Straight men wearing lingerie only during sex

If a guy wants to dress in women's clothes and underwear then that's his life, his decision. But likewise, the OP doesn't have to be accepting of it and shouldn't be made to feel in the wrong just because that's how she feels about the situation.

Would you please say "play humiliation" rather than "humiliation" in your posts from now on? Just four more letters, but the difference is night and day.

There are people who are humiliated against their will, and the word "humiliation" is reserved to describe their experiences, and only their experiences. If a "sissy" or whoever wants "humiliation", it is not real humiliation, but play humiliation, or pretend humiliation. I do not insist on my word choice, but there should be some word choice you are comfortable with that sets the experiences of "sissies" or whoever those people are apart from the experiences of people who are humiliated without asking for it. It is simply deeply disrespectful towards people who are humiliated for real, and not for play, to treat humiliation as non-chalanantly as you did in your post. One cannot be "into humiliation", that I can tell you for sure. So please watch what you say.

I think you're correct Lycanthrope. You're mentioning the emotions opens a huge can of worms. Men are being expected to be both strong and emotionless, but caring and crying with the ability to change and adapt depending on the mood and situation around them. The expectations that are being placed on men these days are furthering to confuse them in their place in society and their roles in everything from work to relationships to parenting.

That's because the feminists want to emasculate men. Not crying and being stoic - we're told we're holding in our emotions and need to open up. Wanting to protect women and children - we're told it's patronising and degrading to the woman and she can look after herself and doesn't need some man thinking he can own her and she's his property. Enjoying looking at beautiful women- - we're accused of being perverts and objectifying women.


Basically acting like man, you're accused of living up to man made gender stereotypes. Man are being taught to act like women and women are being taught to act more masculine. Does anyone here honestly think the metrosexuals and the nice guys would have survived taking on sabre toothed tigers?

That's because the feminists want to emasculate men. Not crying and being stoic - we're told we're holding in our emotions and need to open up. Wanting to protect women and children - we're told it's patronising and degrading to the woman and she can look after herself and doesn't need some man thinking he can own her and she's his property. Enjoying looking at beautiful women- - we're accused of being perverts and objectifying women.

Basically acting like man, you're accused of living up to man made gender stereotypes. Man are being taught to act like women and women are being taught to act more masculine. Does anyone here honestly think the metrosexuals and the nice guys would have survived taking on sabre toothed tigers?

I don't think there's really a group of women that consciously want to emasculate men. Like Growlything, I think it's more of a societal thing.

Whether it's conscious or not, it's happening. You know what's often said about men who act macho or very masculine? They're insecure about their masculinity. You know what they about women who are independent and assertive. She's empowering, a strong women.

When a man acts too aggressive, too assertive, or too macho. He's considered insecure, mentally ill or perhaps even dangerous. When a woman does this it's empowerment.

When a man dresses like a woman, wears make up, cries, likes to spend more time in front of the mirror then his girlfriend. He's considered a real man for being in touch with his feminine side. Yeah that's right, in today's western society, the more feminine a man acts the more he is praised for it. The more masculine he acts, he is ridiculed and/or attacked for it.

This is often true, I have to agree. Unless that macho toughness is what's wanted, then you can get ridiculed for not being "manly" enough. But then you have to switch back to being caring and gentle in the next breath. It's no wonder guys are so confused these days about their roles in society.

You say "unisex", but in fact, women have usurped all the accessories that used to be exclusively male. Once women started wearing argyle, men were left with no way to express their masculinity in clothes.

Maybe I'm going too far, but it does look like there is "unisex" and "female" clothing and nothing left for men.

PS: Incidentally, this can be tough on women too. There is no way a woman can cross-dress!

It seems that my post has triggered you, and I'm sorry for that. The language I used is quite standard in the BDSM community, and the proclivity quite common, thus what seemed like non-chalance to you. I would be happy to use the term "(consensual) humiliation" here, as this would set it apart from what you are talking about.

Yeah that's right, in today's western society, the more feminine a man acts the more he is praised for it. The more masculine he acts, he is ridiculed and/or attacked for it.

