I am not interested in football, neither the American distortion of rugby nor soccer. Unsurprisingly, this can leave one ostracised from many conversations in the workplace and other modern, bourgeois scenarios. Is it because these sports are just too masculine and rough? On the contrary, it is because they are too feminine!
Things only get worse when I explain that I enjoy more masculine, dangerous (not necessarily violent) sports. The very worst reaction comes when I declare it feminine to not be engaged in such sports personally. After a brief, heated discussion, I am usually on the receiving end of the same, silent, frustrated scramble for a good answer. You can forget about mentioning my thoughts on porn – it is hardly alpha male behaviour to masturbate whilst watching another, better-endowed man plough nubile nymphs. This is no digression, mind you; there is something more masculine to being involved in the action, whether conquering foes or fair maidens.
But, can I really prove it?
After all, I might dislike football because I am not particularly good at it and, conversely, like wrestling because I was. Perhaps I had the bias and the others were right – aside from all the padding and effeminate diving about with feigned injuries, perhaps watching a match of some bourgeois, team sport was just as masculine as becoming the Ultimate Fighting Champion.
What are the fundamental differences between the aristocratic sports of old, which focus much more on the individual man, and the spectator sports of today, which focus more on some team, seemingly devised to maximise profitability from said spectators?
Where the traditional aristocrat sought, for example, the adventure of mountaineering, the bien pensants bourgeoisie thinks, ‘Why on earth would you be so reckless? You could get hurt!’ The same attitudes apply to …