Question

[bo****]

No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable, train both the mind and body

[Sq****]

That's probably the most trivial aspect of being masculine and entirely subjective. If you haven't figured out anything beyond that then nothing anyone is going to say will likely change your mind at this point in life.

[l1****]

It’s interesting everyone keeps trying to find what defines masculinity but honestly I see it more like a lense or a font. You know you have cats and you have dogs and parrots and bunnies and every single one of them is able to feel ***, affection, frustration, and desires and find way to communicate those feelings with us but they all do it in a way that is uniquely cat or dog or bunny, it all has that flavor of personality to it. I genuinely think that if you identify as masculine then whatever you do is masculine, you are just contributing to the larger lense of what masculinity is through the interpretation of your own actions

[Ga****]

It seems almost like "masculinity" is more an ideology or thought than a concrete concept to me.
Many will find confidence to be masculine, physical attribution, societal role or status, etc.
It could also be a way of identity, or perhaps its an old idea of identity. It changes a lot decade to decade.
Some would even wonder if masculinity matters. But thats philosophical.

[ey****]

Being physically strong isn't a sign of masculinity.  

[Deleted Member]

No — physical strength is only one expression of masculinity, and it’s a very limited one if taken on its own.

 

Physical strength has always had symbolic value because it once meant protection, labour, and survival. But masculinity has never been only about muscle. In fact, in many cultures the most respected men were not the strongest bodies, but the steadiest minds.

 

Other deeply masculine qualities include:

• Emotional restraint and regulation — not repression, but the ability to feel without being ruled by impulse

• Responsibility — showing up, keeping one’s word, carrying weight without complaint

• Moral courage — doing the right thing when it costs you something

• Patience — the capacity to wait, endure, and choose timing over ***

• Authority through presence — being listened to because of consistency and calm, not volume

• Protection — not domination, but creating safety for others to relax and thrive.

In D/s spaces especially, physical strength without emotional intelligence is actually a liability. Anyone can overpower someone. Far fewer can hold another person psychologically without harming them.

 

Masculinity, at its healthiest, is about containment:

– containing emotion

– containing power

– containing chaos

 

A man who is physically strong but volatile is not especially masculine — he’s just dangerous.

 

A man who is steady, observant, and grounded can be profoundly masculine even if he never lifts a weight.

 

Strength of body is useful.

Strength of character is enduring.

Strength of presence is transformative.

 

The problem isn’t valuing physical strength — it’s mistaking it for the whole picture.

 

[Et****]

Physically strong is the hunter /warrior archetype.
There is also the protector/father through his patience and strong character and the shaman/mentor through his wisdom and teaching ability.
A wholesome man goes through all of them during his lifetime.
Its sad most men can't let go of their current role and can't embrace their destined evolution.

[Bl****]

In my honest opinion, you need to be capable in times of need. Whatever that looks like. Sometimes strength may be required, sometimes it's emotional awareness. My biases will always convince me that being capable of *** is necessary. But I know that a calming word, a rigid hand, or an experienced mind can be enough. You're never going to be capable everywhere. The key is to be capable in enough areas so that those in your life feel they can rely on you. To me, that's what it means to be masculine.

[wo****]

10 hours ago, SquirrelandWrangler said:

That's probably the most trivial aspect of being masculine and entirely subjective. If you haven't figured out anything beyond that then nothing anyone is going to say will likely change your mind at this point in life.

I don’t know, it might be the most trivial aspect of being masculine. I agree that individuals’ views as to whether or not they think it’s entirely subjective though. I don’t think its actual value, when talking into account the role it plays in mating, is trivial.
The outcomes of that significance since the advent of the industrial revolution and modern forms of birth control have changed considerably. People’s perceptions of its importance have shifted a lot since then, but those changes have taken place in the last minute or two when looking at it within the context of the entirety of human history. Biological and psychological evolutionary adaptations change slowly over millennia, their significance in mating selection included.
I think it’s obvious that indicators of physical strength and masculinity are significant factors in mating selection. Things like height, broad shoulders, athletic or muscular physique, and masculine facial features are all desirable traits when looking at who women desire to have sex with.
Saying and acknowledging that is viewed unfavorably by many due to political opinions informed by feminism. But the proof is in the pudding. And it hasn’t changed who women want to sleep with. Related evidence that was interesting when I learned of it is that in studies that involve surveying women, they view men with masculine facial features (not handsomeness) as those most likely to cheat.
This would result in those men producing more offspring in general than other men, prior to the advent of modern birth control. I don’t know if it IS true, but women think it’s true. Women are also more likely to cheat when they are ovulating than at other times. That seems to be biologically driven and not a conscious decision that was made after a lot of thought and planning.

