# Why does chivalry get a bad rep?



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

So I had this debate recently amongst a group of friends. We were talking about the concept of chivalry. Now I am raised in a very pro chivalry environment. I went to a very traditional school where as primary school kids we were subject to 'etiquette class'. 

My male friends seemed to believe that men who behave chivalrously do so because they think it'll get them laid. However, I find that offensive. I'm not stupid enough to believe holding a door for a lady will get me laid. But I'll still open doors, walk on the traffic side of the pavement, give up my jacket in the cold. It's how I was raised. Also, if you want to get laid, kissing the objet d'amour strikes me as a better tactic than being polite in subtle hope? *Plus, chivalry is not merely a code that governs behaviour between men and women, it also covers conduct between men. E.g. Taking a stand against bullies etc.* 

So my question is this, why is chivalry so mocked or derided thesedays, and why is it assumed by (in my personal, anecdotal experience) men that you have some agenda for being polite? I thought "manners maketh man"?


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Paradox1987 said:


> My male friends seemed to believe that men who behave chivalrously do so because they think it'll get them laid. However, I find that offensive. I'm not stupid enough to believe holding a door for a lady will get me laid.


I've found, actually, from experience that this can actually get you cursed out.

:-/


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Kinda like this, @Master Mind?


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

kaleidoscope said:


> Kinda like this, @_Master Mind_?


Yes, yes, something like that. :-|

She was like, "You don't think I can open my own door?"



I was like, _*WTF?* No, I'm not saying that at all!_ And the thing is that I hold the door open for *anyone* who happens to be behind me if I'm entering a building, whether they're male or female. If I already have the door open, and I seen someone's behind me, then what's the point in letting the door close on them when I can simply hold it open a few seconds more so they can enter as well? But she took it like I was insulting her. :dry:

The thought ran through my mind that I should have just let the door shut in her face.

Meh.


----------



## Kore (Aug 10, 2012)

Master Mind said:


> Yes, yes, something like that. :-|
> 
> She was like, "You don't think I can open my own door?"
> 
> ...


Is it such a bad thing that I would laugh so hard at seeing you shut the door in her face? :laughing:

I would cover my mouth, so that makes it better, I think.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Master Mind said:


> Yes, yes, something like that. :-|
> 
> She was like, "You don't think I can open my own door?"
> 
> ...


Indeed, I believe it rude to let a door swing shut on someone. I don't get why this offends people?


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

airotciV said:


> Master Mind said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, yes, something like that. :-|
> ...


It was one of the rare occasions in which I had an impulse to act rudely to a woman.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

In the sense of formal etiquette, chivalry is dead and I'm glad it is. A woman isn't a frail dainty thing, they're just as capable as men of taking care of themselves. I hold the door open for anyone walking behind me since it's polite and just something we do where I'm from, but I'm not laying my jacket over any puddles to protect someone's shoes.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Makes you look like a try hard.

Indoctrinate in childhood or not.

I don't care however, I find it amusing.


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

Master Mind said:


> Yes, yes, something like that. :-|
> 
> She was like, "You don't think I can open my own door?"
> 
> ...


And I bet if you hadn't held it open you'd have gotten rude looks from people regarding you as a selfish asshole.

Reminds me of this time in college when I was walking into the student center and held the outer door open for a blind guy walking with his service dog. He tells me that he'd prefer to open it himself, and was polite about it so I just figured he'd rather do it himself to practice being independent, or train his dog, or whatever so I didn't mind and just went on walking next to him onto the next set of doors. I walked through a door to the side while he opened the one directly in front of him on his own and upon walking into the atrium, several people sideeyed me as if I was the rudest asshole on the planet.

I believe in common courtesy and practice it when possible. I really wish more people would do this instead of trying to dissect it like a social justice tumblr blogger.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

Is it bad to say that I think chivalry is a form of women's entitlement? That's not to say double standards don't work in men's favor either. It's good to be courteous in general to those around you, but for pure reason of being a certain sex? I don't think that's right and flies in the face of everything women have struggled for.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Das Brechen said:


> but for pure reason of being a certain sex? I don't think that's right and flies in the face of everything women have struggled for.


Yes, I agree. But that isn't really what I mean by chivalry. The idea of how men should treat women specifically, in my mind anyway, owes more to heraldry than chivalry. Whereas, again, to my mind chivalry is the art of "honour, courtesy and justice" to all. I really don't think women have struggled for men to be dishonourable, discourteous and unjust?

Indeed, the old French _chevalerie_ or "knight" was there (in theory) to protect one and all, not just women.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

Paradox1987 said:


> Yes, I agree. But that isn't really what I mean by chivalry. The idea of how men should treat women specifically, in my mind anyway, owes more to heraldry than chivalry. Whereas, again, to my mind chivalry is the art of "honour, courtesy and justice" to all. I really don't think women have struggled for men to be dishonourable, discourteous and unjust?
> 
> Indeed, the old French _chevalerie_ or "knight" was there (in theory) to protect one and all, not just women.



Okay, just to be sure...do you believe it is solely the man's obligation to be chivalrous to all? I don't want to make the wrong assumption here.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Das Brechen said:


> Okay, just to be sure...do you believe it is solely the man's obligation to be chivalrous to all? I don't want to make the wrong assumption here.


Oh no! There's nothing I despise more than rudeness. Whether it comes from male or female it's still rudeness. Acting out of malice, or a desire to unnerve or oppress isn't sex/gender specific. I would (and do) find discourtesy in women as abhorrent as I find it in men.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Paradox1987 said:


> Oh no! There's nothing I despise more than rudeness. Whether it comes from male or female it's still rudeness. Acting out of malice, or a desire to unnerve or oppress isn't sex/gender specific. I would (and do) find discourtesy in women as abhorrent as I find it in men.


As you should, which is why I think chivalry is an outdated concept that should be discarded in this age. I've got no interest in playing the upstanding gent looking to grace every woman with my manners and cape-laying abilities. I prefer independent people and the whole point of being an independent person means knowing that you have to rely on yourself, and not on the goodwill of others.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

i think it is a symptom of the cultural trend towards limiting kindness between genders towards those from whom you want something romantically.

honestly, i love chivalry and admire it wherever i see it.

an idea seems to prevail that chivalry is somehow in conflict with feminism. but don't friends look out for, defend, or stand up for friends whom they perceive as equals, just because they care about them and aren't inclined to want to see someone they love get hurt or mistreated? i know i'm protective of my friends and it has nothing to do with whether i perceive them as equal or able to take care of themselves or not, since they are all well able to stand up for themselves if they wish; it's a care/loyalty reflex of hating to see people i love get harassed. 

and don't people treat those whom they hold in high esteem or great respect with an elevated sense of dignity and sometimes give them special treatment? if the desire is for equal respect (and i think women deserve as much respect as men), why take issue at receiving something a step above mere respect - actual honor and special treatment? 

isn't chivalry nothing but looking out for one another and being protective out of platonic love, and showing unique honor to people out of respect?

it's chauvinism, the opposite of chivalry, that seems incongruous with feminism: the idea that women are inferior to men and merely objects to be used and then trashed, with feelings that can be trampled cavalierly as if they don't matter, and honor that can be crushed into degrading servitude to male whim or desire. 

my personal thought is that both men and women have liberty and equal worth and the right to make the choices they desire, and, if they do anything for one another, it should be voluntary rather than forced. what is unforced is more heartfelt and sincere and therefore has a more potent effect. the more they genuinely care about one another, the more there would naturally be a mutual yielding to one another's wishes and preferences (e.g., women showing the respect to men that men may crave, and men showing the love to women that women may crave, and vice versa). non self-absorbed love would dictate that one would automatically _wish_ to do or be what pleases the other, not under the force of some unnatural dominance or coercion, but simply because they _want_ the other person to be happy. 

and it does seem rude if someone lets the door swing shut in someone else's face. i understand being in a rush to get somewhere but if there's no rush, it seems like common courtesy to glance and see if someone else is walking up behind you before letting the door close. but then again, if people think those behind them are going to feel insulted by their holding the door open, they might decide _not_ to hold it open out of respect for what they perceive to be the wishes/feelings of others behind them. it's impossible to know for sure what other people's motives are, so the behavior itself can be either considerate or rude in its intent. all i know is that i feel disrespected when people let the door close in my face, and i want to treat others the way i'd wish to be treated in this respect. how you approach this probably all depends on whether you view holding the door open as something kind or as something insulting.

my view on it is this, though: how many people with arms full of stuff want the door to slam shut on them or before they can get to it, so they have to put stuff down or rearrange it just in order to be able to grab the door handle and re-open it? exactly how easy or frustration-reducing is that, especially when someone five steps ahead of you could have alleviated all your inconvenience by taking a momentary glance behind them and holding the door open at least long enough for you to grab the edge of it and prop it open before it shut? i don't want to put someone else to that unnecessary difficulty, so i see that as a good reason to check and see if someone's coming behind me. 

is it sometimes a sense of insecurity, or a sensitive ego, that makes some people feel like the offer of help is an insult to their ability to do something themself? that is just a guess, i'm not accusing anyone because it could be an inaccurate guess. many people view help as just making life easier for someone else the way you'd want them to make life easier for you ~ you know they _can_ do it themself, you just don't want them to _have_ to do it. most people enjoy ease more than inconvenience, or at least that's the perception behind all this.


----------



## Neobick (Sep 2, 2010)

Chivalry is the most pathetic piece of shit concept ever. Honestly, why? Where is the point to invoke some old honour code from the the 19th century nobility practiced? The whole notion of the able and dominant male contra the weak and vunerable female is stale, old and outdated, based upon primal instincts. Honestly there are no way to sugarcoat this. Please stop behaving like horny monkeys, jumping around, trying to impress the females who have your sexual energy in their grasp. 

It's not beautiful. It's not worth admiring. It's tolerable at the very most. I don't really see any need for it to stop. But all in all, it is pathetic and rather easy to look down on people that take it upon themselves of being the "white knight". And women, please try to be competent, just cause the norm is for you to suck at that, try to stand up for yourself rather than accepting your fate as a weak and vunerable creature that cannot defend her own values and principles.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

android654 said:


> As you should, which is why I think chivalry is an outdated concept that should be discarded in this age. I've got no interest in playing the upstanding gent looking to grace every woman with my manners and cape-laying abilities. I prefer independent people and the whole point of being an independent person means knowing that you have to rely on yourself, and not on the goodwill of others.


Well, "chivalry", in the most common way people envision it, probably should just fade away and die.

However, I don't understand the notion of never offering a helping hand or moreover the notion of doing something pleasant because we can. I am not talking imposing on people's independence or assuming a person cannot figure out how a door opens themselves (unless it's one of those devilishly tricky push-pull doors that has a handle on both sides... wtf, man?). I mean why can't we show respect or appreciation for anyone from a close friend to a complete stranger to an enamored lover? If it seems more desirable to live in a cold, detached world, then I guess you should aspire to that. However... where is the joy in that?

