villasv

@[email protected]

mostly inactive, lemmy.ca is now too tainted with trolls from big instances we’re not willing to defederate

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

villasv ,

Do men feel like "they can't abandon masculinity"? Is that a widespread feeling men have?

I don't see it much. What I see the most is men that don't want to abandon masculinity.

villasv ,

I think the difference between "I can't" and "I don't wanna" is big enough to be worth splitting. For instance, when trying to think of reasons for men that "can't" abandon masculinity, you're looking for externalities (pressure). If you think about why don't men "want to", you'll find plenty of self-serving reasons and rationalization, which in my opinion is a more realistic framing.

villasv ,

I feel like you comment and sentiment could have been conveyed in a single emoji

villasv ,

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.

villasv ,

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!

villasv ,

That, and at the same time it’s manly to be angry.

So you’re supposed to be emotionless, unless the emotion pushes towards violence.

villasv ,

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.

Is that true male friendship, though? Taking that flaky relationship and labeling it true friendship might be a contributing factor to see them not surviving the many ebbs and flows of life. My best friendships, the ones that are alive and well, are exactly NOT like that.

villasv ,

author seems to fundamentally misunderstand Stoicism

Or rather, is using the word “Stoicism” in a different way than you are. Like when research obviously shows a link between Christianity and intolerance and people come out in droves to say that true Christianity is about love instead of hate.

Yeah, sure, you learned a neater version of stoic values. What the author is referring to is a bit more generalized, a caricature but very real form of stoicism that some people preach, sometimes even without even calling it stoicism themselves.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • All magazines
    •