and in the end they inevitably become toxic....