PS I am ending my post here, but I am not feeling my most eloquent today... my words seem shaky and incomplete.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> In the sense of formal etiquette, chivalry is dead and I'm glad it is. A woman isn't a frail dainty thing, they're just as capable as men of taking care of themselves. I hold the door open for anyone walking behind me since it's polite and just something we do where I'm from, but I'm not laying my jacket over any puddles to protect someone's shoes.


I don't expect anyone to lay there coat down over puddles but I LOVE when men open doors or I tell them what I want on the menu and when the waiter comes, they do the ordering. I DO NOT think it has ANYTHING with some presumption that I am weak and frail. I think it is a sign of affection and respect. And *I adore it* ... 

I like challenging a man in charming ways so he feels good with accomplishments and making them smile and feel good about who they are as a person (Just as I do for my female friends) and I LIKE Chivalry because it makes me feel cared for (not like a child or that I'm helpless) but a show of affection that I'm special. 

All people are special. I suppose we all have our preferences of how we perceive that we are appreciated. 

PLEASE people do NOT assume that women (just because we are strong and capable) that we don't notice the small things like fixing stuff or checking the car etc. Maybe it's a matter that both women and men of regardless of sexual orientation really REALLY SUCK @ Communicating their appreciation let alone, NOT taking people for granted.

THE END :tongue:

p.s. Android is super cool and badass and one day she'll find her match who will not open doors for her and together they will conquer their world beating up all the bad guys with their kung fu bamboo skills >.< 

*I have no idea why that scenario just popped in my head, but it did. Okay. NOW THE END. Again.


----------



## gurlcorporate (Aug 30, 2012)

Paradox1987 said:


> I'm not stupid enough to believe holding a door for a lady will get me laid.


When you put it that way, it does sound pretty ridiculous.

I admire chivalrous acts. I think a good balance between chivalry and recognizing me as a woman with her own wants in life (not saying that chivalry is against this though) is vital. I wouldn't date a guy who'd hate doing things for me or doting on me. 

I think the real problem is when some guys think chivalry is equivalent to being a doormat. And from where I'm standing, this happens a lot! By the year. But I think men do this out of good intentions of course. Many women though seem to abuse this and I don't understand why. Maybe they get so used to it that they don't even realize how abusive they've become. But really, men like this are to blame for not realizing it themselves either. It is definitely a turn-off for me.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

muhahaha said:


> Congratulations @*Ningsta Kitty for stating you like 'chivalrous' men but most women don't hence why this is a thread.
> 
> *


Yes, because obviously you know *everything* and have polled all 3.5+ billion women on earth about this and came to this consensus..........

Please, I know plenty of women (myself included) who like men to be a little chivalrous. It does not mean we are living in the 19th century, or that we are helpless weaklings. 

This thread is a discussion about why it gets a bad rap, it's not a thread to attack posters for their position because you disagree with it. 

Seriously dude, you're the f*ing antithesis of chivalrous, and it's awful. I think a little bit a "nice" might make you a more tolerable person. If you can't at least play nice here, go somewhere else.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Arrow said:


> I imagine the reason chivalry isn't valued is the same reason why the nice guy in most societies isn't valued. I have to think there is some correlation there.


I value nice guys, who aren't afraid to talk to me. 
I think nice guys are easily discouraged, that's a shame 

p.s. ... I kinda don't care what 'society' (complacent sheeple) subscribes to. Neither should you, IMO of course.

I think that (IMO) should be my disclaimer!:laughing:


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

ThunderQuine said:


> and recently transplanted to the Midwest, I have had so enjoyed men's willingness to act the gentleman. in fact, most folks here are just downright polite. .


 ) YAY! We SO ROCK!!! 

ummm ... minus the bad eggs :tongue:


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> Yes, because obviously you know *everything* and have polled all 3.5+ billion women on earth about this and came to this consensus..........
> 
> Please, I know plenty of women (myself included) who like men to be a little chivalrous. It does not mean we are living in the 19th century, or that we are helpless weaklings.
> 
> ...


Oh sorry i wasn't aware this was your thread. (sarcasm)


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> Yes, because obviously you know *everything* and have polled all 3.5+ billion women on earth about this and came to this consensus..........
> 
> Please, I know plenty of women (myself included) who like men to be a little chivalrous. It does not mean we are living in the 19th century, or that we are helpless weaklings.
> 
> ...


I'm just giving my opinion and really don't get me started on what that woman accused me of last night.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

I have 2 choices.

1. delete this account and find a new hobby

2. Learn to ignore .....


*contemplating*


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

edit: yet another S&R thread where Im editing a post because I didnt realise it was a gravedig. ffs people.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Finally someone who talks some sense. @Neobick


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Well this discussion got a lot more interesting.


----------



## Steamgirl (Oct 21, 2011)

I just want to say that I really do appreaciate it when people are chilverous. It's something I think everyone should learn.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I grew up in the South around manners, so I tend to understand why they exist (within reason, I'm too skeptical of Fe...or at least was as a younger person...to completely accept all manners in my peer group or family without wondering why it exists or what purpose it serves).

I like when men behave in a gentlemanly manner, in fact I am *so* old-school Southern (more than I ever realized until I left the South) that I used to get appalled that some men (especially older, fatherly or grandfatherly aged men) would use manners in an inappropriate way to try to get laid. In my mind, you're a father figure, you're a gentleman, you act this way because you understand morally how it benefits society, not because you're in hopes some much-younger woman will get naked for you, creep.

However, with life experience I am no longer appalled, but accepting that in some cultures outside of the South that people use manners in order to try to sleep with people, not out of social respect.

Latinos are very similar to Southerners, which is probably why I feel comfortable around some Latinos, especially if they aren't of the lowest classes, and ...yeah well they are so similar to Southerners they have their creepy version of "white trash" and then everyone else has this deep sense of family and community and social manners.

You treat a woman nicely because she could be somebody's mother, or someone's sister, and you'd like people to treat your mother sister (and wife or girlfriend) with the same respect, rather than skeezing on them or degrading them. 

Anyway, I open doors for people or hold the door, and I'm a female. I just think it's polite and considerate. I also appreciate when men are chivalrous, as long as it doesn't cross the line into acting like I'm a retard that needs to be watched like a hawk. Of course chivalry can go too far, and some women see it as insulting to their intelligence, but I only feel that way if it's taken to an extreme that I'm treated like I'm dumb or helpless.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

This made my day!

I live in NY, and chivalry is non-existant in these parts.  I was born in the wrong place and time period. When I tell people I am attracted to chivalry, I get scoffed at. Give me a break.. this is feminism gone wrong! Feminism claims that men and women should have equal opportunities and rights, and this is something I agree with. However, I do not agree with the notion that men and women are exactly the same and ought to behave the same way.

Women are biologically programmed to find someone strong to take care of them through 9 months of pregnancy, painful labor, and the recovery time afterwards; for the sake of the child. Men are biologically programmed to spread their seed. Men and women are equal, but not the same. Women who sleep around to try to be "just like men" and claim they have no feelings about it are denying their basic biological makeup.

I'm a female rocknroller, and I study combat & played with toy guns as a kid; I'm not hung up on traditional gender roles. But when it comes to dating, I feel very feminine if a man treats me like a lady and acts like a man!! And I love when someone stronger offers to carry my bags or my keyboard; I love when someone opens the door for me. It shows confidence and kindness. In my eyes, women who complain about this must have some self-confidence issues about their own weakness? I know I'm strong for my size, and capable of taking care of myself; so if someone is stronger, or wants to take care of me, more power to him! It's no insult to my ego! O




Paradox1987 said:


> So I had this debate recently amongst a group of friends. We were talking about the concept of chivalry. Now I am raised in a very pro chivalry environment. I went to a very traditional school where as primary school kids we were subject to 'etiquette class'.
> 
> My male friends seemed to believe that men who behave chivalrously do so because they think it'll get them laid. However, I find that offensive. I'm not stupid enough to believe holding a door for a lady will get me laid. But I'll still open doors, walk on the traffic side of the pavement, give up my jacket in the cold. It's how I was raised. Also, if you want to get laid, kissing the objet d'amour strikes me as a better tactic than being polite in subtle hope? *Plus, chivalry is not merely a code that governs behaviour between men and women, it also covers conduct between men. E.g. Taking a stand against bullies etc.*
> 
> So my question is this, why is chivalry so mocked or derided thesedays, and why is it assumed by (in my personal, anecdotal experience) men that you have some agenda for being polite? I thought "manners maketh man"?


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Neobick said:


> There is nothing wrong with being nice and smiling. Problem is when it becomes an expectation, a ritual.
> 
> Like I could lay a hand on your shoulder, smile gently towards you, speak in a soft voice, open a million doors. But when it becomes expected of me then you got a problem, cause then it doesnt mean a shit anymore.
> 
> ...


First off, I don't make men pay for everything. Actually I always come prepared to. There have been plenty of times I have contributed. Aside from that, everything you said ... is not expected. But if I were dating guy and he wasn't making any gesture whatsoever, I would assume he wasn't interested. I would be less smitten with him so to speak. 

Also, the tables could easily be turned. I like to be super playful and sorta competitive. I've learned though, that in certain areas of relationship this is not okay. So, while I might be able to kick your ass in chess. (okay, maybe I wouldn't be able to :tongue: hypothetically though!) ... It is not okay for me to "bitch" and "nag" ... and turn those types of disagreements into competitive arguments. I hope that makes sense. In any case ... I've been taken for granted too. Doesn't mean my next relationship (guy) should suffer. He should get the best of me because that is what I want to give. Not because he expects it. If in time that person takes it for granted? ... well ... sometimes relationships just, run their course.

so you don't like doing those things. Fine. But don't assume it is something "bad" just because you don't subscribe to it. It's not like the people who are chivalrous are catching diseases or hurting anyone. So why knock it so hard. That's for Mu Ha too , why are you guys so opposed to other men doing it. Who cares!


----------



## bigtex1989 (Feb 7, 2011)

Feminism (the equality kind not the man hater kind) is seen as a dichotomy to chivalry. That is why chivalry is given a bad rap.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

bigtex1989 said:


> Feminism (the equality kind not the man hater kind) is seen as a dichotomy to chivalry. That is why chivalry is given a bad rap.


 Is it not possible to be an equal AND be different? I think it's sad it has a bad rap. And even sadder I haven't the faintest idea what exactly constitutes as feminism (quite often, those who support it seem very abrasive and overbearing. but obviously I support the notion women should have equal rights etc.) seriously, this issue confuses me. Maybe it's because I'm a women. :tongue:


----------



## bigtex1989 (Feb 7, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Is it not possible to be an equal AND be different? I think it's sad it has a bad rap. And even sadder I haven't the faintest idea what exactly constitutes as feminism (quite often, those who support it seem very abrasive and overbearing. but obviously I support the notion women should have equal rights etc.) seriously, this issue confuses me. Maybe it's because I'm a women. :tongue:


Different but equal is a fantastic sentiment, but arguably impossible. I was brought up in the south where chivalry (and just good manners) have extreme importance. "Southern hospitality" is not a myth XD. What happens is, if you don't know the female in question, chivalry can easily be misconstrued as "As a male, I NEED to do these things (like open doors or pay) for you!" rather than the actual intention (in most cases) of "It's nice that I'm doing these things for another human being! She will appreciate it". That being said (and here is the tricky part), some men find chivalry to be a way to show dominance. So you have 4 groups of people of interest. 

