Are Male Spankiees Less of a Man?

Hmmmm. OK, let's say we were to distill this down to simply the OP's question and pass on all other phrases and terms that could be used, we are right back to SNM's valid point pages back that such a discussion is impossible without defining "man" in the term "less of a man". It's that simple. If we get a consensus on that, then the simpler question can be answered.

The only reason I introduced "manly" into the conversation was because some responses referred to things in the public perception that I felt were better defined by that term rather than "less of a man". But then again this is directly due to MY definition of "man" in "less of a man". So again.....if participants want to nail down a solid definition that is accepted across-the-board, then we can proceed, otherwise it's like I said: an emotion-driven non-discussion masquerading AS a discussion.

Valid.

Well, if it can be boiled down to reaching a consensual definition of 'man' in a phrase like 'less of a man', then I think it's best to agree to disagree and leave it at that!

I was planning to reply with something more lengthy, and I did prepare it, but the previous sentence is pretty much the polite gist of it, and now I'm second guessing if I should delete the longer version if only to maintain the cordial environment... well, I'll add some parentheses and post it, I guess:


I don’t see reaching that across-the-board definition happening; the word has a lot of accepted traditional baggage to it, that’s it is difficult for it to be reused with a more modern value without this being challenged on a pretty much political lines.

And I want it to be an apolitical discussion, but how could it be! Traditionally men were men (to use the political meme: when men were men), and women were women, and they were defined in relation to each other, and pretty much in a “birds and bees” way; hinting at a penetrator (active) and penetrated (passive)- and there’s no escaping that!

The elephant in the room, I think, is that no one a century ago will have any doubt about what ‘less of a man’ meant; no one would respond to the OP’s question with anything but a simple: Yes! (Well, to be annoyingly precise, they may ask what the hell a “spankee” is, and then proceed with that ‘yes’ after they are answered!)

No Freud of that era, no matter how liberal or open-minded, will examine the evidence and not immediately think of lumping the male spankees together with transvestites and homosexuals, and ponder what sour relationships the ‘patients’ had with their mothers that led to these infantile, feminine tendencies.

Like in any other heated argument, I recognize that maybe I’m misrepresenting or strawman-ing the good, ol’ 1920’s- It’s possible; we see the worst where we expect it! Maybe it wasn’t that bad, and the main thing that mattered back then was the content of one’s character (another subjective 'jab' that I should probably apologize for!)

But if I’m not, and if it’s more or less agreed-upon that the confusion about the correct and accepted definition of ‘man’ is somewhat modern, or progressive- then, (I think) we can consequently agree that it’s very difficult to reach an across-the-board definition of the word.

tamerfaryak
I like what you wrote. It describes the issue accurately with just enough acidity to keep me smiling.

Interesting that the comments in this most recent exchange were precise, not always in agreement, and civil enough to maintain the integrity of the discussion while still having enough flavor to keep things real, and yet seemingly managed to clear the room. Other past comments were equally worthy and even those were either challenged on emotional bases or ignored. (If anyone tries to tell me people like a good discussion, I'll collapse from laughter.)

..if participants want to nail down a solid definition of what is a "good discussion" that is accepted across-the-board, then we can proceed, otherwise it's an emotion-driven non-discussion masquerading AS a discussion.

But, yes, I agree, very few people like or even enjoy a "good" discussion. For instance, I made a negative broad sweeping statement by using the phrase "the alphabet crowd." Now a "good" discussion wouldn't have made equally broad sweeping assumptions and either quieried my negativity or sought definition to my negativity. Thereby you would find that my "hate" is for alphabetisms and illogic. I can't describe how much I hate alphabetisms (or acronyms). "WHY?" Because people that use easy conveniences, forget the meaning behind conveniences. Want proof? LGBT. The first two letters. Lesbian and Gay. Lesbian is a woman who loves her same sex. But according to modern culture, "gay" is simply a homosexual, so it refers to both male AND female homosexuals. If that's the case (and I think otherwise) then putting Lesbian before it is redundant, and thereby; illogical.

Nothing based on "politics" as faryakan seeks to twist my words into. I will admit, I only believe there are two sexes, unlike the alphabet gang, but not because I believe that men can't love men, etc but, because without having two sexes, then transexuals becomes a meaningless word. I don't, by and large, like to redefine the dictionary, simply because some portion of society disagrees with what each definition means. Again, illogic.

After that, I detest people who try to define what was. 100 years ago (or more), we THINK we knew what life was like "traditionally" but that doesn't mean we do. People like to think that "traditionally" men were in power, and subjectated women as they liked, but in actuality men were just as subjected as women. Want proof? I have none, but I will propose three literary works: The Legend of Rip Van Winkle, The Taming of the Shrew, and Great Expectations. Now, you might say, but those are all ficticious, and thereby note noteworthy. True, but why is it they resonate so much? How is it that these stories that display men as being weak, and subservient to the women in the stories, unless not all men were "traditionally" the mysogenistic brow beating lord and master of all women around them, as most people today like to think they were, how is it these stories that portray men as weak, became popular, that even women will read them and liken them in some fashion, in other words, it resonates with them; that "Oh, I know a woman (today) who is exactly like that!"?

That isn't to say that there weren't men that weren't a piece of work, back then. There have always been criminals in the past, but that doesn't mean all people in the past were criminals.

I don't try to redefine the past, per se. I just think the past wasn't that much different from the present.

For most people in 'modern culture' in my experience, 'gay' refers predominantly to male homosexuality unless specified otherwise. I think you'll find this confirmed by the OED. Ooops - there I go 'alphabetising' again. My bad.

PhilK
I don't disagree, but there is either an undercurrent of people today, in America if not elsewhere,, growing, perhaps the younger generations (but sadly encompassing my generation sometimes) who BELIEVE gay means same sex and encompasses men and women.

It's like "simp" which traditionally means a "simpleton" or "simple minded" for the last 100+ years, mean a man or woman who was being naive. That the "simp" was being played upon by a player. Chiefly a man being played on by a woman, but not exclusively men. Todays generations have changed night to day, and the simp is nowthe player, and exclusively male.

I'm not 100% loathing of alphabetisms and acronyms. As long as people know what itmeans, I'm okay, but do you know what OED stands for (without looking it up on the internet)? How about NASA? HTML? DOS? QED?
QED, indeed.

Look, this it taking a tangent that is off the rails. I don't wish to derail the thread. I was simply trying to elaborate on what I said before and how it pertained tosome stray comments others have said.
Part of a "good" discussion is taking into account some sub-tier tangents, as longas it comes back to the original topic. This isgetting too far afield, and therefore I don't wish to persue it further.

I will unashamedly, flat-out admit that comment of mine was in no way meant as a 'discussion' (good or otherwise) or even the premise for one. It was, as your reuse of my own words state, emotion-driven, with the fueling emotion being plain old disgust.