Every Man in the End Secretly Desires to be a Warrior

[GracefulCharm]

Today's society doesn't really have a place for war or violence, people aren't killing each other. Such actions and behavior are considered lawlessness and savage-like. But does that mean the aspirations of a man are different than the warriors in ancient periods? Men in today's time's still aspire to have the same principles warriors had thousands of years ago.

Might is Right

It doesn't matter if it's a period where men commonly fight, or if they are earning money and paying others. Those who have the power will always be seen as the leaders. In ancient periods before currency became the norm for every society. The warriors who were the best fighters were responsible for how others in their tribes lived. They had the judgement of who lived well and who had just enough. Not much has changed in today's society. Those who have employees have the power to determine how well they live by how much they pay them. These men are considered the leaders of their tribes and communities. Others have to prove their worth to these men.

Honor Matters

Just like warriors of the old ages, just because one achieves success in their life. It does not mean they will be respected by their tribe. They have to earn their title with honor. In modern society, we follow the same tradition. People will not truly respect a wealthy individual if they have earned their wealth through nefarious means. The people will always respect the man who earned his wealth by helping the community or providing a valuable commodity. This is the norm that represents the ideals of the majority.

Loyalty is Rewarded

Men will often form bonds with other men in order to prosper and defend against threats. Every group of men will have their own codes and morals. This is found in the old society and the new society. Once you form a alliance with other men. You will be rewarded for staying loyal to them. They will expect you to reward them for their loyalty too. Instead of alliances for war, people form alliances today for earning income by selling services, entertainment and products.

[Onlythisone]

I want a warrior... So I can build an army, "our son shall be the stallion that mounts the world" or something... But if I'm going to be shield maiden they actually have to be stronger than me first 🤔

[Onlythisone]

I agree with the second 2 but not really the first... That is starkly divided and the ability to make money can either indicate strength or the ability to manipulate, and manipulation isn't a "warrior" attribute, however much money comes from it.

[GracefulCharm]

Politically, manipulation does occur sometimes to accomplish things and the person being manipulated doesn't realize it. That's the trait of a good negotiator. However, as I wrote in my second point. If the person who succeeded is not viewed in favorable light. Then they will still not be respected and often times lose their might.

[Onlythisone]

That only works in an ideal society though, I've known a lot of men who work hard, are honorable, leaders to their peers and poor. I don't disagree with the underlying point, strength is good... I just don't think money is a good indicator of that currently, but I suppose you are right and that is where honor has to entwine it's way into power.

I think all guys have the potential for power, but the ones that become good men are those that learn where their boundaries are and how to use that in a productive manner. The ones that don't recognize their power are the most dangerous, it isn't that they don't have it, it's that they don't know how to recognize and establish a purpose to it.

[GracefulCharm]

That's why every king needs a queen, not a concubine, not a mistress. A true women who is his equal and can keep his ego in line.

[shephardjhon]

"manipulation isn't a "warrior" attribute"
How?
Even the original picture here is from 300. A story where an army manipulated the mighty Persians into a narrow corner to keep them at bay. Then manipulated the actual story to raise morale which resulted in the actual defeat of the Persians. People still think of Spartans as badasses when they were nothing compared to the Greeks they lived with and it is because of this manipulation.

[Onlythisone]

@shephardjhon because only the weaker side needs to use it, it is fear based. So do you think the cripple in that movie was also a warrior, he used manipulation too? What about the god King? He did as well? Which behaviors earn respect? What was the difference?

[shephardjhon]

@Onlythisone Both were horrible in that movie but that doesn't mean neither was a warrior. A warrior uses every advantage and both did so, same for the guy shunned by Leonidas.

[Onlythisone]

@shephardjhon you see... To me that is the exact opposite of a warrior, a warrior sets boundaries, lives by a code... Isn't a mercenary who will do anything for anyone as long as he gets ahead. There is cause, and purpose over personal gain. My brothers before myself. It isn't the fight, it is the reason. Victims use whatever means necessary to win, the strong don't have to.

