Right before COVID I stumbled across mens groups, they were a way I first learned I could get my underlying needs for getting seen met in a way no other mechanism in society offered.

Society was trying actually to meet this need in so many other pseudo forms, but where it fell short and what I needed was:

- a safe space to share what my experience without needing to be fixed or someone giving me unsolicited feedback

- place where competition was turned off (sports groups, board game nights, video games etc had previously been this but since they were competitive they met a different need)

- a cadence that met regularly and where space for me to speak with structure was a requirement

I liked this so much I even formed one in DC before I was pushed away for work to an abusive Dallas Capital One environment (which my men helped me navigate while my coworkers accepted the abuse being blind to it). I Highly recommend trying a mens groups, find one on Facebook or Google, or try the project mankind groups or No Mr Nice Guy’s Dr Glover runs one online. The one I was a part of longest is also open: embodied masculine (more extreme embodiment based group) but starting off get your toes wet first.

▲

TFNA 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am wary of meeting with more than about 2-3 men at a time, because men in larger groups tend to socialize through banter, toilet humor, or talking about fucking women (which I like to do sometimes but don't want to talk about); just lame topics I'd like to avoid completely. Also, even without competition, a pecking order gets established.

So, men's groups don't solve the problem of the lack of healthy regular socializing with 2-3 good friends, which for men in many countries has fallen off a cliff since the smartphone and Covid.

	▲	mannanj 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I find men's groups with more structure do help with those problems you described. I wouldn't be so early to dismiss and suggest considering it with an open mind. At least for me and many others I Know, men's groups with a clear order of gather to discuss, and require and ask for consent before giving advice, with that recurring meeting being the main source of socialization; do not have as much of a pecking order nor lame topics. They have more authenticity and connection with the pretense being around connection and acceptance without performance. If you want regular socializing with 2-3 good friends though, I think the friends made from a men's group would be closer to what you are seeking than from a random hobby-based group. edit: in re to "even without competition a pecking order gets established" my experience has shown this to be oversimplifying it. The "pecking order" in a mens group is way different from a different group. the pecking order in men's groups with a structur-based leader, is that the leader gets the "alpha" status if there was one and if they are a good leader they aren't there to abuse that privilege. But since they should be providing it professionally (paid service) it isn't mixed with friendship as much. At least the "pecking order" there is oriented around serving you rather than random socialization without that purpose.

▲

16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Taikonerd 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I really like this answer. I wish there were a men's group near me.

▲

jmcqk6 15 hours ago | parent [-]

It's likely there is, though it might be difficult to find. One place you can look is the local unitarian universalists. These can vary widely, but often you'll find them open to all religions (including non-religious), and full of open, curious, non-judgemental people.

One thing about UU's is that it's not dogma based. There's nothing you have to believe to be a UU. Instead, it's covenant based. You are in the community when you adhere to the agreements of the community. These are usually things like mutual respect, deep listening, etc.

	▲	mannanj 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mirror this. Also, if online is acceptable, I recommend the options I listed in my OP.