The Persuaders

[Pahonu]

This comment does not have to do with the Persuaders, but with The Saint. Was watching an episode from season 5, The Man Who Liked Lions. Basically, about a guy (Tiberio Magadino) who was hung up on ancient Rome. But something Tiberio (played by Peter Wyngarde) said could be said today.





But, it's not like Rome wasn't also sick and decadent.

Now, back to The Persuaders.

The quote from the series about REAL men in Roman culture seems overly simplistic and based on later perspectives more than on the record of Roman society itself. Sexual attitudes and behaviors in ancient Roman were incredibly different from those of the last century or so. Prostitution was legal, public, and quite widespread. Paintings that would be described as pornographic today were often featured among the art collections in respectable upperclass households.

It was also considered natural and not at all unusual for men to be sexually attracted to teen-aged youths of both sexes. The terms "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" were not the opposite poles on the spectrum of Roman thinking about sexuality. In fact, there are no Latin words for these concepts.

There was no moral judgement made of the man who enjoyed sex acts with either women or men as long as they were of lower social status. While the perception of effeminacy was often denounced, sex with male prostitutes or slaves was not regarded as improper or even a sign of lack of masculinity.

Later Christian writers denounced all these concepts and behaviors as immoral, particularly that the Romans had more fluid gender boundaries than even the ancient Greeks. Our current Western society still seems to reflect this bias in analysis of Greek and a Roman culture. It’s a very interesting and incredibly complex topic.

As a history professor and social studies teacher, I find the clash between the United States founding as a democratic republic inspired by the societies of ancient Athens and Rome, with the Judeo-Christian world view held by many American citizens today, to be utterly fascinating.

I was basically referring to the feminization of the males today. Toxic masculinity is a term that is thrown about. From what I understand, women nowadays, are staying single because there are no real men out there. They are all 'momma's boys'. I was just showing that a quote from a show from the 60's could still be relevant today.

I did enjoy your insight, however.

I understand your point. It’s just the history professor in me that has to call out inaccurate historical references. Still, I’m not so sure that women staying single now is about no real men being out there. Women have far more opportunities today to make such relationship decisions because they’re not as economically dependent as in past generations. Some men seem to struggle today with the idea that a woman doesn’t need their help in any meaningful way. That’s a HUGE change.

Even my own mother, who was an elementary school teacher in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, couldn’t have easily made her way alone. Banks wouldn’t loan to woman for cars or homes, and credit cards were also off limits. My wife is also an educator and we have a very equitable relationship in that way. Yet I have had colleagues and other friends question the balance in our relationship as if it is somehow wrong. I think it may feel threatening to their view of masculinity. To be honest, I often use the fact that I am 6-8 tall and a former NCAA athlete to question them about their own insecurities about their role as a male in their relationship. Perhaps that’s a bit harsh, but I think there’s real value in women’s opportunities today to make decisions without a male partner.

And when they decide to have a kid without the man, it doesn't take long for them to go after the guy for child support. Heck, there are even some who have gone after the 'donors' from the clinic.

I remember this was on a magazine cover from the 80's or 90's.



I saw this the other day and I think it kind of sums up what, I believe, is going on today. Tim Pool video.

https://youtu.be/Z2rnrOJicRA?t=2741


When I had a bout with maybe The Vid a few months back, I lost taste also. I didn't even realize it at the time. I thought I had just bought some bad groceries. But, when I had trouble swallowing, losing taste was no big deal.

I have no confidence in Pool or the other podcasters who disregard the “old media” or “legacy media” as they call it, I believe. They dismiss decades of journalistic practice with definitive standards and practices as unreliable, while doing little if any due diligence of their own. I honestly cannot comprehend how individuals will disregard information reported on by multiple media outlets and multiple journalists that are corroborative, and then believe something posted on some random person’s blog with absolutely no substantiation.

It happens all too often, tragically, and many podcasters prey on people financially in this way… like Andrew Tate.

[Chris109]

The quote from the series about REAL men in Roman culture seems overly simplistic and based on later perspectives more than on the record of Roman society itself. Sexual attitudes and behaviors in ancient Roman were incredibly different from those of the last century or so. Prostitution was legal, public, and quite widespread. Paintings that would be described as pornographic today were often featured among the art collections in respectable upperclass households.

It was also considered natural and not at all unusual for men to be sexually attracted to teen-aged youths of both sexes. The terms "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" were not the opposite poles on the spectrum of Roman thinking about sexuality. In fact, there are no Latin words for these concepts.