[ladsin]

1.) Might does not make right.
2&3.) These are just necessary to a functioning society, I don't think these are exclusive to men or warriors.

I may agree with your premise though. I think that's part of the reason why we like violent movies and games. It slakes, or whets, our blood lust.

[GracefulCharm]

Yes might does make right. When you are a baby, your parents are mightier than you. They control your well being from food, shelter and clothing.

[ladsin]

Yeah. I disagree. If a babies parent wants to starve, rape, and murder their child I do not think that makes it right. Perhaps we have a different position on this though.

[ladsin]

Baby's

[GracefulCharm]

My use of the word right is not in relation to morality. It's about what prevails.

[ladsin]

That's a misuse of the phrase then.

A mob boss may be able to break your legs if you don't "pony up the dough."
That doesn't mean he's right.

[GracefulCharm]

Right and wrong is dependant on perspective. The mob boss will consider it right. You won't.

[ladsin]

I don't much care what they think to be right.

Again, you might. I think that to be disgusting, but so long as you don't try to lord it over me, I guess that's your prerogative.

[GracefulCharm]

We actually have similar moral views. My point isn't about what I consider right and wrong, it's about the reality of life. Whoever is mightest has the power. I wrote that in mytake. You took it out of context. Phrases can have many meanings. You are arguing over nothing with me.

[ladsin]

Ugh. No... Today we do not allow that to be the case. As evidenced by your example earlier, we do not think the parents are justified in abusing their child...

I'm glad that you don't actually think this is the case, but perhaps you misspoke then. Or maybe I misinterpreted, or maybe, these aren't mutually exclusive terms XD

[GracefulCharm]

I think you are trying to mis-represent my points in order to convince yourself you are better than me.

[ladsin]

I'm not at all, but if that's how you want to interpret it that way then whatever man. I engaged you in a normal discussion and you didn't/ don't care about my position. Why bother talking to me then?

[GracefulCharm]

I personally dont like violent movies or violent videogames, I like movies that have good writing and video games that are challenging and encourage thinking to win them.

I don't think child abuse is a good trait for parents, and I have no misused my phrase at all. Everything I wrote is proper within it's context. I don't even think you read mytake.

[ladsin]

I did bud, but obviously, you weren't interested in my opinion, and of course, I'm not interested in forcing it. I went point by point and showed where I agreed and where I didn't.

Regardless, this line of conversation is boring and not interesting. You can respond if you'd like, but I won't continue discussions further.

Have a good day 👍

[GracefulCharm]

You read the headline of the subject, did not read the rest of the text. You implied I have a viewpoint of a brute. You disagreed with this false implication in order to make yourself feel a better like you are the good guy and I'm some bad guy.

Hate to break your fantasy, the reality is you are a insecure individual and wants to be something better but you don't have the discipline or commitment to become it.

The difference between us can be seen in our profile pictures. I don't need to engage in dishonest practices to make myself feel better. You apparently do.

[Jager66]

If I could I'd be a barbarian, dominating local competing tribes with my bro's by beating them into submission, taking their stuff, and their women. I'd feed my dead enemies, or any survivors, to my trained war dogs.

Then I'd pack the conquered elderly, children old enough to know what a sword is, and the obstinate women onto a shitty boat and send them off to sea in a viking funeral.

[coralee]

Men desire the fantasy of being a warrior not the reality. Killing another human being isn't easy. If you actually asked a veteran about their experiences at war they won't be telling you about the glory. They will tell you about the death, the destruction, the stress and the fear. War isn't romantic, it isn't glorious and it isn't honourable. Is it necessary? Sure, sometimes but that doesn't make it something anyone should aspire too.

[GracefulCharm]

Did you even read mytake? I dont understand why people comment before reading. I wonder if they just read the questions on a English test and not the story where the questions are derived from.

[BOUNTYGUY9]

l can't kill a human or an animal

[alltheblu]

Being a warrior doesn't involve fighting and killing. It's getting through obstaces no matter what it takes - showing resilience and robustness. Not backing down and being in charge of yourself.

