Be A man or Die trying

[Awesomkia]

I'm a college student and an aspiring writer. Please critique this essay.

Society has created a double standard in which men are expected to do anything in order to be sexually active, even if it means defying nature. Men happily feed into this unjust standard because they are taught that the willingness to rise to any challenge is worth losing their lives if it means maintaining their manhood. The double standard doesn’t say that women aren’t supposed to have intercourse – that is another debate entirely on its own – but that men are supposed to have sex otherwise they aren’t men. This extends all the way from a teenage boy pressured to lose his virginity to a middle-aged man who struggles with erectile dysfunction. Regardless of the fact that someday all men stop having sexual urges, they must go against your bodily functions in order to be a man. This Viagra ad featured in last weeks’ Time magazine serves as a prime example of man’s obligation to risk his own health in defiance of nature’s law. This ad even does its reader a favor by displaying the entire vicious cycle of manhood on one page. First the ad addresses its target audience’s insecurities: aging, depression, and erectile dysfunction or ED for short. From there, the reader’s eye gravitates towards an inspirational image of one of man’s greatest defiant stances against nature, which is meant to symbolize the product being sold. Despite being inspired to accept the challenge, the reader is faced with the risks of using Viagra and is then given the ultimatum of choosing between maintaining their manhood or avoiding unnecessary health issues.
Most men feel that becoming old strips them of their manhood; marketers who advertise products such as Viagra attack aging men by exploiting these fears and insecurities. The connection between youth and manhood can be seen in cultures from all around the world where people have raised boys to become men who are vital, strong and able to rise up to any challenge presented to them. Unfortunately, it is also common for these young men to be totally ill equipped to deal with the reality of one day growing old. In this particular ad, the reader is faced with a depressing gray overtone that is intended to remind them of their aging. Also featured is a man who shows his age with his graying hair and slightly out dated outfit. The reader sees this man and immediately identifies with him and wonders if the man pictured suffers from the same problems. In bold white lettering and all caps is a slogan super imposed upon the image reading, “Deal with it. It’s what men do.” Upon seeing this ad, the reader feels a serious blow to his pride from the frightening similarities and desperately desires to change his circumstances. The Viagra ad has successfully struck the reader and his sense of manhood thus setting in motion the next step; trying to get around nature.
Despite ED being a natural biological step in male adulthood, men in most cultures have been taught that it is a sign of weakness and impotence. The people who stopped flipping pages and paid close attention this advertisement in particular are most likely individuals suffering from erectile dysfunction themselves. A man believes that he must fight this natural occurrence because the idea of losing the ability to perform sexually, the most basic of masculine abilities, would be like losing one’s manhood entirely. This way of thinking has already been engrained into a man’s mind from the time he was very young. The marketers who created the advertisement knew that they could exploit these thoughts and feelings held by a lot of men so that they could sell their product. In the ad, the man pictured is hunched over, not because he is old, but because he is working on an air plane. The advertisers want the reader to believe that their product will bestow upon them power over nature and their own body the same way a plane gives its pilot power over the sky.
It is apparent from the many advances in society that men have been trying to conquer nature and the limitations of their own bodies since the beginning of humanity. Also since the beginning of humanity men have risked their health and lives in the pursuit of control; it has always been a constant struggle. However, there are not very many instances throughout time where people were fully aware of the risks they were taking or what negative effects these risks could have on them. Usually people will go blindly into danger expecting things not to be as bad as they actually are. When danger is clearly present, the wise decision would probably be to avoid it. In the case of manhood, it is often customary to embrace danger wholeheartedly whether it is war, a fight, or a few pills. It is this nonsensical idea that men need to face extreme dangers that would cause someone to take a chance on something like Viagra. Readers are aware of the dangers because one third of the ad’s space is devoted to warning them about the perils of using this product. The marketers are unconcerned by this because they play on the stereotype that their audience is composed of bullheaded men who will ignore these warnings.
One could argue that men take risks and try to defy nature to fulfill their own vain desires. The counter argument for that statement would simply be that men are the products of their environment and that they are taught that their desires are what make them men. The use of dangerous medical products extend to women as well but the risk of long term health issues aren’t as common in female products as they are with Viagra. The advertisement tries to sell Viagra to aging men by telling them that this product will give them the control over nature that they so desperately desire, even if obtaining this power and preserving their manhood means dying of a heart attack in their 50’s.

[elreybon]

Overall the writing was good and I can see where your coming from, but it's a bit of a soapbox rant. You offer sweeping generalizations but no evidence to back them up and it ends up hurting your case.

"Society has created a double standard in which men are expected to do anything in order to be sexually active, even if it means defying nature." - Examples? Proof? You lead off with this statement and then offer no backup. Treating this statement as if it is self evident starts you off on a very weak foot. Also, it's kind of irked me that you used the term 'double standard' but then totally dismissed the other half of the standard.

"Regardless of the fact that someday all men stop having sexual urges, they must go against your bodily functions in order to be a man." - Tell that to my grandfather, who was gleefully sexually active up until he died. One could argue that men take drugs like viagra because they NEVER stop having sexual urges. Without strong evidence to the contrary this statement sounds ridiculous to any man who can't imagine not having sexual urges. (I looked up to see if I could find when men stop having sexual urges and couldn't find any reliable evidence of the stated 'fact'. Mostly I found "When they die".)

"Despite ED being a natural biological step in male adulthood," - I didn't know about this, I did a cursory google search and found no evidence of this being true.

I could go on but I think you get the idea.

After reading the essay twice what I was left with was "man, this guy really hates viagra ads." But without any evidence being offered to back up any of your points it just isn't convincing or informative. You tell your audience what to think and expect them to fall in line, this kind of writing is rarely effective.

I hope this is helpful!