[wo****]

4 hours ago, Gentlemandom47 said:

No — physical strength is only one expression of masculinity, and it’s a very limited one if taken on its own.

 

Physical strength has always had symbolic value because it once meant protection, labour, and survival. But masculinity has never been only about muscle. In fact, in many cultures the most respected men were not the strongest bodies, but the steadiest minds.

 

Other deeply masculine qualities include:

• Emotional restraint and regulation — not repression, but the ability to feel without being ruled by impulse

• Responsibility — showing up, keeping one’s word, carrying weight without complaint

• Moral courage — doing the right thing when it costs you something

• Patience — the capacity to wait, endure, and choose timing over ***

• Authority through presence — being listened to because of consistency and calm, not volume

• Protection — not domination, but creating safety for others to relax and thrive.

In D/s spaces especially, physical strength without emotional intelligence is actually a liability. Anyone can overpower someone. Far fewer can hold another person psychologically without harming them.

 

Masculinity, at its healthiest, is about containment:

– containing emotion

– containing power

– containing chaos

 

A man who is physically strong but volatile is not especially masculine — he’s just dangerous.

 

A man who is steady, observant, and grounded can be profoundly masculine even if he never lifts a weight.

 

Strength of body is useful.

Strength of character is enduring.

Strength of presence is transformative.

 

The problem isn’t valuing physical strength — it’s mistaking it for the whole picture.

 

World class post on this topic. I look forward to reading more of your contributions on Fet!

[Ro****]

The core of healthy masculine energy is unwavering presence. While physical strength can be used to dominate, true masculine energy uses internal strength to remain calm and grounded during chaos. A person in their healthy masculine can observe intense emotions or conflict without being swept away by them.
Unlike raw physical power, masculine energy is highly directional and logical.
Decisiveness: It is characterized by the ability to evaluate options and make firm, intentional choices rather than reacting impulsively. It focuses on finding efficient, practical solutions and creating systems or structures that bring order to life. It is also important that they also recognize
Emotional Intelligence as Strength.
Modern definitions emphasize that vulnerability is a marker of mature masculine strength.
Also Taking responsibility for one's mistakes and standing by one's word is a form of "internal muscle" that doesn't require physical size or strength.
Healthy masculine energy provides emotional safety, saying "I've got you," rather than using strength to instill ***.
The mature masculine archetype (often called the "King") leads through service rather than domination.
Protection vs. Control: It focuses on protecting the freedom and well-being of others rather than controlling them.
Integrity: It is the "fire" of discipline and the "steel" of one's values, even when those things are difficult to uphold.

[bl****]

Since when did being physically strong defined masculinity? Masculinity is the ability to regulate your emotions, desires and many other things. Everyone’s moral code is different therefore morality regulates masculinity. My masculine energy may not be backed by physical superiority that puts physical *** into all those who challenge, but you better believe it can surpass those lacking positive moral direction.

[Ba****]

In the context of masculinity „being physically strong“ is to „strength“ like „having cash is to „being a provider“
It’s not the important part just the flashy thing easily identifiable from a distance
And if you freeze or panic under pressure, for example if the kitchen is on fire or something, „being physically strong“ just mean being more useless meat in the way of anyone actually able to do anything
So I’d say being in control of yourself is more important

[cu****]

Absolutely not. Being in your masculine energy means being confident, responsible, competent, emotionally regulated, able to handle stressful situations wifh a level head, being organized and making sure nothing ever slips thru the cracks as a provider. It has absolutely nothing to do with physical strength. I naturally come with a ton of masculine energy and it takes a special kind of person to put me into my feminine energy because you need to prove to me that you wont fumble if I trust you to lead.