1. Male thinks chivalry is important because he is superior
2. Male thinks chivalry is important because it is nice
3. Female thinks chivalry is a way a male shows he is superior
4. Female thinks chivalry is nice

That's why it is so confusing. Obviously you can see a problem with 2 and 3 but it is inconsequential currently. Unfortunately for us, I think 1 and 3 are vocal minorities, so that's what you hear about the most. This leads to some incorrect conclusions about proportions. I think if you took a survey of 100 females, a vast majority would be number 4. Out of 100 males (who like chivalry), I think a majority would be type 2.


----------



## Neobick (Sep 2, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> First off, I don't make men pay for everything. Actually I always come prepared to. There have been plenty of times I have contributed. Aside from that, everything you said ... is not expected. But if I were dating guy and he wasn't making any gesture whatsoever, I would assume he wasn't interested. I would be less smitten with him so to speak.
> 
> Also, the tables could easily be turned. I like to be super playful and sorta competitive. I've learned though, that in certain areas of relationship this is not okay. So, while I might be able to kick your ass in chess. (okay, maybe I wouldn't be able to :tongue: hypothetically though!) ... It is not okay for me to "bitch" and "nag" ... and turn those types of disagreements into competitive arguments. I hope that makes sense. In any case ... I've been taken for granted too. Doesn't mean my next relationship (guy) should suffer. He should get the best of me because that is what I want to give. Not because he expects it. If in time that person takes it for granted? ... well ... sometimes relationships just, run their course.
> 
> so you don't like doing those things. Fine. But don't assume it is something "bad" just because you don't subscribe to it. It's not like the people who are chivalrous are catching diseases or hurting anyone. So why knock it so hard. That's for Mu Ha too , why are you guys so opposed to other men doing it. Who cares!


Honestly you seem like a nice person in general 

I just hate the fact that it's so hard to be able to be yourself without having to live up to preconcieved notions on romance. You have to agree that dating culture in general(at least in the US) are ridiculusly ritualised by the media. Love for me is mutual respect and the feeling that you belong together. The fact that people are "supposed" to express it in general ways or are suppose to do stuff make me uncomfortable with the whole thing. If both the man and the female is comfortable with chivalry then nothing it's wrong with it. But when women feel the need to appear weak and helpless to attract a man(many do) or when men feel forced to behave in a way that is not natural for them then I think the whole concept has gone to far. You must admit there is a problem here?

And I'm thankful for the way you have handled this discussion btw. I was a little bit overeager and aggressive in my previous posts I think.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

I'll do the chivalrous thing and honestly tell a date or romantic interest that I won't be holding the door for her, I'll be splitting the check everytime, and I won't be walking roadside anywhere. It's the least I could do before she makes the biggest mistake of her life by dating me. 


Well, I guess I'll be Dastardly Dan for the time being until this whole chivalry thing blows over.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

@Neobick,
I think there is a fine line when talking about paying for meals/activities when dating. IME I like when the guy takes the initiative to pay, especially on the first date. If he asked me out, he should pay the first date. It's sort of funny, on the first date with my boyfriend, I was sort of the one that got the ball rolling as far as meeting IRL (he hesitated and I took the plunge and asked), but since he planned the date, as it was, there was this internal thought process of lets see if he thinks we should split the bill or will he take it? Either way would not have made a difference in the future of our relationship...and ironically, I actually for now make more money than him...but to me it's just a way to see more about that person. 

And that is definitely not the case now, and I try to pay for my fair share of things. But my point is, there is something to be said for one person to grab the bill, it makes the other person feel valued and cared for. And we both do it. But most of the time we say you pay this time I'll pay next, or we just cover it because it's convenient for one and not the other (delivery, the credit card attached GrubHub is mine, so I pay...if we cook at my place, I pay for the food, if we cook at his place, he pays). 

I think the idea that a man has to pay for everything is appalling. I would feel ashamed if I allowed that to happen, especially if I knew that financially it was not fair. I think the idea of offering to pay is sweet, especially on a first date.

To me, chivalry, in the way we are talking about it, is doing kind things like opening doors or pulling out chairs. When my boyfriend comes around and opens my side of the car door for me it makes me smile...it's a little extra effort he put in to show he cares. When he hands me his jacket because I'm shivering, it shows he notices and that he is concerned enough to try and fix it. And he doesn't do it every time. But when he does it makes me smile. It's like a little non-verbal 'I love you' or a secret little hug from him.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

soya said:


> I don't know, I think it takes character to be kind and selfless in the face of an increasingly rude and self-centered society.


Chivalry isn't about kindness anymore, it's about cowardice. 
There is an expectation that men should put women far above them on pedestals these days, and not doing so leads to all sorts of rebuke. Hence the coward acquiesces to demand, rather than doing something nice for the sake of being nice. Imagine a man these days that questions whether or not he should spend copious amounts of money on a wedding (if she cares that much about the materialistic aspects of it, is she not forgetting the main purpose of it? Is she doing it for the wrong reasons?) 



> I agree with you. And if you are able to show love, and have an open mind, and connect emotionally, I would imagine you would be confident enough to make me happy - and also a bunch of other women. I don't like ARROGANCE.. I think you're missing the point, or I'm not stating it properly. I like a man who can be good to a woman ; who is confident enough in himself that he is able to give to someone else. I don't need a crazy strutter.


well, there is inter-relational confidence. Being comfortable being yourself and assertive to a healthy degree around those you know well, and then there's confidence in group situations, meeting new people, etc. I have some difficulty with the latter, and that instantly makes me "not a real man" to most women. 
I'll probably manage ok because most girls tell me I'm above average in looks and I am quite large in general, which makes up for things a bit, but I have issues trusting girls to want to be with me for the right reasons. I fear they will see me as some sort of resource to be manipulated. An appliance, loved for what I can do; my usefulness, and not as a person.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Numina said:


> I've been called "not a real woman" because
> 
> 1) I love sex a lot
> 2) I play rock music, and I can out-rock the rockers all over my town
> ...


those all sound like either positive or neutral traits to me. nothing anyone I know would take issue with. Well, the children issue divides people. Personally I see no real need for them. I have a lovely cat


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

dizzycactus said:


> Chivalry isn't about kindness anymore, it's about cowardice.
> There is an expectation that men should put women far above them on pedestals these days, and not doing so leads to all sorts of rebuke. Hence the coward acquiesces to demand, rather than doing something nice for the sake of being nice. Imagine a man these days that questions whether or not he should spend copious amounts of money on a wedding (if she cares that much about the materialistic aspects of it, is she not forgetting the main purpose of it? Is she doing it for the wrong reasons?)


I see where you're coming from now. Your one line post I quoted was too vague to understand the subtext you provided here.

I see what you're saying, and I cringe. What kind of shitty people are these? I must be better at avoiding them than I thought if they are that common... because nobody I spend time with is like this, male or female.

Sorry for anyone who has to deal with this shit. I guess it's out there though. There has to be some kind of demographic for all that hideous Barbie pink shit that says "princess" on it. The entitled attitudes are awful, but of course if nobody yielded to it it wouldn't flourish. 

I am sure you're right that in many cases, people follow a convention out of cowardice rather than out of a genuine support for it.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Numina said:


> That is very sweet . *hugss back* *hugggggggg* *smile* *hug!!!*.


Yay!!!!!! HUGS :blushed::kitteh:




> > 1) I love sex a lot
> 
> 
> Um, why would anyone thing you are less of a woman because of that? (actually that sounds more sexy to me)
> ...


Let me check ... Yup ... you seem 100% woman to me ... Nothing here says you are not a woman ^__^


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Yay!!!!!! HUGS :blushed::kitteh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like your username and your avatar.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Yay!!!!!! HUGS :blushed::kitteh:


:kitteh: That is so sweet!!! I'm actually not a gamer. Stratego is a board game I played as a kid and Mario also came out when I was a kid- aside from that I had a theater career as a kid and no time for gaming. Then I got chronic Lyme and lost my voice to the illness so now I speak in a whisper and I'm stuck on lots of medications , which is why it would be terribly difficult to have kids :,(

But thank you do much for the kind words !!!! Major huggggggs and *squeeze* hehehe



> Let me check ... Yup ... you seem 100% woman to me ... Nothing here says you are not a woman ^__^


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

josue0098 said:


> I like your username and your avatar.


Why thank you :kitteh: ^__^

*hugs*

P.S. I'm a little weird  (and I like your avatar too)


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Why thank you :kitteh: ^__^
> 
> *hugs*
> 
> P.S. I'm a little weird  (and I like your avatar too)


I'm engaged... And thank you, too!


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Numina said:


> :kitteh: That is so sweet!!! I'm actually not a gamer. Stratego is a board game I played as a kid and Mario also came out when I was a kid- aside from that I had a theater career as a kid and no time for gaming. Then I got chronic Lyme and lost my voice to the illness so now I speak in a whisper and I'm stuck on lots of medications , which is why it would be terribly difficult to have kids :,(
> 
> But thank you do much for the kind words !!!! Major huggggggs and *squeeze* hehehe


Awe *hugs* ... and I'm sorry to hear that  - but I have a feeling that you are a strong woman (and the kids is not a deal breaker :wink and you should not let people tell you you are not a woman when you clearly are ^__^ ............. Ohhhh major hugs ^__^ YAY ^__^ *hugs back*


----------



## Agni (Jan 5, 2012)

Numina said:


> I like a real man who can defend himself (and me), and is fearless and bold.
> However, chivalry is also part of that package. Fearless does not make up for 'mean.'


The whole concept of being 'fearless' is, in my mind, a sign of being naive and/or inexperienced.
I am quite capable of defending myself in normal situations. But it as I said it is situational, here's couple example from my life.

1. A ned tried to rob me on the street. -> not a "real" threat so I did retaliate.
2. A drunk customer threatened to blow up the bar I was working in with a stick of dynamite. -> He didn't have fuse attached to the stick, so I did take the stick from him, restrained him and called the police.
2. Two friends were gunned down with shotgun (assailant, victims and me were within 3 meter radius). Even though assailant blew both barrels I fled the scene as fast as possible to a safe distance from where I called the cops. 

It all comes down to situational awareness and fast threat assessment. Fear is healthy thing to have but it shouldn't control ones actions. And this is why 'fearless' equals reckless in my mind.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Numina said:


> I've been called "not a real woman" because
> 
> 1) I love sex a lot
> 2) I play rock music, and I can out-rock the rockers all over my town
> ...


To be honest no. None of those are reasons to be declared not a real woman. Just as no valid reason can declare someone not a real man. For what it's worth, I don't want kids, like a woman who can outplay me at chess or any other strategy game, plays an instrument with me etc. I've no interest in going in the mud, but I can shout encouraging slogans from the sidelines, or play non mud based sports :laughing:. The only reason to be declared not a real woman would be if you're a robot or simply not chromosomally human.