I feel like a warrior when I'm pushing myself to my physical limits, running in the freezing cold on a weekend at 6 in the morning. Going into work with a sickness or injury and not being a liability. Diving into a cold shower even though a warm shower is just as easy. Nothing, nothing makes me feel more like a warrior than abstaining from orgasm for over two weeks. All that built up energy just gives me something extra.

[GracefulCharm]

I agree with a lot of that, but it's not just about being strong, without honor and loyalty, none of it matters. A wolf is nothing without his pack. Warrior's have always considered their tribes, or they would be nothing more than a tyrant.

[alltheblu]

A lone warrior...

[GracefulCharm]

Lone wolf's don't last long in the wilderness. They are often wolves who have been kicked out of their packs.

[englisc]

The definition of the word warrior is literally a brave or experienced soldier or fighter. That's exactly what a warrior is. Only in modern times do people use the word warrior to describe something else.

[GracefulCharm]

@englisc
So wolves don't have a lifestyle of fighting or being a soldier for their pack? What do soldiers do? They hunt for prey.

[englisc]

That wasn't what I was arguing with, in your original comment you said that being a warrior isn't about war or fighting when that is the definition of a warrior.

[PervinMervin29]

Probably true, it's why action flicks, superhero flicks are so popular, combat sports, full contact sports and martial arts are so popular.

https://youtu.be/H7FIw--9Hs4

[Anon-ymous1]

There is some truth to this, though I would still point out that violence is abhorrent and wrong, in the sense of mass violence or killing/fighting in hatred and anger. What is NOT wrong at all is just combat for the sake of competition, such as boxing or MMA or jiu-jitsu or whatever else; those things are good, and can teach us all more about ourselves.

The first rule is, we are not supposed to talk about it. And the second rule is, we are not supposed to talk about it.

[oddwaffle]

Actually no. Every man desires food, sex and the security of his family.

Warrior or honor or loyalty. Those are bullshit they invented to fool the dumb peasants.

For example, samurai are considered honorable warriors and such. However, in reality they were more like thugs, bandits and pirates when unemployed. Deception is the hallmark of warfare and samurai would cheat and deceive as much as they could.

Honor is a luxury only affordable to the well off and means little than a tool in war.

Courage and bravery are not going to motivate your warriors to kill. Loot, women and land will be their motivation.

Of course, nowadays we have nationalism and medals to make up for the shortcomings of 'rewards'. They didn't have such before so land, wealth and women were the promise.

[GracefulCharm]

That's a interesting perspective.

But you are wrong, if honor didn't matter, then men would favor the most brutal and savage man out of the community. This is not the case. Men will gather with other men who have the same morals and take out the dangerous savage who is a threat to their families. Samurai's have families too, they have code where they won't have sex with other wives of their allies.

Warriors did loot, rape and pillage, but that was reserved for enemies of their clan's of tribes. They will not rape, loot, pillage their own people. Do you think it's much different nowadays? We have militaries that fight wars overseas on behalf of our nations. We the citizens stay home in comfort, while soldiers in many cases are fighting on behalf of companies to secure our financial comfort in this world. Or if you live in a country at civil war, you know that your nation is just fighting to secure leadership to look for the best interests of the people.

People prize might as I wrote.

[oddwaffle]

Men do not favor the most brutal. This is where "it is not the strong who wins, it is the one who wins who is strong"

Soldiering or mercenaries were all about winning. In the olden days, victorious leaders and commanders would have men flock to their banners. While sorry losers would get deserters.

Warriors do rape, loot and pillage their own people. Where do you think they get their food? Why do you think most military campaigns avoid winter and tend to be around spring to summer?

That's why Kings and commanders never had a big standing army. They would call for mercenaries right before a campaign so they can move to their target quickly and loot it before their "warriors" loot their own country.

It's to forage for food. Taking it from locals. That's why "amateurs play with tactics, professional plays with logistics".

Beans, boots and bullets. That means logistics.