I can tell you that men who are Mensches realize that women have a harder lot in life - they have to carry, birth, and nurse their young. That women get to enjoy a bit more in terms of satin, lace, or interesting looking clothing is a tiny compensation for their harder lot in life.

When a man acts too aggressive, too assertive, or too macho. He's considered insecure, mentally ill or perhaps even dangerous. When a woman does this it's empowerment.

Yes, when I was going through my divorce a big deal was made out of the fat that when I get angry, my facial expressions shows that I'm angry (and why wouldn't it?). But the fact that when she would get mad she would often hit me or thrown things, that wasn't considered a big deal because I was never injured.

Bit off topic sorry

Sorry but this nonsense. At least in western society. In countries like India women do get horrific, no denying that. But in first world countries women now days don't have to give birth and sit at home and care for the children. Many women give birth and our working. Using childbirth as just an example is a nonsense. A woman in a couple can sit at home and look after the children or she can work and won't be judged for it. If she sits at home she's being a caring mother, if she works, she's helping provide for the family. If a man sits at home he's often viewed as a bum, loser, or a failure. Men are expected to work, women aren't, they have a choice.

What you are saying is nonsense. the last time a Mensch told me that (what I wrote above)... he was hailing from London, having lived in Switzerland, Australia, and Russia before. No India anything. This has nothing do with with who stays home and who works.

Ad hominem. Explains your reasons why. Don't just attack me. And I noticed you blatantly edited your quote and took out my reasons why men don't have it easier.

I am not attacking you. I am mirroring you. When I post, you react with a dismissive "nonsense". This is, for one, disrespectful, and, for another, stupid (meaning that saying "nonsense" shows that you cannot argue your position, and that is stupid). This was the first time I mirrored it to you, and I thought that you would be smart enough to see that I was mirroring you in an effort to show you how it feels to be on the receiving end of stupidity and dismissiveness. Yet, you did not notice that I was mirroring, and instead started playing a victim, saying that I attacked you. You are behaving like a sissy, and it is really, REALLY FUNNY to watch a guy who, on the one hand, claims high testosterone levels, and on the other hand, cannot handle a woman even in a writing environment. I am just wondering - do you not see that you are playing a comedian here?

The exact point I was making is that a Mensch does not have to act aggressive or look particularly masculine (the man in London does have wonderfully virile voice, but on his Linkedin picture looks like an average guy with early baldness, which is a shame since back in middle school he had wonderfully thick wavy medium brown hair). To be a Mensch you need to have a certain set of beliefs and principles you live by, and you can be soft spoken but still be a Mensch. Or you can have a lot of visible attributes of virility and be a sissy. If a man is not magnanimous, wise, and firm in his principles, there is no point in dealing with him at less than an arm's reach.

By the way I totally agree with you that the idea that looking at a woman with appreciation somehow objectifies the said woman is an epitome of stupidity. So as you see, I have painstakingly reviewed your posts and taken out of them something with which I agree, because I am a polite and considerate poster who tries to find common ground when she can, and you are not. And no, I did not redact your post to alter its meaning - I cut it short to make the quotation short. The post was nonsensical as a whole. If you do not like being told that your post is nonsense as a whole, the first step for you is to find each place when you called my posts, or my references to somebody else's thoughts, nonsense (I do not remember them all, but it will be a good homework for you to find them), and apologize in each individual case. How a man handles apologizing (with grace with elegance, hopefully) also speaks volumes of his internal qualities as a man.

Just to make sure - if you now run to get moderators to edit my posts for calling what you do stupid, you will confirm that you are simply a sissy who thinks that acting macho is cool. I come of the culture where being a teacher's pet was considered the horriblest thing of all in public schools, and running to moderators is like being a teacher's pet. So I have given you a warning - if I hear from moderators that you have complained, it will confirm what I suspect, an that is that you do not have true, innate virility at a core level. So let us see how you will handle this. I am curious. Again, I agree with you that the whole concept of objectification is entiretly stupid.