Masculinity and the "bad boy" dynamic

[easyguy]

Last night , I was loaned an excellent book by my best friend on practices as a male for nourishing one's masculinity , and perspectives on how to radiate one's grounding and self-validation in other areas of life as well. Hyped about it , I couldn't resist bringing it to the eNotAlone community. As I skimmed through it , the term "bad boy" arose in my mind , and it made me think that perhaps that term which is thrown around so much is purely semantics for masculinity.

 

Masculinity in the sense that , as a guy , there is strong value in not letting your female partner's testing of spiritual and emotional strength sway you from your own self-validation and higher purpose in life (I have not read too much of the book yet , but this is the jist so far). Not be rude or ignore , but trust your own intuition , knowledge , and wisdom while being inclusive to her intuition , knowledge , and wisdom. That , according to the author , is a dynamic that can create a strong attraction between men and women in relationships. In other words , as guys , we should be wise not to live to please (feel like we have to decrease our genuine emotional and spiritual investment in other areas of life or devalue passions to place a lady as our highest purpose) or otherwise put our sense of self-validation in the hands of anyone other than ourselves.

 

What are your thoughts on this? And is the term "bad boy" semantics for possessing qualities of masculinity , approaching relationships with the mindset that your highest purpose if you will does not rest on validation and happiness from a female counterpart?

[Fudgie]

If that's the definition of masculinity, then I think both men AND women should have it.

 

Own your own happiness and don't rely on validation/reassurance from your partner, or anyone for that matter. It's about confidence and security with who you are as a person. It's fine to love and be loved, but don't rely on it for your own happiness...happiness comes from within yourself, not others. It's self-reliance at its healthiest and its best.

 

yes, everyone should have this, male and female.

[Guest]

a male putting their woman first in life is making another person your first priority. however, there are some questions you should ask before doing that. one of the questions you can ask is does this person feel the same way for me? and if not, is it then fair that I should put her in the forefront as my higher purpose? why are you doing it? what makes it worth it? will this person always be there, or even feel anything for me? what brings self-validation? you need to define that yourself because self-validation is subjective.

 

My view would be to put self-validation into something intangible, like a goal, or a virtue. For example, 'to be selfless and wise, to excel in the arts, to be attractive.' That goal will never wear or tare even after death.

 

As for the bad boy concept, a 'bad boy' can bare the same qualities a 'good boy [person]' bares, usually consisting of 'confidence, edginess, excitement and self-worth' they are comfortable in their own skin and they can take control, women like that, it will attract them. However they can cross the line of being pompous and a bit of a jerk because they put themselves on the astronomical pedestal. So holding some qualities like this can help you validate yourself at your own right, not anyone else's.

[cherubrockin]

I think the cultural definition of a bad boy has been sliced up and mutilated through the years, and has lost any significance it once had.

 

When I think of a bad boy, I think of a man planning black ops missions in Iraq; someone who has probably killed people before.

 

Some guy who decides to get a motorcycle license, a couple of tattoos, and act tough isn't a bad boy, he's a douche. Being able to walk away from a woman who is treating you poorly doesn't make you a bad boy, it means you are emotionally stable.

 

Unfortunately lots of girls are attracted to the thugs, scumbags, and cheaters of our society. I think deep down they know these guys are losers, so they call these guys "bad boys" more for their own validation.

[FathomFear]

Masculinity in the sense that , as a guy , there is strong value in not letting your female partner's testing of spiritual and emotional strength sway you from your own self-validation and higher purpose in life (I have not read too much of the book yet , but this is the jist so far). Not be rude or ignore , but trust your own intuition , knowledge , and wisdom while being inclusive to her intuition , knowledge , and wisdom.

 

In line with Fudgie's comment, if this is your definition of masculinity I would question 1) why anyone would not want to be masculine, and 2) to what extent this is juxtaposed with femininity. Because honestly, I don't know why anyone would want his or her "self-validation or higher purpose" be dictated by another person.

 

To be honest, I think it's dangerous to define masculinity this way because the passive assumption is that women should subsume themselves in their relationships. Also, it's a heterosexist way of defining masculinity. Not all men have or want relationships with women and vice versa. But that in no way means that such people can't be masculine or feminine.

[Fudgie]

If this is masculinity, how would you define femininity?

[greywolf]

That is not masculinity. It is simply standing up for yourself and what you believe in, and not being a pushover.

[Stay_home]

I agree with the "own your own happiness" theory posted in an earlier post and not to minimize the things true and dear to your heart for the sake of pleasing somebody else. But I also think there is an epidemic out there that the harder you are to be controlled by someone else, the less chance you have of finding a consistent and stable partner. What I'm getting at is: People like to be in control and not just in control of themselves but of others as well. Usually the instant that we find ourselves unable to control a particular situation or someone we abandon ship. We like to manipulate, dominate and unfortunately we take advantage of each other. We consider that to be our fruits of strength and confidence.

