When I was growing up, I was raised to be a man and all that meant in the mid-1950s. Men do this, don’t do that – you’ve probably heard it or some version of it, right? The “training” is one thing, what you actually experience while you’re trying to apply that training can vary, oh, like finding out that having sex with boys – a girly thing to do – was as much fun as having sex with girls, for instance. Thus, there’s a deviation from the path that isn’t exactly allowed but should, in my opinion, be expected… because children don’t always do as they’re told. Still, as long as you don’t stray too far from the path and you learn the lessons taught in “man school,” eh, you’ll be okay.
Somewhere along the line, the question of, “What is a real man and what is he supposed to do?” came up and I spent a lot of time listening to women offering their own definitions of what a man is supposed to be from their points of view and those definitions were all over the place and rarely matched what I was taught. Then men chimed in with their take on what a real man was… and the matching up of things got a little closer to what women were saying… but I was hearing some stuff that had me saying, “Really?” and as if I had missed a lesson somewhere along the line.
Over the following years, the definition of a “real man” kept shifting; some things were common sense, like, real men don’t beat on women, some were kinda wacky, like, real men obey their woman without argument or question – we called that being pussy-whipped when I was growing up and real men never let this happen. A lot of what a real man was supposed to be was purely idealistic and wishful thinking because how real of a man you were was dependent on what you were taught and then what life would throw at you at any time and, there was never true congruence between what women thought a real man should be and what men thought, i.e., real men lavish whatever riches they have on women to keep them loyal and faithful versus real men have to beat their woman into submission to keep her in check – and if you’ve ever seen “The Color Purple,” you know this lunacy is very old. Anyway…
I’d say that, oh, about ten years or so ago, a new definition of what a real man was showed up. On one hand, it was more in line with what women expected of us – love them, care for them and any children involved, don’t abuse them, respect them, give them your all and they will give their all to you, and other things… including one I don’t think women and some men didn’t see coming: Real men have sex with other men. Allow me to once again digress a bit…
When I was growing up and in man school, real men did not screw other men and if they did – and they most certainly did – then they weren’t men: They were faggots, sissies, punks, queers, freaks, and any other descriptor that doesn’t lend itself to the epitome of what a real man is and does. These sentiments, along with real life examples of how vicious we can be toward each other, sent a lot of men who liked sex with men deep underground and made it an imperative that no matter what they were doing when no one was looking, if you saw “Dan,” you only saw a real man as defined in man school.
Jumping ahead but to those ten or so years ago, while visiting “that site” you’ve heard me rant about, I was chatting with a guy who, at first, I was really interested in spending a couple of hours with and sucking his dick when he started making noises that insisted that if I didn’t let him put his really big dick in my ass, then I wasn’t a real man… and this conversation is over. I read his words and really thought, “What the fuck?” – I was genuinely dumbstruck because until that moment, I’d never heard any shit like that before. I had spent my formative years being told and hearing that if you let another man suck your dick or fuck you in the ass, you weren’t a man at all, even though I had figured out some time ago that you could do these things and still do all the stuff required by man school… but until that moment, I really believe it was my own unique take on things.
Seems I was wrong about that. More and more, I’d be on “that site” hoping to find a dick attached to a decent guy but was seeing more and more men stating in their profiles that only real men should bother to hit them up, effeminate men need not apply, and further qualifying their position by saying that if you weren’t willing to suck them off then have your ass split wide open – and without any reciprocation at all, nope, you weren’t a real man, you faggoty, punk-assed bitch.
Wait, wait… what the fuck just happened? I’d heard of role reversal before… but this? When did one’s manliness start being determined by these criteria? Yeah… I believed you had to be a man – to have really manly guts – to get naked with a dude and have sex with him but this “new” definition had a seriously ugly and dangerous edge to it instead of the calm acceptance that, okay, I can have sex with men and women but it doesn’t make me less of a man because with this one exception, I was still doing the things I learned in man school all those decades ago.
Okay, yes, I’ll confess again that effeminate men made me insane… didn’t stop me from having sex with them and thanks to some things I saw growing up, I never forgot that despite their behavior, they were still men and “effeminate” doesn’t mean passive or submissive and more so if you pissed them off.