Anyone who thinks a real man is a rude, unjust and hypocritical person is more than welcome to such a man. But just because I'm not doesn't mean I'm looking for some dainty wallflower to grace my house. Believe it or not, I can do all the domestic chores by myself so my "need" for a truly "feminine woman" is anchored at zero. I don't see how and when alpha meant disrespectful. Honestly, an alpha male (even amongst wolves) requires leadership skills. Look at leaders who lack honour or justice, they tend to see rebellions and riots. I'd not want to deal with that kind of drama in my home life. A chivalrous woman and a chivalrous man aren't walkovers, they simply have principles.




dizzycactus said:


> Chivalry isn't about kindness anymore, it's about cowardice.
> There is an expectation that men should put women far above them on pedestals these days, and not doing so leads to all sorts of rebuke. Hence the coward acquiesces to demand, rather than doing something nice for the sake of being nice. Imagine a man these days that questions whether or not he should spend copious amounts of money on a wedding (if she cares that much about the materialistic aspects of it, is she not forgetting the main purpose of it? Is she doing it for the wrong reasons?)


Paying lip service to chivalry is not acting chivalrously. It is being dishonourable because you are treating one set of people better than another for no reason if you put people on a pedestal. Further, being duplicitous about your intentions (bring polite or acquiescing to avoid censure) is a direct contradiction to chivalry. So I disagree. Chivalry is anything but cowardice.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Awe *hugs* ... and I'm sorry to hear that  - but I have a feeling that you are a strong woman (and the kids is not a deal breaker :wink and you should not let people tell you you are not a woman when you clearly are ^__^ ............. Ohhhh major hugs ^__^ YAY ^__^ *hugs back*


Hehe.... thank you!!! You are such a *huggy* one ! Lol.

I don't really care if people tell me I'm not a woman, or what they say to me. Biologically there are differences between men and women and realistically, some of that does affect our behavior.. and I do love being my male alter ego in videos  ... these type of 'constructions' that people build around the idea of gender are a joke to me and I like to poke fun at them through my characters  so it's ok if they want to call me whatever they want. But at the same time, I can't say it doesn't make me very very happy to hear from you that I am a real woman!!  LOL *hugs*


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

I love what you wrote here!! You're absolutely right. I suppose, when I say 'fearless,' I am being inaccurate. The word "fearless" comes to mind because a lot of people (men and women both) are afraid to love, afraid to be honest about who they are, afraid to be vulnerable. I guess when I think "fearless," I'm thinking of a man who is willing to cry in front of me once he trusts me, and tell me when he's hurt, and tell me what he wants, and seduce me with passion; I'm not thinking of a RECKLESS person who jumps into the middle of traffic.

By the way, all the things you described sound pretty 'fearless' or at least BOLD to me. :kitteh: It sounds like you're not dictated by irrational fear, but rather healthy instinct. Fear as a healthy instinct is a good thing!! Fear as a barrier getting in the way of what we want and what we know is right, is another issue altogether. But you are right - there are many implications to the word 'fearless' and reckless is certainly an undesirable manifestation of fearlessness.



Agni said:


> The whole concept of being 'fearless' is, in my mind, a sign of being naive and/or inexperienced.
> I am quite capable of defending myself in normal situations. But it as I said it is situational, here's couple example from my life.
> 
> 1. A ned tried to rob me on the street. -> not a "real" threat so I did retaliate.
> ...


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

Maybe it's not just the action, but the intent... I think it would be preferable to do something because it's important to you, over it being a utility for some other relational end. Obviously every person unknowingly acts for an end, but there is such a thing as acting in accordance with your own values or principals, own code or a sense of honour etc. Most well developed personal codes generally opt for win-win situations where applicable. Doing something because you really want to, makes you feel good or at least gives you a sense of agency... it's a self fulfilling thing... most people who may act chivalrous to achieve an end, drop the act as soon as it gets them a certain end goal, but being internally motivated gives you more room for personal, inner agency. It's living by your own code, therefore it feels good, and I think other people pick up on that. There's less strings attached for starters. One of the first things I said to somebody was that I didn't like the idea of chivalry, which admittedly was probably a bad move on my part! obviously reality isn't ideal, so that is just generalisations.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Paradox1987 said:


> To be honest no. None of those are reasons to be declared not a real woman. Just as no valid reason can declare someone not a real man. For what it's worth, I don't want kids, like a woman who can outplay me at chess or any other strategy game, plays an instrument with me etc. I've no interest in going in the mud, but I can shout encouraging slogans from the sidelines, or play non mud based sports :laughing:. The only reason to be declared not a real woman would be if you're a robot or simply not chromosomally human.


That is really nice to hear...   Not wanting kids is usually a 'dealbreaker.' It is nice to hear there are other people in the world who don't want kids..

It's not that I don't LOVE kids, but it would be a terrible choice for me - I'm quite passionate about my writing, music, and other artistic creative jobs and endeavors.... and I have a chronic illness to manage. I live life as a healthy person - but staying healthy is a full time job for me, and that is a lot of time I could *not* spend doting on children who deserve to have their mother's full attention. Also I would probably die in childbirth and the poor children would have no mother at all - plus the Lyme Disease could be passed to them in utero!! :O This is why I agree with you here- it's not out of selfishness, but out of strong principles about what it means to be a mother, and life-long passion for my work, that I think it is better not to have kids. However I get judged as a cold, robotic being because I don't plan to have children and "that's what women do." In my eyes a real woman or a real man is someone who has principles.. I completely agree with you!



> Anyone who thinks a real man is a rude, unjust and hypocritical person is more than welcome to such a man. But just because I'm not doesn't mean I'm looking for some dainty wallflower to grace my house. Believe it or not, I can do all the domestic chores by myself so my "need" for a truly "feminine woman" is anchored at zero. I don't see how and when alpha meant disrespectful. Honestly, an alpha male (even amongst wolves) requires leadership skills. Look at leaders who lack honour or justice, they tend to see rebellions and riots. I'd not want to deal with that kind of drama in my home life. A chivalrous woman and a chivalrous man aren't walkovers, they simply have principles.


You are so right!!! Thank you for putting into words what I was trying to say about 20 posts ago... hehehee 

That is quite awesome that you can do your own chores. The world needs more men like you. :kitteh:


----------



## Agni (Jan 5, 2012)

Numina said:


> I guess when I think "fearless," I'm thinking of a man who is willing to cry in front of me once he trusts me, and tell me when he's hurt, and tell me what he wants, and seduce me with passion; I'm not thinking of a RECKLESS person who jumps into the middle of traffic.


Once I trust the person there is practically nothing that I wouldn't share.
I apologize that I understood the fearless part differently than what you meant I guess this is due to the fact that English is my tertiary language and my command of it is imperfect.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Between @_Paradox1987_ , @_Agni_ , and @Mr. Meepers , I've seen more chivalry in one morning than you could possibly find in a year in New York!! <3 Loving the world right now... lol


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Agni said:


> Once I trust the person there is practically nothing that I wouldn't share.
> I apologize that I understood the fearless part differently than what you meant I guess this is due to the fact that English is my tertiary language and my command of it is imperfect.


It was entirely my fault, and you were absolutely right to make that distinction. In fact, I will reconsider my use of the word in the future. 

What are your other two languages??

Also that is beautiful - and I am the same way with trust. It takes time, patience, and true friendship; but once someone is a friend or I love them, they are dear to my heart for life.


----------



## Agni (Jan 5, 2012)

@Numina

My first two languages are Finnish (mother tongue) and swedish (mandatory language for all the Finns, bilingual country).
Although I have to admit that I am way stronger in English than Swedish.

"It takes time, patience, and true friendship; but once someone is a friend or I love them, they are dear to my heart for life." or until the trust is broken.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Agni said:


> @_Numina_
> 
> My first two languages are Finnish (mother tongue) and swedish (mandatory language for all the Finns, bilingual country).
> Although I have to admit that I am way stronger in English than Swedish.
> ...


Nice! I know one very dirty phrase in Swedish.  I had a Swedish roommate and being impish, I asked her to teach me a dirty phrase.. haha. But I can also say good morning.. god morgon, right?? 

Yes, I agree with that - until the trust is broken. Someone is a true friend from my point of view, but unfortunately things don't always turn out that way in the long run....


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Paradox1987 said:


> To be honest no. None of those are reasons to be declared not a real woman. Just as no valid reason can declare someone not a real man. For what it's worth, I don't want kids, like a woman who can outplay me at chess or any other strategy game, plays an instrument with me etc. I've no interest in going in the mud, but I can shout encouraging slogans from the sidelines, or play non mud based sports :laughing:. The only reason to be declared not a real woman would be if you're a robot or simply not chromosomally human.
> 
> Anyone who thinks a real man is a rude, unjust and hypocritical person is more than welcome to such a man. But just because I'm not doesn't mean I'm looking for some dainty wallflower to grace my house. Believe it or not, I can do all the domestic chores by myself so my "need" for a truly "feminine woman" is anchored at zero. I don't see how and when alpha meant disrespectful. Honestly, an alpha male (even amongst wolves) requires leadership skills. Look at leaders who lack honour or justice, they tend to see rebellions and riots. I'd not want to deal with that kind of drama in my home life. A chivalrous woman and a chivalrous man aren't walkovers, they simply have principles.
> 
> ...


but you just can keep moving the definition of chivalry to mean something else. 
you've defined it as intention, instead of a set of actions/code of behaviour. we're no longer even referring to the same thing.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

dizzycactus said:


> but you just can keep moving the definition of chivalry to mean something else.
> you've defined it as intention, instead of a set of actions/code of behaviour. we're no longer even referring to the same thing.


I don't know, I personally believe that an act in line with "honour, courtesy and justice" would only be borne out if the act was honourable. Obviously there is a line where honourable intentions are not enough, especially if they have poor consequences. But I don't think someone who adheres to their personal sense of honour is a coward. Chivalry isn't succumbing to groupthink or just letting people trample on your beliefs. It's about upholding them. 

Putting someone on a pedestal is unjust. This is not chivalry per the art of "honour, courtesy and justice". 

Having an argument littered with ad hominems is discourteous, this is not chivalry. To submit meekly to a crowd is cowardice, but I don't see that as an act of the chivalrous? 



Paradox1987 said:


> Yes, I agree. But that isn't really what I mean by chivalry. The idea of how men should treat women specifically, in my mind anyway, owes more to heraldry than chivalry. Whereas, again, to my mind chivalry is the art of "honour, courtesy and justice" to all. I really don't think women have struggled for men to be dishonourable, discourteous and unjust?
> 
> Indeed, the old French _chevalerie_ or "knight" was there (in theory) to protect one and all, not just women.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Paradox1987 said:


> Putting someone on a pedestal is unjust. This is not chivalry per the art of "honour, courtesy and justice".


YES. ^that^ !! :happy:


----------



## Kore (Aug 10, 2012)

searcheagle said:


> Yeah, I think that's an INTJ/Type 5 trait-avoiding opportunities for manipulation.
> 
> I even tend to avoid samples from the grocery store for the same reason!