 

This is why I believe most women do fall for the 'bad boy' dynamic because that's what he's all about and we've all been misguided as far as what's real and what is not. But when you really think about, is not the 'bad boy' the one who is insecure? He is no different then the 'nice guy,' but at least the nice guy, although insecure, has good intentions but just goes wrong about implementing them. Whereas the 'bad boy' has intentions that are only for his benefit and could care less about anybody but himself.

 

We still haven't found the science to explain why people are attracted to things that are capable of hurting or destroying them.

[easyguy]

Indeed. And I didn't say I agreed with what the author said/says in every regard. Just some food for thought and is giving some perspective. Human relationships are one big fuzzy , grey area that no one has figured out.

 

He (the author , who is of an older generation) gives the perspective of the polarity dynamic in relationships , not as a way to infer that there is a right or wrong way to approach relationships. I completely agree that both partners should be rooted in self-validation. And I think a healthy relationship is about having a balance , in which both partners open themselves up to taking the lead and following , so to avoid a dominant/submissive relationship.

[FathomFear]

Indeed. And I didn't say I agreed with what the author said/says in every regard. Just some food for thought and is giving some perspective. Human relationships are one big fuzzy , grey area that no one has figured out.

 

He (the author , who is of an older generation) gives the perspective of the polarity dynamic in relationships , not as a way to infer that there is a right or wrong way to approach relationships. I completely agree that both partners should be rooted in self-validation. And I think a healthy relationship is about having a balance , in which both partners open themselves up to taking the lead and following , so to avoid a dominant/submissive relationship.

 

By that do you mean that the author advocates for women to subsume themselves (in contrast to men) but that you disagree with that approach?

[Minx2012]

The gist of the book is almost condescending and patronizing. In relation to ` women ` and how it actually defines masculinity, you would think that women are these horrible harpies and Medusas who like to squash men`s balls under their heels....so the book suggests that to be ` masculine `, one must stand up for himself and not define their spouses or love partners as the most important people / purpose in the world.

 

But if you take away the comparison......isn`t the book just simply saying, ` Learn to stand up for yourself and be confident ` ? The book seems to be marketed to men, but the message can be applicable to both men and women ( if the patronizing / condescending comparisons were taken out ).

[FathomFear]

The gist of the book is almost condescending and patronizing. In relation to ` women ` and how it actually defines masculinity, you would think that women are these horrible harpies and Medusas who like to squash men`s balls under their heels....so the book suggests that to be ` masculine `, one must stand up for himself and not define their spouses or love partners as the most important people / purpose in the world.

 

But if you take away the comparison......isn`t the book just simply saying, ` Learn to stand up for yourself and be confident ` ? The book seems to be marketed to men, but the message can be applicable to both men and women ( if the patronizing / condescending comparisons were taken out ).

 

Unfortunately, the vast, vast majority of literature aimed at men is misogynistic. I eventually cancelled my subscription to Men's Health for that very reason. It just kept getting worse and worse over the years.

[easyguy]

By that do you mean that the author advocates for women to subsume themselves (in contrast to men) but that you disagree with that approach?

 

Upon further reading , the author infers the importance of leadership , be it assumed by the male or female partner. Point being that both sides should be firm about where things our going. The dominant/submissive dynamic could be true for a female to male , not just male to female.

 

I don't agree that women should subsume themselves , nor should guys. My ideal relationship would have a balance , a give and take energy from both sides so that one side doesn't feel like there is a burden to always initiate. But I cannot impose that dynamic on a partner if it feels anything less than natural. If you meet the right person , then there should be a bit of effortlessness, yeah?

[FathomFear]

Upon further reading , the author infers the importance of leadership , be it assumed by the male or female partner. Point being that both sides should be firm about where things our going. The dominant/submissive dynamic could be true for a female to male , not just male to female.

 

If that's what the author is saving I'd have to disagree with him. Leadership is not about a dominant/submissive dynamic. Leading isn't about commanding--it's about encouraging behaviors by example and articulating yourself well. ie, my partner would want to see the movie I picked not because I "said so". It's because I made a case for it. I really can't imagine any benefit to being systematically dominant or submissive.

[easyguy]

If that's what the author is saving I'd have to disagree with him. Leadership is not about a dominant/submissive dynamic. Leading isn't about commanding--it's about encouraging behaviors by example and articulating yourself well. ie, my partner would want to see the movie I picked not because I "said so". It's because I made a case for it. I really can't imagine any benefit to being systematically dominant or submissive.

 

Hmm... true.

 

I am just putting this all out on the table to just learn and grow. I've only been in one serious relationship and want to have a bit of insight before entering my next one.

 

I appreciate the responses , most definitely.