NationStates Jolt Archive

In a recent trek to the World Wide Web to do some web surfing, I suffered a momentary lapse of boredom-laced inspiration and began to Google the term "man date." Among the first results was this little beauty of an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/fashion/10date.html?ex=1137646800&en=e0320087c3c50499&ei=5070 newwindow) in the New York Times. I'll admit I've heard of the term before and actually used the term. But the term only registered as a bemusing moniker until I read that article.

The New York Times piece cast the term in a much thornier light in my mind from the lede graf (journalist slang in case you didn't know). "The delicate posturing began with the phone call." Delicate posturing. Three words in and already I'm thinking about something much less pleasant about a term I thought was going to be the 2006 version of "metrosexual."

Maybe I'm getting old faster than I thought I was. Perhaps I'm just hypersensitive. It's possible that I'm stuck in the wrong era. But I was under the impression that you spent time with someone or "hung out" with someone to use slightly less moldy language, because you liked him. The way the article described food-based outings that weren't wings and beer or sports bars betrayed a form of closeted homophobia on the part of the men who took part in these "man dates."

Going to a museum and taking great lengths to almost avoid each other because you're afraid someone's going to put two and two together and come to a conclusion that isn't true? Sounds like someone has a few issues they need to work on. No, I'm not saying Matthew Speiser or John Putman are homophobic. I'm not even suggesting they have anything in particular against homosexuality. But going to such great lengths to avoid even the suggestion that they're gay just takes things about 10 steps too far.

There's plenty more within the article itself. Take the "rules" against home-cooked meals that weren't grilled steaks or deep-fried foods and paying a bill in any way other than Dutch treat. There's also the strategic empty seat between two men at a movie, which can't be a romantic comedy.

I haven't even touched the subject of "man crushes." It's more than just another invented word that further separates and stigmatizes homosexuals. It comes with its own family tree of definitions, rating anywhere from a depiction of the Ben Affleck-Matt Damon friendship to the positive feelings Texas Longhorn fans have for Vince Young. Admiration for power, idolizing a friend, there's plenty of depictions of what a "man crush" is.

Once upon a time, guys hung out with another male friend without describing it as a "man date" or genuinely liked another man without using a ridiculous term like "man crush." People spent time with each other because they genuinely enjoyed each other's company. Men were able to open up with other men about topics that had nothing to do with box scores or cup sizes. We weren't so emotionally bankrupt that any emotion other than pure rage was stuffed worse than Clinton Portis against the Seahawks.

Let's not forget the now ages-old term "fag hag" and its more recent counterpart, the "fag stag." Creating terms that have their roots in perjorative names for homosexuals to depict someone who spends time with a homosexual is distasteful in itself. The fact it's so insidious that even those who detest the expressions feel as though they're stuck with using them is downright appalling. The same thing that happened to men who spent time with each other just because seemingly got its roots there.

If I were asked what term I'd refer to Nicole and Susan instead of "fag hags" or the more recent disgusting turn of phrase "fruit fly," I'd like to think I'd just turn to the person questioning me with a quizzical expression on my face and say, "friends."

That's what we need to get back to.

Simply defined a man date is two heterosexual men socializing without the crutch of business or sports.

By that definition everytime I have ever spent talking alone with another straight guy has been a man date. I don't think I've ever made use of 'the crutch of business or sports'

Stupid label-happy media. They need a good slap upside the head.

Stupid label-happy media. They need a good slap upside the head.
Hear hear!

Closet cases calling men who are sure enough in their sexuality to not give a damn closet cases would be pretty funny. If it weren't so sad.

so basically anywhere my husband goes with his friends is a "man date", that's idiotic. My husband doesn't watch sports, so he and his friends go to movies, or to eat, and suddenly that isn't okay?

that's crap. It's unfair. It makes me glad I wasn't born a man. It's seems unfair to me. As a woman I can get a job and be respected, or I can stay home with my kids and be respected, I can go with my female friends, to movies, to eat, to plays, to shop, to hockey games, to the zoo, basically anywhere and nobody thinks twice, but if my husband wants to go to see Spiderman or something with his friends then he is on a "man date". :headbang:


*glad she is a girl and has some options*

man, american media is weird. I just hope this term never makes it to the UK.

Ha, I totally remember that article. I was pretty surprised when I first read it, to say the least, because the guys I know aren't like this at all. But that article sounded pretty definite, so I was all "Oh, those silly American men!" :D

So, yeah, it's great to see that some men out there obviously don't agree with the article and find the whole concept of the man date ludicrous.

However, this is not just some chick coughing up a hairbrained editorial, and although she did make up the term "man date" only for the article, she did interview 30 to 40 straight men [...], from their 20's to their 50's, living in cities across the country, [and they] instantly recognized the peculiar ritual even if they had not consciously examined its dos and don'ts.

The whole article is built around actual quotes from those guys, and there certainly seems to be agreement on the basic concept and characteristics of a "man date".

So, what's the deal, guys? Is it really that outlandish to speak of a "man date" or is the author on to something?


Oh, and I thought this was very interesting:
Dinner with a friend has not always been so fraught. Before women were considered men's equals, some gender historians say, men routinely confided in and sought advice from one another in ways they did not do with women, even their wives. Then, these scholars say, two things changed during the last century: an increased public awareness of homosexuality created a stigma around male intimacy, and at the same time women began encroaching on traditionally male spheres, causing men to become more defensive about notions of masculinity.