[cu****]

10 hours ago, Gentlemandom47 said:

No — physical strength is only one expression of masculinity, and it’s a very limited one if taken on its own.

 

Physical strength has always had symbolic value because it once meant protection, labour, and survival. But masculinity has never been only about muscle. In fact, in many cultures the most respected men were not the strongest bodies, but the steadiest minds.

 

Other deeply masculine qualities include:

• Emotional restraint and regulation — not repression, but the ability to feel without being ruled by impulse

• Responsibility — showing up, keeping one’s word, carrying weight without complaint

• Moral courage — doing the right thing when it costs you something

• Patience — the capacity to wait, endure, and choose timing over ***

• Authority through presence — being listened to because of consistency and calm, not volume

• Protection — not domination, but creating safety for others to relax and thrive.

In D/s spaces especially, physical strength without emotional intelligence is actually a liability. Anyone can overpower someone. Far fewer can hold another person psychologically without harming them.

 

Masculinity, at its healthiest, is about containment:

– containing emotion

– containing power

– containing chaos

 

A man who is physically strong but volatile is not especially masculine — he’s just dangerous.

 

A man who is steady, observant, and grounded can be profoundly masculine even if he never lifts a weight.

 

Strength of body is useful.

Strength of character is enduring.

Strength of presence is transformative.

 

The problem isn’t valuing physical strength — it’s mistaking it for the whole picture.

 

A million times, this! And said so eloquently

[im****]

Good question and good answers. Id like to follow this up with another question.

Is a man with PTSD less masculine in his energy?

PTSD can cause less confidence, emotional dysregulation, less ability yo handle high stress situations, paranoia, and depression.

Especially for women who have partners who suffered from PTSD, do you think that condition takes a man out of his masculine energy?

[Do****]

PTSD definitely affects masculine energy. The times in my life where I feel I acted out of character are the times that were PTSD related. Its dissapointing and you feel like you failed. The only way to get it back is to work through it. Youre gonna fall, but getting back up is what makes you a man.

[Do****]

Man.

[cu****]

4 hours ago, imgointojackson said:

Good question and good answers. Id like to follow this up with another question.

Is a man with PTSD less masculine in his energy?

PTSD can cause less confidence, emotional dysregulation, less ability yo handle high stress situations, paranoia, and depression.

Especially for women who have partners who suffered from PTSD, do you think that condition takes a man out of his masculine energy?

Yes PTSD takes you out of your masculine energy because you can't stay steady but if you put in the work, PTSD can be treated. Its not a sentence to forever be in that energy unless you give in and don't do the work to heal. (PS I'm fully aware this is way easier said than done and can empathize about how much it sucks as someone who has also suffered with PTSD in the past)

[Br****]

No I do not. I believe masculinity is and has always been defined by an ability to provide and protect. Physical strength is one major attribute of males that can achieve that. But so is a brilliant intellect, leadership skills, ambition and the ability to problem solve. Still an ability to provide and protect are at the center of masculinity. But there are many paths that can lead you there.

[Deleted Member]

Presence.

[wo****]

19 hours ago, cuteNpsycho said:

Absolutely not. Being in your masculine energy means being confident, responsible, competent, emotionally regulated, able to handle stressful situations wifh a level head, being organized and making sure nothing ever slips thru the cracks as a provider. It has absolutely nothing to do with physical strength. I naturally come with a ton of masculine energy and it takes a special kind of person to put me into my feminine energy because you need to prove to me that you wont fumble if I trust you to lead.