Then I learned about the “thug life” and the creed associated with it and I read the manifesto with great interest and found that it actually matched up with the things I’d learned so long ago… with one interesting exception, that being what “bros before hos” really meant. On the surface, it meant that men should not allow women to get between them and their male friends – and, no offense ladies, there were a lot of women hooking up with guys and demanding they cut their ties with their male friends and some women were going out of their way to sabotage friendships – and I fell victim to this myself, sad to say. So, to support male bonding and unity, a real man doesn’t let a woman stop him from having male friends and firmly – but gently – stand by his right to have male friends.
Makes sense, doesn’t it? Any man who has had a woman break up his friendships with other guys or had a long time friendship ended by his boy’s woman knows exactly what I’m talking about. Enter the other, hidden meaning behind “bros before hos…” The manifesto I read stated that to be a real man and in the spirit of male bonding and brotherly love for each other, offering yourself up for sex to your brother was not only expected but required. Otherwise, your manliness could and will be called into question as well as your level of solidarity with your fellow man who abide by this credo.
Or, bluntly, if your boy looked at you and said, “Come over here and suck my dick…” your compliance was expected and required. Your refusal of any sex with your boy meant you were not only disloyal but not a real man. If your boy said to you, “Yo, slide that dick in my ass!” if you didn’t unzip, get hard, lube or strap up and comply with the request, nope – not a real man, you disloyal, fake, and phony motherfucker – and your disloyalty will be spread to all the other real men of the creed.
Wait, wait… what? Now – and I’ll even dare to say “obviously” – not all men who embraced this new school of thought took the full meaning of “bros before hos” to heart; ain’t no way they’re gonna get down and dirty with another dude… but, actually and honestly, that’s to be expected; brother man might love the thug life but he’s still very straight and always will be.
About an hour or so ago – and what prompted me to write this – I saw a “sissy-centric” picture of a guy dressed up as a girl, with breasts (I’m thinking loads of hormones and not surgery), his ass in the air, his decently sized cock dangling limply between his legs, and accompanied by a caption that said something along the lines of, “A real sissy is always ready and willing to give their ass to a real man!” I don’t pay the sissy fetish much mind (it’s fascinating) but it was that “real man” part that got my attention because it dovetails all too nicely with this mindset that’s currently in effect: Real men not only do all the things I’ve ever learned about being a man, but they also fuck other men as a matter of course?
There are, no doubt, men and women reading this and asking, “What the fuck, KDaddy?” – and as a bisexual man, I’m pretty much asking the same question: Why is this now and/or becoming a definition of what a man is? See, I thought that being for-real as a man meant being and staying true to yourself no matter what and without deception – read this as being something you really aren’t or otherwise faking the funk, having delusions of grandeur or undeserved supremacy – shit like that.
Do y’all remember my saying that humans are so flexible in their thinking that we can justify anything we might do, even if that justification makes no sense to anyone else? It’s my belief that this “real man” stuff is almost the perfect justification for men to have sex with other men; the logic is not only sound but unassailable and if you’ve ever seen fit to question a guy’s manliness and have seen the nearly automatic and vehement response, you will understand why I say the logic is unassailable because no one in their right mind calls a man’s manliness into question without repercussions of some kind. That’s the kind of thing that will make a nonviolent man very violent and, no, I don’t recommend that anyone test this… and those who have know exactly what I’m talking about.
Does this stand up to moral scrutiny? Of course not and, theoretically, it’s never supposed to… but when has this ever really made a difference? On the one hand, I’m actually pleased that more men are learning that – sorry again, ladies – that pussy ain’t the only answer to sexual satisfaction but, in the other, this new sense of machismo kinda bothers me, that not being willing and able to give your body to another man – or to take the offer of sex from another man – puts your sense of being a man into severe doubt. I personally do not buy into this mentality; I am bisexual but by choice, I am not a thug and never will be; I’m just too set in my ways to adopt habits like being out in public with my underwear showing, to cite one example. Am I tough? Oh, you bet your ass I am but I have no need or see the sense in being demonstrative about that and while I don’t always agree with authority, I do respect it – the alternatives aren’t pleasant and never were.
Hell, I’m not even a fan of the music. Having said that, no, I don’t discount any man’s right to be a thug or, really, the man he feels he needs to be. But this new version of a “real man” that seems to be gaining speed is interesting and, being an old school kind of guy, just a bit troubling. I got used to being viewed as “less of a man” because I love to suck dick and used to love getting boned in the butt… but to now be viewed as less of a man because I might not want to get boned or do some boning and on demand, as it were? Maybe I’m wrong but being into this is a choice one makes for themselves and based on whatever supports that choice… but this thing and its sense of expectation and unquestionable compliance or be seen as unmanly?