I, being completely unaware of social norms, have noticed this phenomena of people assuming that any 2 men doing anything together (and without making an overt effort to state that they are not in fact gay) are assumed to be gay. There may be something more to this, but the collection of insults, offers to buy condoms, and catcalls that come my way.

Lately I've come close to trying to give them some foundation for their presumptions, but stopped short of actually doing anything as I don't really want to beaten to a pulp by homophobe or a homosexual in denial, or even lose a friend (they all know me well enough that I tend to respond to such things in this way, but I still don't think they'd appreciate being snogged in public in front of a condom vendor).

But, damn it, gay men are even worse. When we any men that learn that unsolicitated bum pinching is sexual harrasment *empathises with women and then resigns to his effeminicity*

I'd also kill for the same type of attention from the opposite sex :mad:

Let's not forget the now ages-old term "fag hag" and its more recent counterpart, the "fag stag." Creating terms that have their roots in perjorative names for homosexuals to depict someone who spends time with a homosexual is distasteful in itself. The fact it's so insidious that even those who detest the expressions feel as though they're stuck with using them is downright appalling. The same thing that happened to men who spent time with each other just because seemingly got its roots there.
But . . . but, I like the phrase "fag hag", it is just so god-fucking-damn perfect. Two monosyballic rhyming words that are seperated only by their first letter (and the two letters are also close in both pronunciation, form and alphabetical order).
Everytime I say it, it's like an orgasm in my mouth, but with no gag reflex or cold sores to worry about afterward.

"Taking this labels thing a bit too far"

Oh for God's sake! I quite frankly couldn't give a rat's ass less bout either this absurd "man date" nonsense, or whether some intellectually distressed asswipe wants to think I'm gay. Frack 'em!

I hug and kiss my sons, I put my arm around my friends ( male or female ), I hang out with male friends at bars and clubs and etc. Anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my lilly-white, aged ass!

Who the hell still says World Wide Web...?

Bah1 I've been defying labels since I was born! There isn't a niche made yet that can hold me! :D

Bah1 I've been defying labels since I was born! There isn't a niche made yet that can hold me! :DDo you always defy labels? Wouldn't that make you label defier? *slots you into that neat category and puts a sticker on you saying 'label defier'*

Do you always defy labels? Wouldn't that make you label defier? *slots you into that neat category and puts a sticker on you saying 'label defier'*

Sometimes I'll let a label stick for a while. You know, to lull people into a false sense of security. :)

*lulls in his sense of security, happily unawares of the fiendish trickery of LG*

Sometimes I'll let a label stick for a while. You know, to lull people into a false sense of security. :)
You sly devil you! LOL!

You sly devil you! LOL!

Well, it's either that or have people coming around to kiss my lilly-white, aged ass all the time. :)

I concur most heartily with the primary post. This new labeling trend has to end. For good.

"Taking this labels thing a bit too far"

Oh for God's sake! I quite frankly couldn't give a rat's ass less bout either this absurd "man date" nonsense, or whether some intellectually distressed asswipe wants to think I'm gay. Frack 'em!

I hug and kiss my sons, I put my arm around my friends ( male or female ), I hang out with male friends at bars and clubs and etc. Anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my lilly-white, aged ass!I like the way you think about this issue. :D

"Intellectually distressed asswipe." I'm going to have to remember that line.

For some reason I can't seem to access that New York Times article.

By the looks of things, I am not missing much.

Simply defined a man date is two heterosexual men socializing without the crutch of business or sports.

Ha! Yeah OK, so a confession to your priest is a "man date?" How about two men talking - infantrymen, on patrol in some city in Iraq? Or are those activities not "socializing" according to the New York Times?

The events mentioned in the article sound to me like the male equivalent of 'girl friends'- the socially accepted term for two or more women who maintain a close friendship and go on regular outings together. I couldn't care less about what labels are attached to this- if a friend invites me to do something fun or interesting, I'll go along, be they male, female, or other.

Still, a knee-jerk reaction against 'labelling' in generally is hardly called for; if nothing was labeled, speech would be impossible, since every word is a label for an object or concept.

Ha! Yeah OK, so a confession to your priest is a "man date?" How about two men talking - infantrymen, on patrol in some city in Iraq? Or are those activities not "socializing" according to the New York Times?The two exceptions to the "man date" situation mentioned in the article were sports and business. I suppose "business" could mean a whole gamut of things.

Penntera, labels in and of themselves aren't necessarily a bad thing. Like you said, they are often necessary. But what I'm railing on against is the creation of additional labels to compartmentalise people and to exclude. To me, it carries an unspoken level of disrespect for the gay community, as if to say "I'm not gay... not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Regarding your example of women who go out with their "girl friends," it's long been more acceptable for two women to have the kind of close relationship that would put two men under a microscope and they don't have to add qualifiers like "woman date" or "girl crush." They don't even have to suffer strange looks from people if they talk about how hot another woman is!

Just another case of adding "man" to the beginning of any word to make it sound at least slightly homoerotic.

Methinks that a certain reporter had 1000 words to fill by the next day, so trotted out some shite that the NYT would eagerly lap up, obsessed as they are with labelling everything and everyone.
There's a definite obsession within parts of the media to homoerotise everything guys do. Which I think speaks more of the writers than of society.

Methinks that a certain reporter had 1000 words to fill by the next day, so trotted out some shite that the NYT would eagerly lap up, obsessed as they are with labelling everything and everyone.
There's a definite obsession within parts of the media to homoerotise everything guys do. Which I think speaks more of the writers than of society.
Unfortunately, there was too much reporting in that story for that to be the case. Then again, it does read like someone had a filler story to write.

It's disgusting.