I think you provide a good description of masculinity. I have questions about your assertion that masculinity has absolutely nothing to do with physical strength. It’s a bold claim, absolutely nothing. I’m not claiming you are wrong.
Sub zero temperatures. Blizzard conditions. A small crew of men are hoisting power lines and attaching them to restore power to a neighborhood. Tools and hydraulic machinery are used. The machinery does a significant part of the strength labor. The men being there, weathering the storm, etc are representative of things you mention as masculine traits, at least partially.
The job also requires direct hands on effort to lift, support, adjust, and hold in place heavy power lines for a significant period of time. The temperature and blizzard conditions make doing all that significantly more difficult. They may even have to start back from the beginning because despite their physical strength and resolve the labor is so grueling given those conditions their muscles tire and fall at points requiring them to redo physically demanding tasks. Exhausted and physically drained of their strength, but finished the job. Physical strength wasn’t the primary factor in their overall effort, factors you mentioned were bigger contributions relied upon to see the job through to completion.
Question- How would you describe the integral and component of physical strength required that the men relied upon to complete the job? Is it incidental? Only a very small percentage of men are capable of doing that work. In part because of the physical strength they possess that others don’t have. The totality of strength necessary (grip strength, endurance, etc all factors in physical strength) the majority of men simply don’t have.
If it’s not connected to masculinity in any way, how is it better understood?
Man strength? Person strength? Where does it come from? Why do they have it? Is their use of it to benefit society to be understood differently than them possessing it? Is it wrong to attach it to masculinity? If so, why? Historically speaking it was seen as a valuable component of masculinity. It played a very significant role in human survival and improvements in the quality of life on both the benefits to families and small tribes as well as broadly in society as a whole. Not nearly as significant since the advent of industrialization but that’s a blink of an eye in the context of human existence across time.
What do you think? Did you have the answer as soon as you read the question? Inquiring minds want to know how it is best understood.

[Ve****]

Emotional strength and fortitude trumps the physical. Physical only makes that exceptional. Sisu is what defines a man. Look up sisu. It is considered a genetic trait.

[cu****]

8 hours ago, woburn169344 said:

I think you provide a good description of masculinity. I have questions about your assertion that masculinity has absolutely nothing to do with physical strength. It’s a bold claim, absolutely nothing. I’m not claiming you are wrong.
Sub zero temperatures. Blizzard conditions. A small crew of men are hoisting power lines and attaching them to restore power to a neighborhood. Tools and hydraulic machinery are used. The machinery does a significant part of the strength labor. The men being there, weathering the storm, etc are representative of things you mention as masculine traits, at least partially.
The job also requires direct hands on effort to lift, support, adjust, and hold in place heavy power lines for a significant period of time. The temperature and blizzard conditions make doing all that significantly more difficult. They may even have to start back from the beginning because despite their physical strength and resolve the labor is so grueling given those conditions their muscles tire and fall at points requiring them to redo physically demanding tasks. Exhausted and physically drained of their strength, but finished the job. Physical strength wasn’t the primary factor in their overall effort, factors you mentioned were bigger contributions relied upon to see the job through to completion.
Question- How would you describe the integral and component of physical strength required that the men relied upon to complete the job? Is it incidental? Only a very small percentage of men are capable of doing that work. In part because of the physical strength they possess that others don’t have. The totality of strength necessary (grip strength, endurance, etc all factors in physical strength) the majority of men simply don’t have.
If it’s not connected to masculinity in any way, how is it better understood?
Man strength? Person strength? Where does it come from? Why do they have it? Is their use of it to benefit society to be understood differently than them possessing it? Is it wrong to attach it to masculinity? If so, why? Historically speaking it was seen as a valuable component of masculinity. It played a very significant role in human survival and improvements in the quality of life on both the benefits to families and small tribes as well as broadly in society as a whole. Not nearly as significant since the advent of industrialization but that’s a blink of an eye in the context of human existence across time.
What do you think? Did you have the answer as soon as you read the question? Inquiring minds want to know how it is best understood.