[oddwaffle]

Valor, honor, courage and all that don't really mean much. It helps morale to certain extent but it's the loot, the victory, the wealth that comes along will be what really drive the men.

[GracefulCharm]

I never said men favor the most brutal, I said men do not favor the most brutal because they favor a honorable leader. A man will not support another who is a threat to him. This is the exact reason why they don't loot, rape and pillage their own people.

If a army is not united, they will not win the battles. If you study history and warfare. A very treasured method is to disrupt the enemy into fighting among themselves. The use of spies is important for this regard. Kings and commandors have had large armies, I don't know what history you are studying. But the reason China is a large country with it's popular is because one king united all the tribes into his own, but conquering and giving benefits for other tribes to surrender to his power.

Winning battles does not create a strong clan. Look at Genghis Khan. He probably won the most battles in history, but when it came to managing his empire. It all fell apart. The people won't respect a leader who is viewed as a tyrant & savage.

[oddwaffle]

You said "if honor didn't matter, the men would favor the most brutal" - I said this is wrong because men vafoe the victorious. Honor don't mean anything.

Honor do not mean anything. They are worthless. They are less that worthless. They are stuff invented by fools to make stories seem interesting. Only fools listen to those.

Deception is the key to all warfare. Assassination, tricks, spies, agents, underhanded tactics, false information, lies... etc everything needed to win.

Those who don't use deception are doomed to fail.

Losers become bandits and winners become kings.

[GracefulCharm]

Yes deception is useful for using against the enemy, not against your own team.

Honor does matter, you cannot rally other men to your cause and fight for you if they don't trust, like and respect you.

Assassins, tricks, spies and agents all methods against the enemy, they are just one component of war. They will not always win the war, they can even spark more problems. An example is the cause of WWI, when the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria occurred, it sparked a even larger conflict. The soldiers of each nation all had loyalty towards their nations and viewed their people as more honorable.

Even Sun Tzu was respected among his soldiers and that's why they followed him into battle. Your argument that winning is what creates loyalty makes no sense. How can the men follow him into battle for winning if he has never had a battle before hand?

[oddwaffle]

Genghis Khan. Do you know what he did? He practically killed all of his brothers, he buchered whole cities while leaving a few to run away in a psychological warfare - we call those guys war criminals nowadays.

However, those aren't important. He got his army by promising loot, pillage and wealth to his soldiers.

This was something really new to the tribalism back then. Everything was shared with the tribe chieftains.

He made the promise to all the little soldiers underneath. The promise of loot, women, land and wealth. That's why he could United them.

[oddwaffle]

You don't let a general manage a kingdom. Do you think a general would make a good king? Can a fighter make a good manager?

I think not.

[GracefulCharm]

Genghis Khan won because of many things, his tactics were superior, he used fear to psychologically force others to surrender before a battle occured. My point about him is that he was viewed as a tyrant and savage. Let's compare him to someone like Alexander the Great. Alexander was loved by his people, this is why his empire lasted much longer and prospered. He was also a general and ruled his empire. Your argument that a general cannot rule his people is wrong. Many generals were kings in history.

Warriors are not always fighting wars just because they want to rape, loot and pillage others. those are aggressors. Some warriors literally only fight just to defend their people from the rape, loot and pillaging of other tribes. The story of Sun Tzu was about defending his people from a larger kingdom who wanted to rape, pillage, and loot his people. He stopped being a general for his king after he won the war. He didn't want to help his king who wanted to rape, and pillage others.

[oddwaffle]

Have even read the Art of War? Have you seen anything about honor and loyalty in there? You hold your army by your commanders, by discipline and logistics.

Do you know how to make an army crumble without fighting it?

Honor don't matter anything. You need a cause for war you can create one. You do it with a BIG LIE. The thing is so simple everyone did it. "They offended us! Let's kill them!"

History is written by the victor.

[oddwaffle]

by the way, have you ever seen a fool shouting "Fight me fairly!!!"?

Yeah, that's honor for you. If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying hard enough.