:laughing:

I just imagined you cursing out a grocery store sample-attendant. She asks if you want some mini-pizzas. You respond with "Pff! You cannot _buy_ me with your free sample mini-pizzas!" She looks at you with a raised eyebrow "Oh no, you're only bought from the flashy packaging that drives the cost up, of a product that you already _do _like, by 100% the actual material needed to make it without any flashy packaging. And then you come in, to a job that I hate and tell me that you don't want a free goddamn sample of something you've never tried before?"

That sample-server was fierce! My imagination is a fun place to be. :tongue:


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

soya said:


> Ha, I was once told I was "beyond being a girl" because apparently I didn't fit into the passive female gender role, but didn't appear to be masculine, either. Apparently I was some kind of androgynous anomaly to this person.


LOL I can relate to this!!!!! I guess that's part of why I like playing with identity and gender roles through alter egos, theater, pictures, etc. Gender is fluid!! At least for some people. I think 'beyond a girl' is quite a complement!!!! 

Nobody has ever referred to me as 'unfeminine' upon meeting me. I look quite feminine. I mean, I dont have feminine big curves  but I have a small/delicate face etc. It's just that sometimes when I'm close with a guy friend or I'm dating someone, they start to feel like I'm "one of the guys" because... well.. I listed reasons. Also, I have no idea how to flirt!! I'm friendly, to men and women alike; anyone who makes me feel like being friendly. But once a friendship starts to 'get real' I can be blunt about what I'm feeling & thinking.. I'm unabashedly honest.... is that culturally "unfeminine??" LOL



> haha, awesome


Thank you!!!! I will show you pics if you want - I'm friending you  Dressing as my male alter ego is absolutely thrilling. He is so much fun... he's a dreamer and a rock guitar player and silent seducer.... heheheehee


----------



## Kore (Aug 10, 2012)

Numina said:


> But once a friendship starts to 'get real' I can be blunt about what I'm feeling & thinking.. I'm unabashedly honest.... is that culturally "unfeminine??" LOL


Not for me. In a relationship, if my partner and I aren't doing anything, I have a habit of just saying what I want, out of the blue. 

"Hey. . . do you wanna have sex?" 

Apparently, this is not supposed to happen like that, I should be more subtle, cunning and spontaneous. :laughing:


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

airotciV said:


> Not for me. In a relationship, if my partner and I aren't doing anything, I have a habit of just saying what I want, out of the blue.
> 
> "Hey. . . do you wanna have sex?"
> 
> Apparently, this is not supposed to happen like that, I should be more subtle, cunning and spontaneous. :laughing:


OMG!!! YOU are awesome!! Lol... can you be my heroine for a day?? (I hate typing the female word for hero - heroine - it always evokes thoughts of the terrible addictive drug heroin... lol)

That is the one department where I'm less forthcoming. Well.. to a degree. On the rare occasion I've been in a relationship, I've told the guy right away, "I never ask for sex, but I never say no." haha.. this is exactly how it goes. I am not trying to play games or be 'coy' (plus, I think based on body language it's pretty clear when I want it, and on top of that, I'm really really cuddly and often get compared to a particularly friendly house cat) ..... I am not turned on by sex if I have to initiate. I really like being passionately ravaged by a man. Sorry if that sounds sexist... it really has nothing to do with gender roles; it just turns me on. Once he begins to ravage me thoroughly, it is likely I'll feel compelled to take over O although, it's even hotter if I try really hard to take over and he dominates me. hehe. Anyway.. having to initiate does not do it for me. This is usually not a problem though. I am open enough about my sexual appetite that low-testosterone guys don't really end up dating me much.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

airotciV said:


> Not for me. In a relationship, if my partner and I aren't doing anything, I have a habit of just saying what I want, out of the blue.
> 
> "Hey. . . do you wanna have sex?"
> 
> Apparently, this is not supposed to happen like that, I should be more subtle, cunning and spontaneous. :laughing:


Wait ... I thought the stereotype was that guys want women to be blunt about it because they can only read blunt signals :tongue:
.... See, why stereotypes are bad: There are so many of them that they start to create contradictions :tongue:

Also ... what you do sounds very hot :wink: ... In case you have not noticed - everything turn me one :crazy: (okay, not everything, but I am very easy ... apparently :tongue: ... and I like to flirt too :shocked: ^__^ )





Maybe said:


> OMG!!! YOU are awesome!! Lol... can you be my heroine for a day?? (I hate typing the female word for hero - heroine - it always evokes thoughts of the terrible addictive drug heroin... lol)
> 
> That is the one department where I'm less forthcoming. Well.. to a degree. On the rare occasion I've been in a relationship, I've told the guy right away, "I never ask for sex, but I never say no." haha.. this is exactly how it goes. I am not trying to play games or be 'coy' (plus, I think based on body language it's pretty clear when I want it, and on top of that, I'm really really cuddly and often get compared to a particularly friendly house cat) ..... I am not turned on by sex if I have to initiate. I really like being passionately ravaged by a man. Sorry if that sounds sexist... it really has nothing to do with gender roles; it just turns me on. Once he begins to ravage me thoroughly, it is likely I'll feel compelled to take over O although, it's even hotter if I try really hard to take over and he dominates me. hehe. Anyway.. having to initiate does not do it for me. This is usually not a problem though. I am open enough about my sexual appetite that low-testosterone guys don't really end up dating me much.



FYI: I care deeply and sex and gender equality (and I don't like sex and gender roles) ... but it is not sexists to have certain traits that you are attracted too (I would say it is "sexist", the everyday usage of the term, when people say that an entire sex/gender has to be a certain way because they are that certain sex/gender and devalues people who are good people but do not fit your rules that were placed specifically on them because of there sex/gender .... Okay, that was a long way of saying don't discriminate ). There is nothing wrong with being attracted to certain traits when looking for an S.O. - I mean you are looking for someone who is compatible and complimentary to who you, an individual person, are. .... Also, yeah heroine and heroin sound too much alike (Yay for drug addicted superheros XD)



> although, it's even hotter if I try really hard to take over and he dominates me


Replace "he" with "she" and I'll completely agree with you on this one *not sure if there is an appropriate emoticon to place right here, so I'll just place one in that is not fitting to what I said/meant* :kitteh:


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

This thread is still kicking hard. and wow ... I think my conclusion at this point is 
(within the romantic context) It may be dead because the majority of women don't like it apparently. 

And I must admit, while I can appreciate people who trumpet the cause for equality, what is wrong with wanting to be treated like a lady as opposed to my fictitious SO's bro friend. While I may be the best friend, I think it would not replace the guy best friend role. I don't want to be(have) some "friend" to rub genitals together with every night. 

I think at this point I want to ask, 
*"Why is wanting to be treated like a lady (who is different than a man), get a bad rap?"*

Why does a woman who prefers to dote on a man and wish to be cherished get a bad rap? I feel as though women like this are looked at as manipulative. So if I am blunt and direct with what I want, does this make me more trustworthy? Am I just being too sensitive? (very well could be the case) I think if that is the case, it no doubt is because I feel so outnumbered :sad:


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> *"Why is wanting to be treated like a lady (who is different than a man), get a bad rap?"*


'couple of things.

Today, given the strength in gender equivalent movements, some girls not only feel that chivalry is literally in place to remind women that they are "in need" of help, some might even argue that chivalrous men are, thus, sexist against women by implying that they are weak or dependent on men (because since when has chivalry referred to women assisting women?).

That's one case. The other case is the (unfortunate) argument that chivalry is just from an old time, and, putting aside genders, holding open doors, pulling out chairs, etc, all this "gentlemen" business just isn't a cultural norm, at least not in 'murrica.

Finally, people just take shit for granted. I've always been chivalrous to each and every girl I've dated. Most of them just kinda were like, "Uh...okay then." Like, they weren't upset or felt it sexist, they just really didn't give two shits. Even though, to me, this was a cute, nice gesture that I'd totally appreciate if they did for me, they were just indifferent.

Also (even though I said finally), I think "being a lady" is also in the same category of chivalry vis-a-vis "things that are from another time." Most of the things that once "made a girl a 'lady'" are either irrelevant, been replaced, etc. Again, one could make the argument that "being a lady" is a sexist statement that, once again, implies women to be gentle, weak, dependent, nice, etc.

So, yeah, it's whatever. I'll keep being classy. I enjoy spoiling and over-treating my females, so I'll eventually meet one who is down.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@*Shinji Mimura *

impressed. I think you about covered that brilliantly. It's funny though right ... how "being a lady" can be misconstrued as sexist (weak). Frankly, I think women have given a HUGE amount of control (influence) by relinquishing that right. I think this whole thing is ridiculous. No wonder there are so many divorces. People haven't a clue what their needs are let alone how to get them met. Of course EVERYBODY knows what they think they want (I say think because needs are a constant. wants change as we do.)

I almost feel as though the ones pushing the envelope for complete neutrality between the sexes are those who do not adhere to the gender roles they were born with. And by all means they don't have too! It's all good! But that should not mean that every heterosexual being now has to walk around confused, fucked up / and fucked over by politically correct tape, restricting their needs. 

_I also think that many woman will be sorely mistaken down the road when they realize(remember) 
Why buy the cow when you get the emotional milk for free. much less the meat.
What do I know, we are a leasing society now. I should get w/ the program eh?_

whatever. I suppose I'll continue to deal with jaded men who can't get over whatever past boo boo's they have from their past. Because all the fabulous folks are a bazillion miles away. You all like live in huts and stuff, and ride elephants with your i pads to the local "hot spots" for wifi. I probably now have some posse of girls with flaming pitchforks sewing together a voodoo doll as I speak(type) :/

Sincerely, Frustrated Lady
(unsubscribing to cut me off of the current hissy fit I'm throwing )


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> _I also think that many woman will be sorely mistaken down the road when they realize(remember)
> Why buy the cow when you get the emotional milk for free. much less the meat.
> What do I know, we are a leasing society now. I should get w/ the program eh?_


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@*Das Brechen* *wipes tear away* sniffles-thank.you's ... I'm just so sick of always getting friend zoned because guys don't want a relationship and then they go away because all their other friend zone girls give it up. I'm frustrated ... I need a cat!!!!  

p.s.
Tell your elephant I said hello. I think he's a good influence on you. Don't ever trade him in, okay?









>.<


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

@Ningsta Kitty You're very welcome. Everyone has a bad day. I appreciate it though I am labeled jaded because I believe in equality between the sexes. Even though I'm in doghouse, I'd rather be in the friendzone because at least you're not sleeping on newspaper.

Don't be the crazy spinster cat lady from down the street, okay? It's not a good look on you!


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Das Brechen said:


> I appreciate it though I am labeled jaded because I believe in equality between the sexes. Even though I'm in doghouse, I'd rather be in the friendzone because at least you're not sleeping on newspaper.