There was no moral judgement made of the man who enjoyed sex acts with either women or men as long as they were of lower social status. While the perception of effeminacy was often denounced, sex with male prostitutes or slaves was not regarded as improper or even a sign of lack of masculinity.

Later Christian writers denounced all these concepts and behaviors as immoral, particularly that the Romans had more fluid gender boundaries than even the ancient Greeks. Our current Western society still seems to reflect this bias in analysis of Greek and a Roman culture. It’s a very interesting and incredibly complex topic.

As a history professor and social studies teacher, I find the clash between the United States founding as a democratic republic inspired by the societies of ancient Athens and Rome, with the Judeo-Christian world view held by many American citizens today, to be utterly fascinating.

I was basically referring to the feminization of the males today. Toxic masculinity is a term that is thrown about. From what I understand, women nowadays, are staying single because there are no real men out there. They are all 'momma's boys'. I was just showing that a quote from a show from the 60's could still be relevant today.

I did enjoy your insight, however.

I understand your point. It’s just the history professor in me that has to call out inaccurate historical references. Still, I’m not so sure that women staying single now is about no real men being out there. Women have far more opportunities today to make such relationship decisions because they’re not as economically dependent as in past generations. Some men seem to struggle today with the idea that a woman doesn’t need their help in any meaningful way. That’s a HUGE change.

Even my own mother, who was an elementary school teacher in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, couldn’t have easily made her way alone. Banks wouldn’t loan to woman for cars or homes, and credit cards were also off limits. My wife is also an educator and we have a very equitable relationship in that way. Yet I have had colleagues and other friends question the balance in our relationship as if it is somehow wrong. I think it may feel threatening to their view of masculinity. To be honest, I often use the fact that I am 6-8 tall and a former NCAA athlete to question them about their own insecurities about their role as a male in their relationship. Perhaps that’s a bit harsh, but I think there’s real value in women’s opportunities today to make decisions without a male partner.

And when they decide to have a kid without the man, it doesn't take long for them to go after the guy for child support. Heck, there are even some who have gone after the 'donors' from the clinic.

I remember this was on a magazine cover from the 80's or 90's.



I saw this the other day and I think it kind of sums up what, I believe, is going on today. Tim Pool video.

https://youtu.be/Z2rnrOJicRA?t=2741


When I had a bout with maybe The Vid a few months back, I lost taste also. I didn't even realize it at the time. I thought I had just bought some bad groceries. But, when I had trouble swallowing, losing taste was no big deal.

I have no confidence in Pool or the other podcasters who disregard the “old media” or “legacy media” as they call it, I believe. They dismiss decades of journalistic practice with definitive standards and practices as unreliable, while doing little if any due diligence of their own. I honestly cannot comprehend how individuals will disregard information reported on by multiple media outlets and multiple journalists that are corroborative, and then believe something posted on some random person’s blog with absolutely no substantiation.

It happens all too often, tragically, and many podcasters prey on people financially in this way… like Andrew Tate.

So I am assuming you didn't watch that segment. Aren't you doing the exact thing that you accuse them of? Dismissing?

“Our job is to control what people think”---Mika Brzezinski

[Pahonu]

I was basically referring to the feminization of the males today. Toxic masculinity is a term that is thrown about. From what I understand, women nowadays, are staying single because there are no real men out there. They are all 'momma's boys'. I was just showing that a quote from a show from the 60's could still be relevant today.

I did enjoy your insight, however.

I understand your point. It’s just the history professor in me that has to call out inaccurate historical references. Still, I’m not so sure that women staying single now is about no real men being out there. Women have far more opportunities today to make such relationship decisions because they’re not as economically dependent as in past generations. Some men seem to struggle today with the idea that a woman doesn’t need their help in any meaningful way. That’s a HUGE change.

Even my own mother, who was an elementary school teacher in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, couldn’t have easily made her way alone. Banks wouldn’t loan to woman for cars or homes, and credit cards were also off limits. My wife is also an educator and we have a very equitable relationship in that way. Yet I have had colleagues and other friends question the balance in our relationship as if it is somehow wrong. I think it may feel threatening to their view of masculinity. To be honest, I often use the fact that I am 6-8 tall and a former NCAA athlete to question them about their own insecurities about their role as a male in their relationship. Perhaps that’s a bit harsh, but I think there’s real value in women’s opportunities today to make decisions without a male partner.

And when they decide to have a kid without the man, it doesn't take long for them to go after the guy for child support. Heck, there are even some who have gone after the 'donors' from the clinic.