The most honorable army crumbles when you kill their logistics. They will become bandits and robbers in days.

[GracefulCharm]

Sun Tzu is viewed as one of the most honorable generals of his time. As I wrote in my last message, he stopped being a general for his king once he realized his kingdom was no longer just defenders after the war, they became aggressors just like the people he fought against.

Also, you do not reserve honor for the enemy. You have honor only among your own people. your logic is flawed.

[oddwaffle]

Did you hear yourself? Alexander got his ass kicked and died. His empire got taken by other people and he left shit in his wake.

He couldn't rule. He had to fight. Oh and he let his men forced themselves on conquered women and turned them into his subjects by letting them marry. Excellent honors i guess? Oh and hostage randoms too. Fantastic.

He also gave his soldier land, loot, women and wealth. If he didn't give those, how many would follow the guy?

Genghis Kahn actually got it better than Alexander. His expansion continued after he died. His empire held China for over 200 years. Do you even know what you are talking?

Give me an honorable loser who can keep his soldier without money, land, wealth and woman.

[oddwaffle]

What are you even talking about. Sun tzu left his king is honorable? Those aren't honor.

That means the guy didn't fight for a lost cause. He got a dumb king. He left. I am not even sure it was history because it was poorly recorded.

Probably offended too many people and got his early retirement somewhere.

[GracefulCharm]

Ok if you are gonna state the mongal empire lasted longer than the roman empire. You would be dead wrong.

Mongol Empire
1206–1368

Roman Empire
27 BC – 1453  AD

Roman Empire lasted way longer, why? Like I told you, the Mongols were viewed as savages who were not respected by any people they conquered.

I never said the roman's never pillaged or raped. Of course they did, my point is to compare how a empire is viewed. Mongols will never be viewed in the same regard as the Romans.

I'm surprised you claim Sun Tzu disappeared because he had a dumb king. How is his king dumb? He is behaving as what you would call a great king, he planned on invading other kingdoms so his soldiers can loot, rape and pillage. The entire aspect of what you claim why warriors fight. So explain why Sun Tzu would leave his position when they just won a war and can now pillage others instead of just defending against the pillagers?

[oddwaffle]

Err how is this relevant? Kind of relationship between honor of a single dude and an empire?

And the romans were honorable? Didn't they rape and pillage the barbarians? Hell, they created this thing called the camp followers. What's the difference between them and Mongols? What's wrong with you?

Get your history straight about "evil tyrant". Everyone was xenophobic back then. Raiders from the East who came over and shoot at the old stupid and evil knights inn armored while refusing to fight with some stupid rules. They called that barbarian and evil. It's obvious.

Also read The Art of War if you don't have a clue what sun tzu is. Leaving a king is not honorable. But that's not relevant. He couldn't end the 500 years warring states. Maybe read about that time period about the warring states to know what you are talking about.

You are like one of those screaming "Fight me fairly!!!" When he got his ass kicked in a fight right?

[oddwaffle]

And no. You got it wrong about the Chu King. Read some more history.

[GracefulCharm]

The king i am talking is who Sun Tzu served. That is the emperor of Wu, Sun Tzu defeated Chu and his forces. You need to do more reading.

[oddwaffle]

Yeah made a mistake. Sure. And you know this because you read a story?

So what about honor? Anything related to it? Show me an army that doesn't look, steal, rape and all that. Show me an army that doesn't need food to fight. Doesn't need payto stick around.

Meh.

[GracefulCharm]

Look at modern militaries, the general consensus is to not act like barbarians. Rape, looting and all that are against their rules. Even in ancient history, warriors wanted to be considered honorable. If they conquered other lands. They wanted to win the hearts and minds of the people. Their goal was only to remove the regime of those lands who was a threat to their nation. Not much has changed in terms of warfare of today.

[oddwaffle]

Modern military? What about before nationalism?

Meh. Modern militaries have too many secrets that they don't tell people. Did you know U. S. miliary hired child soldiers during the vietnam war? 14? No papers? No parents? No problem. You're 18.

