[BJBBB]

This is an edge case. Marines in particular, and the military members in general, will form a special bond that can seldom be duplicated elsewhere. And that has been my experience.

I was among a group of six that met at the schoolhouse after boot camp. We did not get sent to the same units, but we were all PCS'd to the same base. Two of us (not myself) made a career of the corps, and the others went to school after separation to get various STEM degrees; all four of us attended two schools within 60 km.

After graduation, our physical distance slowly increased with each new job, but we never stopped talking to each other and typically met in person one to five times per year. The singular spouse that accepted our special friendships and our strong sense of mutual loyalty to each other, is the marriage that endured over the last 35 years.

My wife is very special to me. She is the center of my immediate world. But these, now five, friends would have been there to pick me up if my wife had ever kicked me to the curb.

Epilogue. The five of us are now, at least, semi-retired. The other four are now single. Three of them are building another house on my property in which to live out the remainder of their time. They have accepted my wife is the sixth member and as a 'principle'. Our only recurring issue is which of the six will have to die alone.

[0xr0kk3r]

"seldom duplicated elsewhere"

I hear this same sentiment from marines, cops, fireman, and fraternity members. I also hear it from Masons, Elks, Shriners, etc.

I don't understand why men have to think they've "discovered" something about lifelong bonds that is exclusive to just men's clubs. My guess is that men are taught not to have strong emotional bonds with anyone but their mothers or wives, and then think it is something magical when they are allowed to have these feelings under the guise of life-threatening situations, or secular drinking clubs.

[toomuchtodo]

Men haven't rediscovered it, they're simply enumerating that deep bonds are forged in shared struggle and suffering [1]. There is no Disney ending, and life is not a fairytale. Life is about shit getting real and hoping the people you need are within arm's reach. Maybe that's friends, maybe that's a partner, maybe that's both. It does not just happen, it has to be cultivated intentionally.

@BJBBB: Solid plan.

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761454588...

[bumby]

One of the things that distinguishes the first three groups in your set is shared hardship. Many in the military (and elsewhere) think this is a necessary component to form those kinds of tight bonds. So it's not that they are "allowed" to have these feeling under life-threatening situations, it's that dire circumstances foster those feelings.

[SoftTalker]

Fraternity hazing is (was) supposed to create those bonds, but it's been drastically curtailed at most universities, and I'm not sure how well it ever worked (was never in a fraternity). In many cases it was just "here drink all this liquor and if it doesn't kill you, we'll initiate you"

[bumby]

There’s hazing in the military too. But rites if passage is different than what I’m talking about. Hazing in particular isn’t shared suffering, because it’s one person or group doing it to another while not going through it at the same time. I wonder if there may also be an aspect of suffering needing to be coupled with purpose.

[hxugufjfjf]

Its shared, just not simultaneously. Its more a shared experience of «we all went through this suffering earlier»

[bumby]

Understood, and that's what I was pointing to with the slightly different idea of a rite of passage. But I think there's an important distinction that impacts the bonds that are formed. For example, all Marines went through the roughly equivalent rite of passage of boot camp. Given that, a Marine who served in Iraq may still feel some camaraderie when meeting a WW2 Marine, but probably not to the same level as another veteran from Iraq because the bond from the latter has closer, shared experience. And when it comes to someone who served in the same unit, the bond will likely be greater still. I think there's an aspect of psychological distance that is relevant to the bond.

[skipants]

I think you're just over-analyzing the words a bit. When I hear someone say "seldom duplicated elsewhere" I don't think they're convinced it's unique all throughout the world. They know there are millions of other soldiers out there who make similar bonds. They just mean seldom duplicated with other people within their own lives.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > I don't understand why men have to think they've "discovered" something about lifelong bonds that is exclusive to just men's club

It's special because you risk your life together. You kill the enemy together while it's conspiring to kill you and your friends, but you manage to outsmart them and get to live.

Also Nature, when Nature comes at you and you find a way to dominate and resist the elements and ride it out, so that you make it home.

Men are not made to bob their heads in a club, they are made for "close call" type of scenarios and situations, if it doesn't come down to a close call with very high stakes on the line then it's kinda boring and pedestrian which is the prelude to depression and feelings of worthlessness

[nkingsy]

Going out to talk to random strangers and dance triggers that “close call” juice too. The problem is the restrained head bobbing.

I’d take it over all my adrenaline-junkie hobbies. Something pure about the charged verbal joust. Once I get a little taste of that sweet sweet validation (usually imagined), I just keep building myself up until I decide that I’ve taken over the club (as a poorly dressed middle aged sober married man who doesn’t touch anyone or take any numbers), then I move on to a new challenge and feel the party energy die as I leave and just laugh at the poor thirsty masses I leave behind.

[ISL]

For each person, finding those bonds is a remarkable and life-changing event.

[WorldMaker]

Yeah, for a lot of people finding good friends is always a life-changing event no matter the outer circumstances surrounding that bonding.

The interesting part of the discussion though is how often those bonds are misattributed to causation from the concomitant circumstances (violence, special secretive clubs) as opposed to correlation and just raw, "boring" proximity. The general loss of consistent "third places" to encourage proximity among potential friends somewhat makes it seem even more "causitive" that people (especially those socialized under today's idea of masculinity) misattribute the wonder of forming a new friend bond to "requiring" ugly circumstances such as shared violence or special secretive clubs, rather than just being a healthy and natural outcome of social proximity (and emotional "closeness") among our aggressively social species that doesn't need to be forced through pain or sweat or hazing or forced philanthropy or secret handshakes.

[friend_and_foe]

Nope, it's got nothing to do with being discouraged and everything to do with culture and identity. The problem is that men don't bond over nothing. Sitting around watching TV, drinking beer or whatever are nice, you can make good friends just because you share a hobby or whatever.