I believe in equality but I also think it's a reality men and woman are different. I wasn't saying you are automatically jaded if your beliefs are different than mine. you know that right? 

also, In real life, I'm allergic to cats. *uncontrollable sobs!* 
God is punishing me for not being a fan of mini dogs! He(she) is so cruel!!! *SOBS*


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> This thread is still kicking hard. and wow ... I think my conclusion at this point is
> (within the romantic context) It may be dead because the majority of women don't like it apparently.
> 
> And I must admit, while I can appreciate people who trumpet the cause for equality, what is wrong with wanting to be treated like a lady as opposed to my fictitious SO's bro friend. While I may be the best friend, I think it would not replace the guy best friend role. I don't want to be(have) some "friend" to rub genitals together with every night.
> ...


depends by what you mean by "treated like a lady". 
because often these days that's just an excuse they pull on us to justify treating us as a walking ATM before conveniently retracting their conservative attitude when it serves them elsewhere. 

and if that also implies that I am expected to be "the man" in terms of being super-confident, outgoing, domineering, etc, then of course I will resent that, because those are things I can and will never be, and yet I do not think I do not deserve love because of it. I am compassionate, I am affectionate, rational, calm, I have a genuine desire to connect with my partner, for them to be happy, no desire to control, supportive; are these really all not enough for anyone? If so, do I not have a right to be angry that society has told us these are enough?


----------



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)

Paradox1987 said:


> So I had this debate recently amongst a group of friends. We were talking about the concept of chivalry. Now I am raised in a very pro chivalry environment. I went to a very traditional school where as primary school kids we were subject to 'etiquette class'.
> 
> My male friends seemed to believe that men who behave chivalrously do so because they think it'll get them laid. However, I find that offensive. I'm not stupid enough to believe holding a door for a lady will get me laid. But I'll still open doors, walk on the traffic side of the pavement, give up my jacket in the cold. It's how I was raised. Also, if you want to get laid, kissing the objet d'amour strikes me as a better tactic than being polite in subtle hope? *Plus, chivalry is not merely a code that governs behaviour between men and women, it also covers conduct between men. E.g. Taking a stand against bullies etc.*
> 
> So my question is this, why is chivalry so mocked or derided thesedays, and why is it assumed by (in my personal, anecdotal experience) men that you have some agenda for being polite? I thought "manners maketh man"?


I love your attitude.
I am a strong woman that can open my own door- but dang it ....... if a man does it for me, I'm mush!!!!!
Women that speak out against chivalry ruin it for us women that find it tre romantic.
Want to turn me off, man in my life? Don't open my car door, walk ahead of me and let the door nearly hit me in the face. Never bring me a rose just because. There are plenty of men that think like you. And that is the pool I would pick from personally.

p.s. And honestly ....... a man that thinks like you gets the very _best _from me in return, you know what I'm saying? 
p.s.s. I am a woman. I am not a man. Treat me like the woman that I am. This is not an insult! This is the greatest sign of respect. (I am insulted by women that find chivalry insulting. You can have the non-chivalrous men- please ... enjoy each other! )


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> I believe in equality but I also think it's a reality men and woman are different. I wasn't saying you are automatically jaded if your beliefs are different than mine. you know that right?
> 
> also, In real life, I'm allergic to cats. *uncontrollable sobs!*
> God is punishing me for not being a fan of mini dogs! He(she) is so cruel!!! *SOBS*


I don't think you were saying that *I *was jaded. I said I was jaded due to many women I've dated saying that I was. I've never been in a relationship where the woman was the woman but though I was still expected to be the man. I don't understand that logic but oh well...it's water under the bridge now.

How about cats wearing a sweater? Would that be okay?


----------



## searcheagle (Sep 4, 2011)

airotciV said:


> :laughing:
> 
> I just imagined you cursing out a grocery store sample-attendant. She asks if you want some mini-pizzas. You respond with "Pff! You cannot _buy_ me with your free sample mini-pizzas!" She looks at you with a raised eyebrow "Oh no, you're only bought from the flashy packaging that drives the cost up, of a product that you already _do _like, by 100% the actual material needed to make it without any flashy packaging. And then you come in, to a job that I hate and tell me that you don't want a free goddamn sample of something you've never tried before?"
> 
> That sample-server was fierce! My imagination is a fun place to be. :tongue:


Oh, what a crazy world you live in girl!

As an INTJ, I would only be swayed by imperical objective data. For example, by holding a survey in the supermarket, online reviews, cost per oz, and/or any other tests I can think of in the store. 

(My one weakness- buying the toilet paper with the little lab pups on it. It reminds me of when I had a puppy.)


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> depends by what you mean by "treated like a lady".
> because often these days that's just an excuse they pull on us to justify treating us as a walking ATM before conveniently retracting their conservative attitude when it serves them elsewhere. might you reserve the shoulder to cry on for your gf and not every pretty face you see? might a female do likewise. No one wants to be used as an emotional tampon or an ego stroke. It goes both ways.
> 
> and if that also implies that I am expected to be "the man" in terms of being super-confident, outgoing, domineering, etc, then of course I will resent that, because those are things I can and will never be, and yet I do not think I do not deserve love because of it. I am compassionate, I am affectionate, rational, calm, I have a genuine desire to connect with my partner, for them to be happy, no desire to control, supportive; are these really all not enough for anyone? If so, do I not have a right to be angry that society has told us these are enough?


 No. It means when you are in a relationship with a woman who isn't respecting you (nor making any effort to) then why are you with her? It pretty much means to be who you are *not* in passive form. Who the hell cares what society says anyways. If you feel in your nature to be affectionate in ways your SO isn't appreciating, why are you being affectionate to that person. Why is everything so complicated! AH! *jumps off cliff*


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> No. It means when you are in a relationship with a woman who isn't respecting you (nor making any effort to) then why are you with her? It pretty much means to be who you are *not* in passive form. Who the hell cares what society says anyways. If you feel in your nature to be affectionate in ways your SO isn't appreciating, why are you being affectionate to that person. Why is everything so complicated! AH! *jumps off cliff*


well, I wouldn't be in such a relationship. I just like to speak out against that kind of very popular attitude these days, that treats us like a disposable tool to be utilised. hence, why I was asking you what it meant to be "a lady" because most girls thinks it means having the guy do all the work and all the contribution in every shape and form. In some ways, I have no problem with femininity. I want to protect her, take care of her, all that stuff. So long as she isn't completely passive, because then it doesn't feel like I'm really in a relationship with someone else, more like some kind of inanimate object.

and maybe I wouldn't even mind providing for her. but it must be because I've chosen to help her, and not because I'm expected to as my "role".


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@_Das Brechen_

oh my goodness! Is that a REAL cat! It doesn't look happy or comfortable at all!

*note: I write a mini tangent about unreasonable expectations from men too. 
But it's water under the bridge  *


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> *well, I wouldn't be in such a relationship*. I just like to speak out against that kind of very popular attitude these days, that treats us like a disposable tool to be utilised. hence, why I was asking you what it meant to be "a lady" because most girls thinks it means having the guy do all the work and all the contribution in every shape and form. In some ways, I have no problem with femininity. I want to protect her, take care of her, all that stuff. *So long as she isn't completely passive,* because then it doesn't feel like I'm really in a relationship with someone else, more like some kind of inanimate object.
> 
> and maybe I wouldn't even mind providing for her. but it must be because I've chosen to help her, and not because I'm expected to as my "role".


 I'm so confused. you wouldn't be in a relationship where you could not be passive? but she can't be? And who the heck says that being feminine is to not work or contribute. I think I'm misunderstanding you.

As far as I can tell ... both parties have inflated expectations of each other. Because both parties want "I want I want I want". But no one wants to give. They justify what they give because they aren't getting what they want. 

*I'm done with this thread*. I feel like every time I enter these discussions I am the only one with this position. The females don't agree. And the men are curious but don't agree. And I'm outta here! Because I know what I can give on top of knowing what I want. I may be frustrated but that is because I want a man, not a relationship. There's a difference. When you want a relationship more than a man(woman), you settle for less than you deserve. BLARGH! I NEED A CAT! *shakes fist in air at the injustice of allergies* So.Not.Fair! :/

Note to self: consider getting hairless cat *looks up and to the right* Hrmmmmm 
- Dear self, No More Relationship Threads! Focus on your Super Awesome Money Like Every Other Normal Person! 
Just Focus On Making More! (not a good day. I think I'll buy a teddy bear)


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

@Ningsta Kitty

As long as we're on the same page here, I'm golden. You be the lovely woman you are and I'll be the ubermensch you'll come to know and others fear.

And as far as I know, that's not a REAL cat. At least I hope it's not...XD


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> I'm so confused. you wouldn't be in a relationship where you could not be passive? but she can't be? And who the heck says that being feminine is to not work or contribute. I think I'm misunderstanding you.
> 
> As far as I can tell ... both parties have inflated expectations of each other. Because both parties want "I want I want I want". But no one wants to give. They justify what they give because they aren't getting what they want.
> 
> ...


I have no idea where any of that comes from. 
Is it because you think everything I say is referring to you? I don't know enough about you. Most of it is a general principle.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> I have no idea where any of that comes from.
> Is it because you think everything I say is referring to you? I don't know enough about you. Most of it is a general principle.


Ditto. Most of it was general feelings on the subject. Not for you personally either. Just your quote spurred those thoughts. No worries. I am seriously banning myself from ever opening a relationship thread ever! I have vented and shall now just focus on what normal people focus on. Again, nothing to do with you at all. I wish you the best  Ciao!


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Why is everything so complicated! AH! *jumps off cliff*


OH NOs ... Don't die *catches you*




Ningsta Kitty said:


> *I'm done with this thread*. I feel like every time I enter these discussions I am the only one with this position. The females don't agree. And the men are curious but don't agree. And I'm outta here! Because I know what I can give on top of knowing what I want. I may be frustrated but that is because I want a man, not a relationship. There's a difference. When you want a relationship more than a man(woman), you settle for less than you deserve. BLARGH! I NEED A CAT! *shakes fist in air at the injustice of allergies* So.Not.Fair! :/
> 
> Note to self: consider getting hairless cat *looks up and to the right* Hrmmmmm
> - Dear self, No More Relationship Threads! Focus on your Super Awesome Money Like Every Other Normal Person!
> Just Focus On Making More! (not a good day. I think I'll buy a teddy bear)


Here ^__^









And I hope you are not allergic to yourself ... but I bet you are not allergic to stuffed kitties ^__^

View attachment 48057


Ningsta Kitty,
I'm sorry no one agrees with you  ... but that does not mean you are wrong or that you don't have something valuable to contribute to the discussion ... I mean, we are all humans right ... we are not always going to agree ... and sometimes the things we care about won't be the popular opinion ... and that is fine too ... We are all different and everyone is unique (which makes everyone one special in their own way ^__^), so, I think what you have to say is valuable ... even if I don't agree with it (although I could change my mind ... I am only one human and I do need help from time to time to see what other people see because I can only see so many things by myself ... and I think the same is true for everyone else ... although I am not them, so there is no way of knowing for sure). But my point is that what you say is valuable and discussions are a two way street ... we can say what we think and we can learn from others ... and considering I have read a lot of your posts (apparently I am a stalker :shocked I know that you can be very insightful and that, at the very least I, can learn from you ... I may not always learn something ... and I may not always agree with you, but sometimes I do learns something (so if you post in a forum that I already posted in, I'm sure to read it) ... I can't speak for anyone else, but I am sure there are others.