[oddwaffle]

Oh they also rape people. You sure they didn't kill civilian and rape them?

[GracefulCharm]

I never claimed that no type of immorality exists in war. I am claiming that honor is important for warriors which you have been constantly arguing against. Now I think you are just arguing against anything I write because you just enjoy it.

[oddwaffle]

It's not. Honor is like decorations. Look pretty but utterly worthless.

You don't have any grounds to stand on because you can't find anything that can stand with honor on it's own. There isn't really anything that worth any salt other than parades, decorations and glory seeking fools who would put honor into his decision making.

Warriors don't need honors. Real warriors win. Glory chasing fools and honor bound idiots lose and die like the fools they are.

[GracefulCharm]

I've already proven you wrong many times. Just read the above posts where I proved to you that society cares about honor with their warriors.

I think you don't care about honor, I am certain that anything you win in life will not be respected and you will always be challenged by others. Nobody respects a tyrant or someone who has no principles in life. A soldier who is respected by the people will always overshadow the soldiers who just win. History has proven this.

[oddwaffle]

You gave examples that didn't pan out and irrelevant. At best PR exercises. I have shown you time and time again, honor doesn't matter when things are on the line.

It's a luxury, a fat lie, a cheap version of real wealth. Before, war glory means land, loot and wealth. Now you get a piece of metal, some hands clapping and a long wait line at the veteran affairs office.

[GracefulCharm]

Your posts are irrelevant, offering zero evidence from a historical standpoint. You only offer a bias perspective which is fueled from your own desire to be a savage. I bet you would enjoy the activities of looting, raping and pillaging.

Not all soldiers are the same, some of them just want to defend their homes from men like you.

[oddwaffle]

Hahaha you haven't talked to real soldiers right? Ask some of those homeless guy on the street. He was a veteran too. What did he get?

In the mist of the battlefield there are only 2 things existed: Your training and your brother next to you. All that home and country bullshit don't really matter. Maybe when you have time you will think about your family. That's what warriors are. They are the same through ages.

That's why they wanted wealth, they wanted loot and they wanted land. They wanted something for themselves so they could build a family.

[GracefulCharm]

How does a veteran being homeless have any relation to my point about honor being valued and important in society?

Your second paragraph even agrees with my point on brothers in combat fight with each other because they view each other as honorable. Another example, many times in war, soldiers have committed acts that their peers didn't agree, like killing civilians or raping them. This led to soldiers killing each other or even mutiny if their commanders didn't resolve these problems.

You keep changing your argument because you just want to disagree, maybe it's your method of feeling better about yourself when you can argue with someone who makes a valid point you secretly agree. I don't really care about your opinion on this matter anymore. You have exposed yourself on how you argue just to fulfill your ego.

[Sebdcjones]

I like to feel like a warrior. I enjoy sports like archery, not for the purpose of killing, just to satisfy my primal instincts. We have a strange contradiction where it comes to violence. I know I like to feel able to fight if the need comes but consciously try to prevent it and will break it up if I see it.

[Shutupman]

I feel like that and I'm a woman. So... Yeah goes both ways I suppose

[Guanfei]

Any man has dreamed, at some point, to be a powerful knight slaying some dreadful monster and saving people in an epic fight for glory and honor.
If you say you didn't, you're lying.

[Guanfei]

Also, we dreamed fighting while Two Steps From Hell was playing in the background. DON'T LIE.

[Gray-Wisp]

Damn straight.

[Anonymous]

I like the traditional warrior codes that the Vikings and Samurai allegedly had too!

[cherryphi82]

I like female warriors :)

[Djaay]

You like anything female...

[cherryphi82]

@Djaay What's wrong with that?

[Djaay]

You tell me?

[cherryphi82]

@Djaay There isn't. But you said it like there's something wrong with it.

[Djaay]

Is that what you were expecting. ?

[Goochbreaker]

female warriors are not as good lol... some female warriors might be better than some male warriors, but us men are built from the ground up for combat... y'all women are not

[Kai02]

@Goochbreaker Actually while men may be stronger in the physical aspect, women are tougher and can last through more, and can also go longer without food.

