[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.