I remember this was on a magazine cover from the 80's or 90's.



I saw this the other day and I think it kind of sums up what, I believe, is going on today. Tim Pool video.

https://youtu.be/Z2rnrOJicRA?t=2741


When I had a bout with maybe The Vid a few months back, I lost taste also. I didn't even realize it at the time. I thought I had just bought some bad groceries. But, when I had trouble swallowing, losing taste was no big deal.

I have no confidence in Pool or the other podcasters who disregard the “old media” or “legacy media” as they call it, I believe. They dismiss decades of journalistic practice with definitive standards and practices as unreliable, while doing little if any due diligence of their own. I honestly cannot comprehend how individuals will disregard information reported on by multiple media outlets and multiple journalists that are corroborative, and then believe something posted on some random person’s blog with absolutely no substantiation.

It happens all too often, tragically, and many podcasters prey on people financially in this way… like Andrew Tate.

So I am assuming you didn't watch that segment. Aren't you doing the exact thing that you accuse them of? Dismissing?

“Our job is to control what people think”---Mika Brzezinski

I didn’t watch all 2 hours and 15 minutes of that video, if that’s what you are asking. I only watched a few minutes from the point you posted. I have, however, also read previous comments by Pool and others who, as I said, repeatedly dismiss legacy media, or whatever they choose to call it. I’m familiar with this type of commentary.

My point remains that Pool and others have repeatedly dismissed multiple media sources with corroborating accounts of events. I’m not referring only to the comments in this video. Why I’m dismissing it as you state, and I am indeed dismissing this type of commentary, NOT the event itself, is because it focuses on outlying circumstances. The very reason Pool is pointing out these events on the subway is because they are unusual. That’s why they’re newsworthy. If they were the norm and happened frequently how newsworthy would that be? The mistake is in assuming these outlying events are the norm.

It’s the basis of the scientific method and logic. Repeated corroborating evidence establishes credibility as compared to the outlying data point. Again, too many seem to focus on the exception rather than the rule, so to speak. Perhaps, a good example is the old saying that it’s certainly possible to find examples of man biting dog, but isn’t dog biting man the most likely scenario?

[Chris109]

I understand your point. It’s just the history professor in me that has to call out inaccurate historical references. Still, I’m not so sure that women staying single now is about no real men being out there. Women have far more opportunities today to make such relationship decisions because they’re not as economically dependent as in past generations. Some men seem to struggle today with the idea that a woman doesn’t need their help in any meaningful way. That’s a HUGE change.

Even my own mother, who was an elementary school teacher in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, couldn’t have easily made her way alone. Banks wouldn’t loan to woman for cars or homes, and credit cards were also off limits. My wife is also an educator and we have a very equitable relationship in that way. Yet I have had colleagues and other friends question the balance in our relationship as if it is somehow wrong. I think it may feel threatening to their view of masculinity. To be honest, I often use the fact that I am 6-8 tall and a former NCAA athlete to question them about their own insecurities about their role as a male in their relationship. Perhaps that’s a bit harsh, but I think there’s real value in women’s opportunities today to make decisions without a male partner.

And when they decide to have a kid without the man, it doesn't take long for them to go after the guy for child support. Heck, there are even some who have gone after the 'donors' from the clinic.

I remember this was on a magazine cover from the 80's or 90's.



I saw this the other day and I think it kind of sums up what, I believe, is going on today. Tim Pool video.

https://youtu.be/Z2rnrOJicRA?t=2741


When I had a bout with maybe The Vid a few months back, I lost taste also. I didn't even realize it at the time. I thought I had just bought some bad groceries. But, when I had trouble swallowing, losing taste was no big deal.

I have no confidence in Pool or the other podcasters who disregard the “old media” or “legacy media” as they call it, I believe. They dismiss decades of journalistic practice with definitive standards and practices as unreliable, while doing little if any due diligence of their own. I honestly cannot comprehend how individuals will disregard information reported on by multiple media outlets and multiple journalists that are corroborative, and then believe something posted on some random person’s blog with absolutely no substantiation.

It happens all too often, tragically, and many podcasters prey on people financially in this way… like Andrew Tate.

So I am assuming you didn't watch that segment. Aren't you doing the exact thing that you accuse them of? Dismissing?

“Our job is to control what people think”---Mika Brzezinski

I didn’t watch all 2 hours and 15 minutes of that video, if that’s what you are asking. I only watched a few minutes from the point you posted. I have, however, also read previous comments by Pool and others who, as I said, repeatedly dismiss legacy media, or whatever they choose to call it. I’m familiar with this type of commentary.