That being said, do I agree with on this topic of gender roles? ... No ... but, I can't speak for others that want genders to be treated the same, but I wonder if how I picture the genders and sexes being the same differs from how you would imagine it (especially because I think you get the impression that chivalry would die or something and I don't think it would lol).

I have a more general stance of disliking arbitrary social norms only places on certain groups, especially ones that hurt people ... I don't like reading about teenagers committing suicide because of homophobic bullying that was encouraged by a sect of the community while the rest of the community knowingly turned their backs on them or being on break from an internship, just walking around NYC and watching how this man in drag is being treated like some side show (he was just walking around and people were stopping what they were doing, nudging their buddies, pointing at him, and practically laughing in his face). ............ So that is why I don't like a lot of "arbitrary" and what, I feel, could be hurtful social norms ... and perhaps I may have a stronger emotional backlash than I should ... idk 

As far as holding doors open for people when you are there, that is not chivalry, that is common courtesy ... and I do it for men and women (... women more often because women have prettier faces, so I mind holding the door when they are a little bit further away :kitteh: ...... also I encounter women pushing strollers much more than men, so I hold the door open for them too).

Now, as opening your car door for you, pulling out your chair, and just treating you like a Queen form time to time ... Would that really stop just because we look at men and women equally?? ... I hope not ... I mean, if a man likes you, or even loves you, won't he want to treat you like a Queen from time to time?? ... If he is only doing those things because of gender roles, idk, imo I could not call that romance. IMO Romance is not so much what you do, but why you do it ... It is about showing love and affection ... and, for straight couples, it will be about a man wanting to treat the woman he is with like a queen from time to time ... but imo love and romance should be a two way street where she treats him like a king from time to time (how someone treats someone like a "king" of "queen" may vary from couple to couple, being defined, hopefully, by the couple themselves and not by society) ... Sure, maybe some women will be in the "man's" role and some men will be in the "women's" role, but I would hope that romance and chivalry would not die because of it (we might see some couples where the gender roles are reversed, but does that mean that there is no chivalry in that relationship? ... maybe the woman in that relationship would be chivalrous) ................... Anyway, I can not speak for anyone else, but when I want men and women to be treated the same, it is not about making people the same (if everyone was the same, the world would be so boring), but, to me, it is about breaking "unnecessary" social norms and stereotype so that people can be free to be themselves and soar to where ever they want to be ......... When it comes to the details, I don't think it is perfect, but imo it should be something we should strive for .............. That is my view on my view at least (I'm sure there are some people who share my view, but not my view of my view ... if that makes sense lol) .... Who knows, maybe what we want is the same, but we just have to different ways of getting there ... idk ... but I hope that clarifies my view a little ... I don't want chivalry to die, I just want people (men and women) to be chivalrous because that is who they are and that is what they want to do (although I expect common courtesy from everyone lol)


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

@_Mr. Meepers_

I came here just because I saw you posted and to give it a like. 

EDIT: A "thanks"


----------



## xXDominoXx (Aug 18, 2012)

Paradox1987 said:


> So I had this debate recently amongst a group of friends. We were talking about the concept of chivalry. Now I am raised in a very pro chivalry environment. I went to a very traditional school where as primary school kids we were subject to 'etiquette class'.
> 
> My male friends seemed to believe that men who behave chivalrously do so because they think it'll get them laid. However, I find that offensive. I'm not stupid enough to believe holding a door for a lady will get me laid. But I'll still open doors, walk on the traffic side of the pavement, give up my jacket in the cold. It's how I was raised. Also, if you want to get laid, kissing the objet d'amour strikes me as a better tactic than being polite in subtle hope? *Plus, chivalry is not merely a code that governs behaviour between men and women, it also covers conduct between men. E.g. Taking a stand against bullies etc.*
> 
> So my question is this, why is chivalry so mocked or derided thesedays, and why is it assumed by (in my personal, anecdotal experience) men that you have some agenda for being polite? I thought "manners maketh man"?


Just an historical aside: Chivalry was started in France as an outlet for all the male knights who were trained for battle but had no wars to attend to. Laws got passed to keep them from riding down peasants and chasing people on their horses for fun. Chivalry was considered a "nuisance" centuries ago. *laughs* 

Having said that, I like mannerly men because I also like mannerly women.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Wait ... I thought the stereotype was that guys want women to be blunt about it because they can only read blunt signals :tongue:
> .... See, why stereotypes are bad: There are so many of them that they start to create contradictions :tongue:


I thought the stereotype was that *Enneagram 5s* (like me) can only read blunt signals from other human beings in the realm of sex and seduction... Hmm... I never thought that had anything to do with my high testosterone or genderless behavior.. 



> FYI: I care deeply and sex and gender equality (and I don't like sex and gender roles) ... but it is not sexists to have certain traits that you are attracted too.... There is nothing wrong with being attracted to certain traits when looking for an S.O. - I mean you are looking for someone who is compatible and complimentary to who you, an individual person, are.


Yes! Exactly! All of this stuff being said (and all of the things I wrote being honest), when I fall in love, all of my convictions about what I 'need to complete me' go right out the window. Sometimes to my detriment.  But what I mean is, I may fantasize about certain things when I'm in my bedroom alone, or when I'm writing my fantasy novel... but a real relationship evolves from a true friendship and it is about give and take, and I often find that I learn to enjoy new sexual 'roles' and so does my partner; we take on what the other person wants and needs, and incorporate our own fantasies, and the sexual language between me and that one person is unique.... and to be completely honest, I've never had a bad sex life with an S.O., regardless how incompatible our "theoretical fantasies" may seem prior to the physical union. Sex is like a conversation - it's not one-sided.. it is a language developed between two people, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. O



> Replace "he" with "she" and I'll completely agree with you on this one *not sure if there is an appropriate emoticon to place right here, so I'll just place one in that is not fitting to what I said/meant* :kitteh:


Teeee heee  :kitteh:


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@_Mr. Meepers_ ... thank you for catching me with your giant teddy bear :kitteh: 

1). *Regarding Confusion:* I fear much of the confusion is on me, as I am really not versed in "feminism" and nearly all the women in person who I have met involved in the movement are insanely abrasive and strike me as super uphappy. So I've never had the desire nor motivation to really educate myself on the specifics. _*Of course I believe in equality. But not at the sake of individualism. 

I know people think I am naive for my convictions that people are equal AND different. 
But it is close to my core values and I do not feel that will be changing any time soon. 

*_2).*Regarding Semantics:* Throughout this thread people were equating the meaning of the word chivalrous to common courtesy which spurred further confusion on my part. And from that point forth I felt as if I had to throw in (w/in the romantic context), despite it feeling unnecessary but apparently semantics is all the more of a bitch online 

3). *Regarding gender roles:* I think there is no way I am going to get people to understand me because I can't seem to articulate it right. So here is a last attempt - _I believe in gender roles as flexible roles people fill to perform their contribution of a relationship_. Female and male both capable of filling each others shoes, if and when necessary and this is not just straight relationships but more of the "Primary Nurturer" and the "Primary Protector" role. One more logical and the other more emotional which is not to say both could not be women/men/NF/NT/SP/SJ or whatever! 

*** I think it is unreasonable for people to expect both each party to full fill themselves and the relationship entirely upon themselves. That would essentially mean there is no relationship. Only two people who are in relationships with themselves who have committed to nothing more than convenience and common companionship (not the elevated companionship of that of an SO). 
AGAIN - the concepts in my head really have NOTHING to do with gender.

It is more like _"Hey, you are good at this and suck at that. Just so happens I'm good at what you suck at. And vice versa. How about you help me and I help you and together we conquer the (our)*world*". _Of course you need* trust*. Which is so rare that anyone is willing to give anyone a chance it's ridiculous. You can never know if you can trust someone unless you do! And if you think that people _(even the most dedicated and loyal to you)_ if you think that disappointments will not happen then it's time to *manage **expectations*. Of course people can't get over disappointments without *emphatic communication* which is practically non existent. 

4). *Regarding the mystery text that I could only read when highlighted and the font was super small.*



Mr. Meepers said:


> I have a more general stance of disliking arbitrary social norms only places on certain groups, especially ones that hurt people ... I don't like reading about teenagers committing suicide because of homophobic bullying that was encouraged by a sect of the community while the rest of the community knowingly turned their backs on them or being on break from an internship, just walking around NYC and watching how this man in drag is being treated like some side show (he was just walking around and people were stopping what they were doing, nudging their buddies, pointing at him, and practically laughing in his face). ............ So that is why I don't like a lot of "arbitrary" and what, I feel, could be hurtful social norms ... and perhaps I may have a stronger emotional backlash than I should ... idk


Indeed, *misplaced* emotional backlash. Because those arbitrary social norms are called courting behavior which in fact seen in both the straight and gay community and healthy to both parties so as to establish an appropriate pace of the relationship. That's all I want to say on that ... Because frankly, people are assholes and evil and it should not matter what sexual orientation a person is. Nor should it matter what other people do (courting gestures) so long as they are not hurting people. 

* _And honestly, there was some strong aversion to the chivalry concept quite early in this thread. So I think my difficulties with controlling my emotions when articulating my thoughts is due to the hypersensitive feeling from said such anti-chivalry peeps (both male and female) *_

5). *Regarding Opening Doors: *In all honesty I would NOT WANT to be "Treated like a queen". I would prefer to be treated like me. I would prefer the person be who they are and I be who I am and both parties compliment each others being so that at the end of the day we both feel like better people being with the other. Opening doors and all that jazz is nothing more than courting behavior and "charm". _I would absolutely not want a man to do it unless it were a part of his general style. _I so happen to be a lady who would prefer her husband to do the ordering after 30 yrs of marriage. If it was not in his nature and he did it just to get me, it wouldn't work. I like being asked, "what do you want". and I say, "Ummmm " and then the waiter comes and he says "I'll have the this and she'll have the that". It makes me feel secure like he is in control of the situation. It does not mean I am an insecure person nor do I need someone to make me feel secure. I can financially provide for me and my son. But I sure as eff am not walking down dark allies. It's a subconscious feeling that has the purpose of bonding. *No more. No less*. I prefer not to make things any more complicated than they have to be. Or at least I try 
*
Final Thought: *I think people are goal oriented beings. While a person is making headway pursuing a goal they experience the feeling of happyness. The mind set of Happy is a different rant for a different day. But overall, I think way too many people throw in the towel with regards to relationships because they do not understand the value of goals within the relationship setting. I mean goals NOT involving the goodies  
I'm not gonna elaborate. I charge 60$ an hour if one would like me too though. :tongue:

You are an incredible being Mr. Meepers. Intelligent, Kind, Charming, Silly, And I wish you all the best in the whole wide world. I hope you find what you are looking for in life, I really do. And I appreciate you so much for being you. It makes my experience of this forum that much more pleasant, I think I'll stink around 

I do however feel it is no longer in my best interest to continue to collect data regarding the man / woman (common consensus) information. When I revisit the "dating table" so to speak .. I may be back. Or maybe not. Either way, until that time, I think it's in my best interest to force myself to focus on my goals which have made some excellent headway. And to focus on my money which may sound cold but in reality (for me) it's not. I tend to not value material things and maybe it's time I start, at least a little bit. IDK, maybe I'm just doing that because it feels like I live in a world where people _lease people_ (don't commit) and _buy things_. 
And I would prefer not to be like that, nor be hurt .. .so I walk the tightrope of me


----------



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> @_Mr. Meepers_ ... thank you for catching me with your giant teddy bear :kitteh:
> 
> 1). *Regarding Confusion:* I fear much of the confusion is on me, as I am really not versed in "feminism" and nearly all the women in person who I have met involved in the movement are insanely abrasive and strike me as super uphappy. So I've never had the desire nor motivation to really educate myself on the specifics. _*Of course I believe in equality. But not at the sake of individualism.
> 
> ...