You bring an interesting point. As I was reading the situation you described, I found myself genuinely questioning whether any particular job is inherently masculine or feminine and came to the decision that, at least in my mind, there isn't. While some jobs are more male dominated and some jobs are more female dominated, the male dominated fields are no more inherently masculine than female dominated jobs are inherently feminine. So yes, while some jobs require more physical strength to perform, that doesnt mean they are masculine jobs. For example, would you consider teaching to be an inherently feminine job if a male is doing it and building the character of young men to exhibit more masculine qualities? You brought up historical references so I will certainly tie it back to that as well. Historically the masculine role has been to protect others. A part of that Historically has needed to be physical strength because it was tied to the ability to provide safety and resources. As you stated, this is now less pertinent since industrialization, and I would argue even less pertinent in the last 50 years since women were given the right to be independent of men. Now, women dont need a man to provide resources anymore and thus safety is the last attribute that is inherently masculine. Physical strength is no longer required for either resources or safety in the current world. Physical strength without the other qualities of masculine energy is extremely dangerous to be around. Because it directly contradicts the value in masculinity, I would argue that physical strength is completely separate from it. 1 million percent just my opinion and perspective which you can either take or leave at will. To answer your last question, no I didn't need to contemplate it that long at all. The thing that took the longest was compiling the logical reasoning in a way I hope others can follow. No hate if someone disagrees; to each their own. Im always down to have intellectual discussions with people as long as they are open minded ones.

[wo****]

2 hours ago, cuteNpsycho said:

You bring an interesting point. As I was reading the situation you described, I found myself genuinely questioning whether any particular job is inherently masculine or feminine and came to the decision that, at least in my mind, there isn't. While some jobs are more male dominated and some jobs are more female dominated, the male dominated fields are no more inherently masculine than female dominated jobs are inherently feminine. So yes, while some jobs require more physical strength to perform, that doesnt mean they are masculine jobs. For example, would you consider teaching to be an inherently feminine job if a male is doing it and building the character of young men to exhibit more masculine qualities? You brought up historical references so I will certainly tie it back to that as well. Historically the masculine role has been to protect others. A part of that Historically has needed to be physical strength because it was tied to the ability to provide safety and resources. As you stated, this is now less pertinent since industrialization, and I would argue even less pertinent in the last 50 years since women were given the right to be independent of men. Now, women dont need a man to provide resources anymore and thus safety is the last attribute that is inherently masculine. Physical strength is no longer required for either resources or safety in the current world. Physical strength without the other qualities of masculine energy is extremely dangerous to be around. Because it directly contradicts the value in masculinity, I would argue that physical strength is completely separate from it. 1 million percent just my opinion and perspective which you can either take or leave at will. To answer your last question, no I didn't need to contemplate it that long at all. The thing that took the longest was compiling the logical reasoning in a way I hope others can follow. No hate if someone disagrees; to each their own. Im always down to have intellectual discussions with people as long as they are open minded ones.

Is the significance of using “inherently” when saying no job is inherently masculine to denote both men and women can do it? Do you think that if a job is overwhelmingly male, or exclusively male, because certain characteristics men have it says something negative about women? Some jobs rely heavily on physical strength and endurance. Advantage- men. The adaptive characteristics are not evenly distributed among men through. Some jobs are so grueling and demanding on the body that it’s not just women who don’t want them and can’t do them, the vast majority of men don’t want them and can’t do them either. A small percentage of men are most readily able to do those jobs well. It doesn’t say anything negative about the rest of us. It’s not zero sum. They do the job best and the rest of society benefits because of that. Maybe other people want to pay the difference in what the price of king crab would be if 120lb women were on those boats, or 50 year old obese men were on those boast. I don’t. I also don’t want to compete with women in performing all of the tasks that go into motherhood. Women have adaptive traits for that which men don’t. I’m 100% certain it’s an inherently feminine job. If I wake up with a vagina, uterus, and breasts with milk ducts tomorrow I still wouldn’t think it’s something other than an inherently feminine job (spoiler-age matters ).
NBA. It’s not called the MBA. Women can join, they just can’t compete against the men. Why? Differences in characteristics between men and women. Men are taller than women. At the tail end of the height distribution scale, the tallest of the tall - all men.

Can we talk about how the category of extremely violent predators next? I propose we start referring to them as “not inherently masculine” , possibly “persons who happen to be one sex or the the other” , or my 3rd place suggestion:

persons who happen to have been violent at some point in the past, their sex not at all a factor, suggesting it be considered a factor comes from the past and doesn’t matter, especially since everyone can use a chainsaw

They are all so great, am I right?