Its funny how many men disliked this post that simply stated she liked female warriors. This was not saying she disliked Male ones but 5 men jumped to that conclusion and disliked it, because so many of you fear being forgotten about for one second. Sexism at its finest

[GracefulCharm]

@Kai02
There was a study in the US military.
They had two teams. One team of men and women. Another team of only men.
In all the competitions, the team of only men had better results, by a wide margin too.

[Goochbreaker]

@Kai02 disliking the post doesn't mean we think she hates male warriors. We just think it's stupid to say you like female warriors because male ones are obviously superior. Being able to endure more pain (as a women often can) doesn't do much to make you a better warrior, especially when adrenaline is involved, both sexes can endure heavy pain.

Your assumption about why men disliked the post (which is totally wrong) makes you the most sexist one here. Way to stereotype us.

[Kai02]

@Goochbreaker You literally just proved my point. "We just think it's stupid to say you like female warriors because male ones are obviously superior."

[Goochbreaker]

@Kai02 you said that we assumed that she dislikes male warriors, how does my recent comment prove this point exactly? Male warriors are superior... it has nothing to do with liking or hating anything, this is objective fact. Cherry choosing to like female warriros, to the logical mind, is stupid, because they are objectively inferior in 99% of cases. Men have evolved over millions of years to be warriors. Women have not. Some women have been warriors, fewer have been successful, but one thing is certain, the numbers of female warriors have never been such for an extended period of time that they would evolve to be better at it.

[Kai02]

Everyone wants to be a warrior. Everyone wants to feel honored and great and like a winner.
Its human nature

[englisc]

Its true. Some might deny it but for all the talk about how we supposedly abhor violence and savagery most guys enjoy watching war films and playing violent video games.

[NerdInDenial]

Western society, now more than ever, need warriors to stand on the wall to guard its precious way of life. Men need to know how to kill because the infiltration is occurring.

[taleswapper]

Guys don't want to BE warriors; they want to HAVE been warriors. Actually participating in armed conflict sucks. but the benefits are good. Peace, chicks, and if you're smart, wealth. But you gotta pay with blood.

[VegetaSSB]

Not a warrior by a long shot, but a true martial arts master, like this man in the following video:https://www. youtube. com/watch? v=IzHUTdiqKgQ

[Juxtapose]

Yeah.. plenty of people wanna be warriors.. until they step out into the battlefield and see what it's *really* like.

War is hell.

[GracefulCharm]

Mytake isn't about being a traditional warrior. It compares modern men who still have warrior beliefs and fight in a competitive market to earn income.

[Juxtapose]

Oh that's right, you do mention that now that I read your take more carefully, my bad.

I think economic competition is different from warfare even from an evolutionary standpoint but they do share similarities. I'm personally a man who despises most competition because the behavior is too rooted in ego. Why should I want to prove myself "to the tribe" when I can just go fuck off and do what I want on my own terms?

I'm more of a "self" person rather than a "group" person. However, a lot of men fight very hard to maintain a certain image and admitably *are* rewarded decently for it. If they have a lot of money and social status, they are given comfort, sex and praise.

I think there's far more to people and life than social status and wealth and I prefer to peruse such things. Life is so short, I have to find my own way rather than follow the crowd, I have to find my own meaning or I have wasted my limited time.

[GracefulCharm]

Well it's not always about being the best. It's also about building a community for your children and for yourself. Every man has their own social circles, and we build them to our benefit and theirs as well. Your friend enjoys being your friend, you also enjoy being their friend too. It's not always about money, but in the end. The mightest tribe is usually the one who is very wealthy and charismatic. Those are the new traits society admires. We have moved beyond murdering and robbing.

[Harsh_5299]

Yes you're right, also this is the main reason why video games have always been popular with men

[MasterAetos]

Well, swap out warrior with superhero and you've got yourself a bargain. I secretly want to be a superhero.