|
shallowdeep -> RE: The Difference between Men and Boys (3/30/2010 3:35:45 PM)
|
I think I understand where you were coming from, and you make some interesting points. Words do have some power. There's a reason teachers start calling students young men and women at some point rather than boys and girls; it can encourage them to live up to some higher expectation by granting them respect. I still remember one of the first times I was referred to as a "man" without any of the cunning (if somewhat transparent) machinations of adults hoping to exhort good behavior. I was out walking my dog and had her sit to allow a young boy and his mother pass. As they passed, the boy pointed and told his mother to, "Look at the man and his dog." His interest clearly lay more with my pet, but his choice of words made me realize that, in the eyes of that kid, I qualified as a full-fledged adult – indistinguishable from other men. It was something of a strange realization at the time, but it did give a nice little boost to my ego that day.
I think the difficulty comes in assuming the usage of "boy" is going to take away or subvert any expectation of the maturity, strength, and self-motivation you seek in men. While words can have power, that power is based on interpretation, and interpretation depends heavily on context. If teachers call students men and women, but continue to treat them as children, it's not likely to get kids to behave. Similarly, if a teacher calls students boys and girls but extends them respect as equals, mature behavior can be encouraged without the title.
quote:
You can be called boy and take out the connotations of immaturity from it. But I think this is an after the fact thing. If a woman you didn't know called you boy, you might not react the same way.
In general, I would agree with this… but I think the relevant fact in this case is simply that we're on a BDSM site. In the context of a place like this, I think many have an a priori understanding that a label like boy, if used, is – essentially – a pet name. It connotes some power dynamic, not a lack of maturity. If someone is confident and mature, calling them a "boy" rather than a "man" really isn't going to have much bearing on their behavior. The context and intent with which the term is used is really what matters, and I think that's been reflected in the bulk of responses in this thread.
You seem to have developed a very clear sense of what, for you, constitutes a "man" versus a "boy." In terms of keeping straight what you are looking for, that's undoubtedly useful. I also generally agree with your feeling that people are likely to attract what they project. What I think might be problematic is your conclusion:
quote:
If I project wanting to be with a boy, I'll get a boy and if I project wanting to be with a man, I'll be with a man.
If you mean this literally, as seems to be the implication (i.e. use the word "man" rather than "boy"), I think the nomenclature here becomes so subject to context and personal connotation that it ceases to be meaningful. A prime example of this is the comparative list you linked. Reading through it, I don't see a comparison of meaning between man and boy. Instead, I see a list of preferences for men's behavior made by one specific author. Those things she likes in men are ascribed to a "man", those she doesn't like in men are labeled with the pejorative "boy." The distinction in most cases seems rather arbitrary. To illustrate that, I've rewritten the first few entries:
- I want a boy who looks good with his shirt off but, more importantly, looks good because of the way he looks at me.
- I want a boy who will smile during the good time but, more importantly, will laugh during the bad.
- I want a boy who doesn't go to work because he has to, but because he can.
- Etc.
I could continue, but my point is that the meaning of what was written came entirely from the context, not the labels. When projecting what you want, the key is communicating your desires. The choice of "man" or "boy" may help a little bit, but it gets murky very quickly. For example, some things you associate with a man, like integrity, don't really seem to have much to do with the word. The archetype of integrity? A Boy Scout. The necessity of common qualifiers like "a man of honor" and "a man of his word" might actually lead one to conclude that integrity is, regrettably, far from integral with the definition of a man...
Having a label, like "man," to neatly encompass everything you seek is nice, but relying on the label alone to effectively project what you actually mean to others wouldn't work that well. (For instance, I'm sure Domiguy readily identifies as a man… and we already know "feminine" is really a synonym for "submissive", right? [;)]) Similarly, I feel any potentially negative connotation of immaturity inherent to "boy" can be easily overcome by focusing on what one is actually looking for: e.g. someone strong, self-motivated, attentive, intuitive, mature - and how you envision those traits being expressed. Ultimately, I don't think the label matters that much – the meaning behind it is what actually carries weight and needs to be communicated.
Just my thoughts, of course.
|
|
|
|