Our ancestors went out into the world together and killed animals. They taught each other's sons how to fight. Our social organization is ingrained, we evolved this way. Men need more than just physical proximity and shared interests to form the deepest of bonds, we need a shared identity built around a core way of life, we need a tribe.

[0xr0kk3r]

Hm. I'm man. I don't need to kill, fight, or some paleolithic tribe narrative to forge deep lifelong bonds.

I just tell the men in my life that I care about that I love them and will be there for them if they ever need me, and then follow up on that promise. That's all it takes to forge a bond. None of this Rambo death fantasy that 90% of the replies to my post keep blathering on about.

I'm curious. Are you a man? If so, Have you ever told a male friend that you loved them, without needing the excuse of shared extreme duress? (And not that apey thing that bros do when they hug-slap each other vigorously and say "luv yuh brah" because actually saying the words clearly and not smothering it with mild physical violence is just too scary?)

[friend_and_foe]

Yes and yes. But it's not the same, you've never experienced the strongest of bonds between men.

It's not about killing, it's not about paleolithic shit, it's not about apey dudebro stuff. You don't understand it, what you're doing when you discount it is the same thing your caricature of these men do when they want to avoid emotional situations. You're dismissing, youre cringing, you're making light of it so you don't get seen behaving that way. No different than a "tough guy" pretending he doesn't love his wife or whatever. You're closing a part of yourself off same as them and pretending it doesnt exist same as them and you are missing out on something so overwhelmingly engrossing that is at the core of being a human.

You'll note, in the comment of mine you responded to, I never said anything about extreme duress.

[red_admiral]

This used to be much more common, for men too. You don't have to go too far back in history to find a time when intense male friendships were not at all unusual, complete with holding hands and writing love letters to each other.

Of course, some of these were gay relationships, hiding in plain sight pretending to be socially acceptable non-sexual intense male friendships. But gays wouldn't have been able to hide that way if the concept of a socially acceptable intense male friendship hadn't existed in the first place!

Maybe the Marines and the like are the few holdouts in modern society where this really positive part of pre-modern masculinity is still alive and well.

[stcroixx]

Is it really positive in today's context though? When OP said only one spouse out of this whole group accepted these special friendships, I'm guessing that the time spent maintaining these kinds of friendships is getting in the way of marriages. If hardly any women will stay married to a guy with friendships like this, that's kind of a problem if he wants to be married.

[bumby]

Given the benefits of cultivating social circles and the risk we see in those who don't have a good social circle as they age, it's probably positive.* The "getting in the way of marriages" may be true, but only in the context of how we've changed our definition of what a marriage should be. One argument is that it's a relatively new phenomenon that we look to our marital partner to be the end-all-be-all of our social circle. There is a modern expectation that our partner is our best friend, confidant, partner in raising children, sexual companion, and everything else under the social sun. I'm not sure that's entirely healthy, especially when a marriage fails.

* side note: I don't think most of the veteran suicide that we see is how we tend to mentally internalize it as a troubled veteran returning from a fresh deployment. The average age is close to 60, meaning these are veterans who have been out for awhile. I suspect the lack of social community, particularly as they age and no longer have the typical social aspects like work to define a social circle, may be part of the issue.

[pfannkuchen]

I have read that physical affection in male friendships is paradoxically more accepted in societies where homosexuality is punished by death, simply because no one is worried they might seriously be signaling or receiving sexual interest when expressing affection towards other men.

[willio58]

Externally, it seems this bond could be explained by:

1. Everyone is together, away from distractions, and unable to leave easily for months on end

2. You are working toward shared goals

3. You are friendly toward each other

It's a recipe for a strong bond. Another example of this is famous bands. They're constantly traveling for work, together, trying to write more music and become more famous as they go.

[SoftTalker]

I think it's more than that, it's the extreme psychological and physical challenge of going through boot camp together. I have not gone through it but understand it to be beyond anything a "normal" person ever experiences. This bonds people in a way that's closer than ordinary friendship or in many cases closer than even biological brotherhood.

[bumby]

>You are friendly toward each other

Many civilians are aghast when they see how Marines act toward one another. The constant shit-talking and physical fighting probably wouldn't be described as "friendly" but definitely "brotherly"

[KineticLensman]

The way I've heard it described in the British Army is "We will laugh if you fall down but we will help you up"

[maerF0x0]

I'd extend the shared goals bit to include difficulty. Physically challenging, life risking, risk of failure etc... I've seen far too many "team bonding" setups fit all 3 of your criteria, but fail dismally to result in bonding.

[bumby]

Out of curiosity, what's the context of those team bonding exercises?

I'm curious if the failure is due to short duration and knowing you can revert back to your normal mode in a few days. Humans are creatures of habit, after all, and I don't think what I see in most corporate team-bonding exercises is enough to overcome that in most people.

[maerF0x0]

> unable to leave easily for months on end

Ah yeah, i think i missed this on first pass. Yes they were typically < 1 week.

[vorpalhex]

> Our only recurring issue is which of the six will have to die alone.

Hire someone.

I'm not kidding. Hire someone as a nurse/caretaker/doula now, integrate them into the group, and then you've solved your remainder problem. You can use a trust to pay them out on the death of the last member of the group.

Think of it like anti-loneliness insurance. Even if you're the last one standing, you'll have someone to chat with and play cards with who you've known for years.

[noizejoy]

> Hire someone.

There's no guarantee that the such hired individual will outlive the last of the original six - or that their life priorities won't change.

[vorpalhex]

No but usually people in their eg 40s outlive people in their 60s.

Life is risk.