The Masculine Icon, and Why He's Right for You.

[ColinHarvey]

In observing an exceptional number of humanist takes on the societal, "good guy," I figured I'd cast my line, and take the opposite side, without dashing him to the poor faiths of ritual insult, as would be typical of my online persona. This, in term, means defending James Dean, Mick Jagger, Steeve Mcqueen, David Bowie and Christopher Plummer. So I suppose this is not such a difficult task, though will inspire the same reservation from both sides, which is beautiful.

The notion of the good guy, as established by several G@Ger's of my former, is only the indubidable meddling of of desktop warriors and simpletons who feel entitled to find someone. The best way to break this into leyman's terms: most of you on here will die alone, and never have the chance to exhibit love. You'll settle in marriage for the closest moron that tugs at your chemistry, you'll move in with him/her, make love, have a kid, get married, realize you hate eachother, and divorce. Happens to something like sixty percent of the population.

It is important to mention offhandedly, that this is not the case for some forty percent. The problem is, people who aren't ready to find love, or who have passed their proverbial institution of societal acceptance based on the nature of their emotional state, find themselves at the brunt of the epitimized American iconism. These would be the "bad boys," as they are so derisively annotated. As men, we so often find ourselves expected to personify the societal exectations of masculinity as set by Steve Mcqueen and James Dean, half a century ago. This, however, only offers a subsided picture into the healm of the masculine ship, with its crew of brawny suggestive traits, such as, somewhat excessive muscle, tattoos, smoking, motorcycle riding, apathetic smirks, and bold confidence.

Women, at all confession, I am not you - I am not a female, I can only assume what you find to be attractive, because I have a penis. Despite my impairment, I can say what a man's consensus of interpretation of a female's attraction is: which, for this discussion, is all that maters. As men, it is often expected that we are to woo you, swoon over you, and that you're going to have some form of intricate obsession with us, because of the way that we treat you. This does not mean that we are expecting to treat you terribly, It means that we are going to treat you. The way you react is our only indication as to whether this is correct.

Men seldom enter into the dating pool buying motorcycles, and talking shortly or smoking unless it is in their personality. They only react to the way the womenand men in their life manipulate their integral life-structure. If a boy is influenced at an early age, by his father, who is a domineering masculine figure (in the case of the Rebel), it is more than likely that this is how he will see the treatment of women growing up. In dating, he will take on a persinality adept for his partner. First relatonships are like clay, in that they mold both figures in what to look for in their next encounter. If she reacted positively to his personal influctions, then he probably won't see anything fit about himself to forgo change. Should he view women in a negative light, he may only be looking for a brief set of sexual encounters, using his intelligable promiscuous nature, to induce a converstion that obfuscates his intentions in order to regress her demands. This is where the pool becomes dangerous.

All people, then, are influenced bu those they choose to date, whether negatively and positively, and suit to fit their demands until another relationship arises where a new set of skills are required to keep partners in check. And I believe, as men, we are attracted to the, "rebel," mentality, and receive only positive feedback from our women. We don't naturally receive feedback for our decisions from other men, and sometimes seldom from women. So when something goes wrong in our emotional lives, we often aren't told whether it was or wasn't our mistakes. When our women leave, sometimes questions linger that never get aswered. I've lived in guilt before after a breakup, that ended up having nothing to do with me, and I know plenty of other men who have felt the same. This can have all sorts of affects on our mental view of ourselves, and a lot of lines can be drawn in connections with others.

We let this sort of behavior go for long periods of time. Women, you give him a ride home from the bar when he's plastered, you let him come onto you at the dance, and you get taken to bed and left alone a bit later. You spend months catering to his every desire with the hope that showing him a little human kindness will put you back in his good graces so you can widdle away at shell that burries you from his emotions. Well, in the end he is going to take this as affirmation of his actions. Every time you stick up for this guy, you're looking into a barrel of a shotgun wondering if the safety is on. You look, think, "this pathetic drunken mess is perfect!," and the moment he comes crawling to you, you swoon in to look down the barrel, and you get shot in the face when he buys another cutie a vodka tonic. Why is he so relient on the affections of sex for his own happiness, risking his shot a a relationship for the benefit of the adjunct sexual possibilities? Because he's been affirmed that women are sharp toys, and he's allowed to continue running around because you, the female, will always be there to help him when he gets in a jam, because you can't help yourself.

In order to benefit you in all of this, you need to let go of the demeaning alpha concept when he calls. It's tough, but the first step is blocking his number on your phone. Its going to hurt, but by ignoring him, you're letting him know that you could care less whether he dies that night - and he will get the message. Maybe not at first, but life conceived at the helm of a toilet seat, hunched over vomiting alone is probably one of the only instances I've ever had realizing that I could die and no one would notice.

A man that relies on sexual favors for confidence, then, is not the alpha concept you had intuitively figured. James Dean didn't solicit sex atbars, women threw themselves at him. He didn't need to have treat women like dogs to do his errands, because he had a motorcycle. When we are hunched over that toilet seat, we realize that being the game-focused "bad boy" of modern societal expectations faults in comparison to a guy that understands his place in things. He is not a v-neck sweater keyboard hero. He is the masculine Icon, not because he is a pickup tool, but becuase he's an example of modern existentialism, in need of only himself, but picking others up along the way. This type of confidence is uniquely a part of those who understand that the less you need of others, the more you can stand on your own feet, relying on confidence that comes from you - not others admiration of you. Self-suffieciency and sustainabiity are the sexiest qualities anyone can have.

So if your dude starts wearing Lucky Brand, smoking, and shopping for bikes, it may not be the end of the world, after all.

[redeyemindtricks]

You lost me at Lucky Brand.

Did you mean Lucky 13? #SoCalRepresent That seems to be more in keeping with the image you were suggesting (... plus I actually build and race rat rods as a hobby, so, I'm partial to that brand even though it's totally not my style).

[GreatnessRevamped]

You are right.
Women do want us for our penis.

[Anonymous]

James Dean was gay, only played straight for the cameras HE wasn't masculine just mytserious thats why people liked him so much. But yea everything else is pretty spot on.

[SunsetRose]

This is very well written