My point remains that Pool and others have repeatedly dismissed multiple media sources with corroborating accounts of events. I’m not referring only to the comments in this video. Why I’m dismissing it as you state, and I am indeed dismissing this type of commentary, NOT the event itself, is because it focuses on outlying circumstances. The very reason Pool is pointing out these events on the subway is because they are unusual. That’s why they’re newsworthy. If they were the norm and happened frequently how newsworthy would that be? The mistake is in assuming these outlying events are the norm.

It’s the basis of the scientific method and logic. Repeated corroborating evidence establishes credibility as compared to the outlying data point. Again, too many seem to focus on the exception rather than the rule, so to speak. Perhaps, a good example is the old saying that it’s certainly possible to find examples of man biting dog, but isn’t dog biting man the most likely scenario?

Depends on what group you hang out with.




As an aside, if you have a Roku, there is a channel out there called True History. I believe they are having all Roman history this weekend. I can't find a decent schedule for the channel and only saw it in passing. They have some interesting shows on that channel.



Now, back to the Persuaders...

[Pahonu]

And when they decide to have a kid without the man, it doesn't take long for them to go after the guy for child support. Heck, there are even some who have gone after the 'donors' from the clinic.

I remember this was on a magazine cover from the 80's or 90's.



I saw this the other day and I think it kind of sums up what, I believe, is going on today. Tim Pool video.

https://youtu.be/Z2rnrOJicRA?t=2741


When I had a bout with maybe The Vid a few months back, I lost taste also. I didn't even realize it at the time. I thought I had just bought some bad groceries. But, when I had trouble swallowing, losing taste was no big deal.

I have no confidence in Pool or the other podcasters who disregard the “old media” or “legacy media” as they call it, I believe. They dismiss decades of journalistic practice with definitive standards and practices as unreliable, while doing little if any due diligence of their own. I honestly cannot comprehend how individuals will disregard information reported on by multiple media outlets and multiple journalists that are corroborative, and then believe something posted on some random person’s blog with absolutely no substantiation.

It happens all too often, tragically, and many podcasters prey on people financially in this way… like Andrew Tate.

So I am assuming you didn't watch that segment. Aren't you doing the exact thing that you accuse them of? Dismissing?

“Our job is to control what people think”---Mika Brzezinski

I didn’t watch all 2 hours and 15 minutes of that video, if that’s what you are asking. I only watched a few minutes from the point you posted. I have, however, also read previous comments by Pool and others who, as I said, repeatedly dismiss legacy media, or whatever they choose to call it. I’m familiar with this type of commentary.

My point remains that Pool and others have repeatedly dismissed multiple media sources with corroborating accounts of events. I’m not referring only to the comments in this video. Why I’m dismissing it as you state, and I am indeed dismissing this type of commentary, NOT the event itself, is because it focuses on outlying circumstances. The very reason Pool is pointing out these events on the subway is because they are unusual. That’s why they’re newsworthy. If they were the norm and happened frequently how newsworthy would that be? The mistake is in assuming these outlying events are the norm.

It’s the basis of the scientific method and logic. Repeated corroborating evidence establishes credibility as compared to the outlying data point. Again, too many seem to focus on the exception rather than the rule, so to speak. Perhaps, a good example is the old saying that it’s certainly possible to find examples of man biting dog, but isn’t dog biting man the most likely scenario?

Depends on what group you hang out with.




As an aside, if you have a Roku, there is a channel out there called True History. I believe they are having all Roman history this weekend. I can't find a decent schedule for the channel and only saw it in passing. They have some interesting shows on that channel.



Now, back to the Persuaders...

I don’t hang out with them and I’m guessing that you don’t either, but it proves my point. That’s not common behavior in society. Clearly it exists, but claiming that society has collapsed because such unusual behavior occurs, as people often do, is not accurate.

I do have Roku and it’s funny that you brought this up. On the recommendation of someone in my wife’s extended family, I started watching a show called something like True History of Christian America, or the like. I was intrigued as I know that particular family member to be quite passionately religious. My wife encouraged me to ignore it, but as a history professor and social studies teacher I was intrigued. Perhaps I should have listened to her for the sake of family peace, but I watched and then pointed out multiple errors in the first 5-10 minutes of the show when this family member inquired recently. They didn’t believe me or any of the evidence I provided of course, but that’s fine. I think they were disappointed that I didn’t see the “truth” but they have more than once promised to pray for my soul. I’ve never watched anything else on the channel.