[Diki]

I immediately found the lack of spacing between paragraphs jarring. Use two line breaks, not just one.

And I have to agree with elreybon that you're making claims, and sweeping generalisations, but providing no evidence to back it up. Your opening sentence even has me confused. What do you mean by "even if it means defying nature"? The only conclusion I can reach is that you're referring to men engaging in homosexual activities, which is both homophobic and sexist, or just grossly ignorant, because you're implying women are not sexually active and not gay, and that homosexuality does not exist it nature (it does).

Men happily feed into this unjust standard because they are taught that the willingness to rise to any challenge is worth losing their lives if it means maintaining their manhood.

To which double standard are you referring? You have not made it clear yet you keep referring to it.

This is also either you projecting your world view onto others, or you're making generalisations; I know several guys, young and old, that that sentence does not even remotely apply to. You're also again implying that what you're saying does not apply to women, when many women in history have died in the pursuit of challenges.

And to which challenges are you referring? Give examples.

This extends all the way from a teenage boy pressured to lose his virginity

Teenage girls have just as much, if not more, sexual pressure as boys.

Regardless of the fact that someday all men stop having sexual urges

Provide evidence. You cannot claim something as fact and exclude evidence.

This Viagra ad featured in last weeks’ Time magazine serves as a prime example of man’s obligation to risk his own health in defiance of nature’s law.

Why do you keep referring to nature this way? What point are you trying to make?

----

Honestly, that's as far as I read. Technically speaking it's written just fine, but you're talking out of your ass for the entirety of what I read. Did you even do any research whatsoever? Why do you think all men magically lose sexual desire as they age? What do you think "nature" means? Why do you hate viagra so much?

[nekros22]

I can't offer much from a technical standpoint other than to break up your writing into paragraphs to make the chore of reading it easier.

the double standard doesn’t say that women aren’t supposed to have intercourse – that is another debate entirely on its own –

If the argument/debate has nothing to do with the premise you've chosen to argue, is it worth wasting page space referring to it? Persuasive essays require focus and information. This rambles on with no evidence save an admittedly sexist Viagra advertisement. I would invest some time in your college's library. In this day and age, most of their selections of peer-reviewed articles and studies are likely online.

Diki

The only conclusion I can reach is that you're referring to men engaging in homosexual activities, which is both homophobic and sexist, or just grossly ignorant, because you're implying women are not sexually active and not gay, and that homosexuality does not exist it nature (it does).

I didn't draw that conclusion at all. I think it was obvious from the text he was referring to erectile dysfunction. Jumping to conclusions helps no one in critique.

[Diki]

At 12/3/13 08:51 AM, nekros22 wrote: I didn't draw that conclusion at all. I think it was obvious from the text he was referring to erectile dysfunction. Jumping to conclusions helps no one in critique.

At the part I quoted it is not obvious at all what the OP is talking about. The opening sentence of an essay should make clear what information is to follow; what general "idea" of the essay is. And explaining how something is interpreted for an individual is helpful in a critique. I was critiquing the essay as I read it, and at that point, the opening sentence, I had not the faintest clue what the subject matter was other than "be a man" (which is vague and cliché). It's also very common in homophobic circles to refer to homosexuality as "unnatural". Do I think the OP is homophobic? No. I think it should just be re-worded because it's currently, at least for me, conveying a message the OP did not intend. It is certainly possible I will be so far in the minority in that regard that the OP need not change anything, but he asked for a critique, so I gave him one.

Anyway, I agree that it later in the essay it becomes apparent the OP is talking about erectile dysfunction, for the most part, but when I read a sentence talking about men "defying nature" so that they can have sex I am certainly not going to think about a man taking Viagra. That's also a very insensitive thing to say: erectile dysfunction can easily cause depression (it's normal to want to have sex). That's the equivalent of saying a cancer patient going for chemotherapy is "defying nature" so that they don't die, or patients suffering schizophrenia are "defying nature" by taking medication to manage their episodes and delusions.

[nekros22]

It's also very common in homophobic circles to refer to homosexuality as "unnatural".

You are making an assumption based entirely on evidence absent in the piece. I agree with what you're saying, but there's simply no evidence of homophobia in the piece as I read it, and to go further, there's really no evidence in the piece at all.

It is certainly possible I will be so far in the minority in that regard that the OP need not change anything, but he asked for a critique, so I gave him one.

I think it's obvious in that we have all offered suggestions for the piece that we are all in agreement it needs revision, i.e. "change". You are not in a minority.

[Informis]

I died.

[Maltos]

I say being a man is being a gentleman and a good father.
Every day I am quick to listen and slow to anger
I treat others the way I want to be treated
I take care of my son as I watch him grow
I tell my wife that I love her every day

To more directly respond
there is nothing wrong in that department
but some day in the not so near future
I will be to old for sex
however I will still have the love of my wife and a son who can always count on me

That's what makes a man
not your dick or your lack of ability to use it at an old age

[Awesomkia]

Thanks for the feedback on my essay. I don't usually write this way but my English professor was a raving feminist so i thought to write from a perspective that she would enjoy. (males being victimized rather than women) I got an A on the paper so it worked. Next I'll post a science-fiction story.

[elreybon]

LOL on getting an A! As a theatre major, one semester I took "Acting and Shakespeare" and "Shakespeare and Literature". So two Shakespeare courses, one from a theatre perspective and one from a literary perspective. The two courses taught almost polar opposite views of Shakespeare's work, 'Shakespeare is only meant to be performed' vs 'Shakespeare is really meant to be read'. The way the work lined up, I wrote a single paper for each assignment and with minor edits (to change viewpoint) could turn it in to both classes. I ended up getting caught because I stumbled into an argument the two professors were having and they asked me for my opinion... I passed both classes but they started comparing my papers to make sure I wasn't turning in the same work for both classes.