So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Sparko]

Because, until you can agree on terminology, a true debate can't happen.




That's not how any of this works...

It is if you are a liberal snowflake. Then everything is just subjective opinion, except when someone disagrees with you.

[Tassman]

Remember Tass I spent ten years in the mental health field, and there are plenty of studies showing the positive effect of prayer on mental health. So you got nothing Tass.

ANY

And how is that not arbitrary as compared to older or different cultures?

Right they arbitrarily decide what is or is not a pathology, then arbitrarily decide what to apply it to or not.

Nope. Psychopathology is based upon observed, reported actions resulting in major disturbances or distress in thinking, feelings and social behavior.

You have no clue, no objective standards for what is normal or not.

[Tassman]

Because, until you can agree on terminology, a true debate can't happen.

By agreeing to your

That's not how any of this works...

Well, yes this IS how it works and has always worked.

[Tassman]

What about them just fantasizing about raping children and viewing child pornography?

What about heterosexuals fantasizing about raping beautiful women and viewing pornography depicting this?

[tabibito]

What about heterosexuals fantasizing about raping beautiful women and viewing pornography depicting this?

Seems to me that such things would qualify as aberrant behaviour - but I don't know actual percentages - so I'll admit that my assessment could be wrong. I find such things cringe-worthy.

[Sparko]

What about heterosexuals fantasizing about raping beautiful women and viewing pornography depicting this?

They are either mentally ill or evil. What do you think about them?

So answer my question.


What about them just fantasizing about raping children and viewing child pornography?

[Bill the Cat]

By agreeing to your

Then there is no way to actually define "normal" if things that deviate from the most frequent distribution of a thing - normal - are no longer considered abnormal. And thus, no way to actually debate the topic.

Well, yes this IS how it works and has always worked.

Well, no. No it isn't. Normal physical attributes are independent of culture.

[seer]

ANY

Right and I have ten years in the field as a Group Home manager for the mentally ill. And the fact is if you go to a psychiatrist today (here in the US at least) for something like depression or anxiety the first thing they are going to do is put you on meds. The only therapy out there worth its salt cognitive therapy, but the individual needs to be highly motivated. And the studies on prayer are not about community but about the person's view of God. Psychology as a profession offers no hope, not in the sense that religion can.

[Littlejoe]

Then there is no way to actually define "normal" if things that deviate from the most frequent distribution of a thing - normal - are no longer considered abnormal. And thus, no way to actually debate the topic.




Well, no. No it isn't. Normal physical attributes are independent of culture.

I have an undergraduate degree in Psychology/Sociology. One of my Sociology teachers repeatedly beat into us was that there "WAS NO SUCH THING AS NORMAL!" That was....phew...30+ years ago. I think they were already laying the foundation for deviant behavior not being defined as deviant.

[seer]

I have an undergraduate degree in Psychology/Sociology. One of my Sociology teachers repeatedly beat into us was that there "WAS NO SUCH THING AS NORMAL!" That was....phew...30+ years ago. I think they were already laying the foundation for deviant behavior not being defined as deviant.

And this is why Psychology is not a science.

[Joel]

you

This is interesting. Bill The Cat said nothing about rights, but is considering the value-free concept of normal.
Only you made the jump from "normal" to rights. Only you are working on the premise that only normal human beings have the rights that normal human beings have.

Let's explore this further. Why, Tassman, do you think that humans with abnormalities don't have human rights? Why do you reject equality of rights? Why do you feel the need to judge someone as normal before you will recognize them as having rights?

[Mountain Man]

I think, at least, that we can all agree that slithering up behind a woman who isn't your wife, placing your hands on her shoulders, sniffing her hair, kissing her head, and whispering in her ear is a great example of toxic masculinity.

[tabibito]

I think, at least, that we can all agree that slithering up behind a woman who isn't your wife, placing your hands on her shoulders, sniffing her hair, kissing her head, and whispering in her ear is a great example of toxic masculinity.

Oddly, I find myself in agreement.

[Tassman]

They are either mentally ill or evil. What do you think about them?

So answer my question.


What about them just fantasizing about raping children and viewing child pornography?

They're all creeps.

In the case of the disproportionately high number of Evangelicals who indulge in online porn, they're hypocritical creeps.

https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...ates/42045.htm

[Tassman]

Then there is no way to actually define "normal" if things that deviate from the most frequent distribution of a thing - normal - are no longer considered abnormal. And thus, no way to actually debate the topic.

Well, no. No it isn't. Normal physical attributes are independent of culture.

Human culture nevertheless must take the natural human variations into account when formulating the rules of society, or do you think red-haired people should be stoned to death?