You had great points here- thanks. 

You know --- a man and a woman that dig each other have something in common that drew them together. If they date / try to be together, they should figure out (like, I dunno, by asking maybe?) what it is that makes the other one's heart explode. And whatever of those things are easily done by the other- well then .... they should try to do those things.  That is romantic. That is courting/ chivalry whatever that may be. What works for two people might not work for another set of two people and so on.

(When I was pregnant and nauseous and anxious and scared, my child's father would bring me boxes of the fancy chocolate that he knew I loved- usually only reserved for "special occasions." He brought them to me all throughout my pregnancy. Out of the blue. I will never forget that. He knew it made me feel better and that I couldn't really eat real food but I could somehow put away those chocolates and they made me happy during a crazy time. Stuff like that to me is romantic.)


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@_Laguna_ Thank you so much :kitteh:

and I hope you let him know how much you appreciate him. Sometimes I think both men and women feel as though the other took them for granted for no other reason than the lack of effort to appreciate. btw ... Totally Digging _"Make my heart explode"_ comment!


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> @_Mr. Meepers_ ... thank you for catching me with your giant teddy bear :kitteh:
> 
> 1). *Regarding Confusion:* I fear much of the confusion is on me, as I am really not versed in "feminism" and nearly all the women in person who I have met involved in the movement are insanely abrasive and strike me as super uphappy. So I've never had the desire nor motivation to really educate myself on the specifics. _*Of course I believe in equality. But not at the sake of individualism.
> 
> ...


Ummm...wow. You had a lot to say. I wish more people saw it as you do. I like opening doors and holding them for others...not just my SO but people in general however, when it's expected...when it's taken for granted, it kind of loses it's ability to have a positive effect on me as it usually does. 

I don't know I'd ever be the type to order for someone but it would depend...taking control and being controlling can sometimes be such a fine line that it becomes difficult to make decisions without wondering if you've crossed that line....plus...I am a bit indecisive myself. Besides the point I suppose...just sad that both of the above mentioned comments derive, at least partially, from feelings of animosity or indecisiveness due to the whole feminist thing,making it difficult to just do what comes naturally when I feel it's expected by the same women who want all things 100% equal except where it favors them. I find that frustrating...yet, I find it frustrating when women get offended that I expect to pay for dinner when I ask them to dinner...idk..

Anywho...we agree on a lot. I appreciated your post and thought it was very well written and seemed as if you articulated your feelings quite well. :wink:

P.S. you should appreciate that smiley...I had to scroll through the novel of text just to get to the smiley tab.:tongue: And that one


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

JaySH said:


> Ummm...wow. You had a lot to say. Well Gee Tiger! Make me feel silly why don'tcha :tongue:
> Mr. Meepers put a lot of effort in his response to me, I was only returning the favor.
> 
> I wish more people saw it as you do. I like opening doors and holding them for others...not just my SO but people in general however, when it's expected...when it's taken for granted, it kind of loses it's ability to have a positive effect on me as it usually does.
> ...


 Actually ... I DO! Thank you again, ) I know I'm overly silly and stuff but I authentically appreciate people for feedback (negative as well). It's always so hard to tell how you come across to other people online. I always wonder to myself what people "think" I'm like. I tend to visualize (make up make believe) what the person is like in real life after I see enough of their posts. I typically assume they look their avatar. Even if it's a cartoon >.<


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Actually ... I DO! Thank you again, ) I know I'm overly silly and stuff but I authentically appreciate people for feedback (negative as well). It's always so hard to tell how you come across to other people online. I always wonder to myself what people "think" I'm like. I tend to visualize (make up make believe) what the person is like in real life after I see enough of their posts. I typically assume they look their avatar. Even if it's a cartoon >.<


I look like my avatar 

And, men have double standards :shocked: NO WAY!


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

Paradox1987 said:


> So I had this debate recently amongst a group of friends. We were talking about the concept of chivalry. Now I am raised in a very pro chivalry environment. I went to a very traditional school where as primary school kids we were subject to 'etiquette class'.
> 
> My male friends seemed to believe that men who behave chivalrously do so because they think it'll get them laid. However, I find that offensive. I'm not stupid enough to believe holding a door for a lady will get me laid. But I'll still open doors, walk on the traffic side of the pavement, give up my jacket in the cold. It's how I was raised. Also, if you want to get laid, kissing the objet d'amour strikes me as a better tactic than being polite in subtle hope? *Plus, chivalry is not merely a code that governs behaviour between men and women, it also covers conduct between men. E.g. Taking a stand against bullies etc.*
> 
> So my question is this, why is chivalry so mocked or derided thesedays, and why is it assumed by (in my personal, anecdotal experience) men that you have some agenda for being polite? I thought "manners maketh man"?


The purpose of chivalry is to enforce in men good manners, considerate behavior, and a sense of necessity to protect the weaker.

The purpose on militant feminism is to gain political power by framing all men as the enemy of women.

This means militant feminists *had* to try and kill chivalry, because it made their goal of framing men as the enemy of women almost impossible.

In other words, militant feminists don't say all men are rapists because it's true, they say it because they need it to be true.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> @_Mr. Meepers_ ... thank you for catching me with your giant teddy bear :kitteh:


:kitteh: ... I am a teddy bear :kitteh: .... :shocked:



> 1). *Regarding Confusion:* I fear much of the confusion is on me, as I am really not versed in "feminism" and nearly all the women in person who I have met involved in the movement are insanely abrasive and strike me as super uphappy. So I've never had the desire nor motivation to really educate myself on the specifics. _*Of course I believe in equality. But not at the sake of individualism.*__*
> 
> I know people think I am naive for my convictions that people are equal AND different.
> But it is close to my core values and I do not feel that will be changing any time soon.
> *_



I agree with this completely ^__^ .... With every action, and non-action, there may be consequences (good or bad) ... and some consequences have a higher probability of happening than others ... and some consequences maybe more important than others ... and individuality is very important ... My hope is that individuality would be free to grow with equality (but that it just me ... and that is with a particular route to equality) ........ Although, I admit my experiences may be a little naive in that I hear about some of these ridiculous people, but I never really see them, so I just assume they are far and few between.

I, personally, don't think it is naive to think people are different, but equal (I thought a lot of people thought that) ... and I completely agree with you on that ^__^ (so maybe I am naive too ^__^). But I think there is are different consequences with saying that people are inherently individual and equal versus saying that certain groups of people are inherently different but equal (although, sometimes people in different groups are treated differently ... so one maybe correct if they said that men and women have different personalities, but is that difference entirely/mostly created by society or is a large amount of it intrinsic creates another question that science has evidence for both sides, and it maybe a question that we can not really know) .... I think in the first case an individual has more opportunities to be themselves and be judged for themselves (that is not to say that we won't judge people based on their sex, let's say, but that I think there would be less of it ... and I think in the second case, because we all have personal values and the values of society changes overtime, what is equal today, may not be equal tomorrow (unless we value seeing people as equals ... which I think most of us do ... but then equality may be more of a state of mind ... unless, we also value and believe in individuality, then maybe there would be a way for people to be ... something that I can not describe, but it would be a good thing lol) ... but, I think emphasizing that individuals are different makes it harder to make such sweeping statements. .... Anyway, we are all different (which makes us special ^__^) and trying to be equal without individuality would defeat one (but not all) good reason for equality ... and I think if we emphasized that people are individuals (not defined by X,Y, and Z), then I think we can get very close to equality for groups of people (am I making sense???? ... I mean if people don't care whether of not people are in X group instead of Y group, then I think people of groups X and Y would get fairly equal treatment) ... but I think it would be bad to have equalities in some ways, but lose our individuality in other ways.

Personally, I think, as a society, we care too much about whether or not people are male, female, gay, straight, black, white, other things. I think we have to care a little because some of us are only attracted to certain people (sorry straight men) (unless they are rich ... well, hello straight rich men ) and because we don't want discrimination ....... but I think we care too much (not us in particular, but just as a whole) ... and I think caring too much can also get in the way of individuality, imo, if that makes any sense.

I tend to ramble on and on about my opinion lol ... and, as I said in the last comment, everybody sees the world a little differently, so your opinions are valuable ... and I think it would be hard to call your values naive when this is a discussion about values and your values seem very reasonable ... if I understand you correctly, then I think I do agree with your values very much ... and if I'm not understanding you, the other ways I think it could go, sounds reasonable as well ... honestly, I always thought my views were a little non-mainstream at times lol



> 2).





> *Regarding Semantics:* Throughout this thread people were equating the meaning of the word chivalrous to common courtesy which spurred further confusion on my part. And from that point forth I felt as if I had to throw in (w/in the romantic context), despite it feeling unnecessary but apparently semantics is all the more of a bitch online




I agree!!! ... Although, I usually think of chivalry as courage and honor lol ... but I love thinking about language itself sometimes. I mean, I study mathematics, which is its own language ... and it is a formal language which is different from natural languages (such as English) ... for one thing, it tries to be less ambiguous (not that ambiguity is always bad, just that sometimes it is beneficial and sometimes it is not ... of course we can only learn finitely many words in a lifetime, so we can not define all our terms without it being circular at some point and probably need some experience to understand the semantics of some words (although, if you think of numbers as words, no one ever learns an infinite amount of them, but some can talk about an infinite amount of them and make implications on an infinite amount of them) 

... Anyway, my point is that words can mean different things to different people ... and some words have multiple meanings ... "meaning"  that context is very important too ... and on aspect of context is your "audience" or the people you are talking too (I mean, if you are an expert in a field and you are talking to non-experts of that field and you are using your field's definition of the word, without defining it, that would be an obscure meaning to most people and the word has a different meaning in our everyday language, then you could be spreading mis-information) ... then of course there maybe syntactical errors such as misspellings/mispronunciations or having poor grammar ... or reading errors where the reader could skip over words or misread a word ... then hope we interpret everything in a way that is in line with the original meaning .... Communicating is secretly complex, so I don't think anyone should feel bad if they have a hard time communicating their ideas ... I think it is pretty cool that we can understand each other when we are trying to communicate our abstract ideas ... ... ... That is assuming that we actually do, at some point understand each other pretty well and that understanding is not an illusion ... also assuming that, from your perspective, Mr. Meepers even exists or even that you don't secretly influence how we experience the universe greatly (quantum mechanics is because of youuuuuuuu) on some fundamental level ... well, it this last two cases (if they were false) you may ask yourself if you are actually speaking to yourself in someway  ... although, I doubt it the last case (if it was a false axiom) since I do not see any gangs of ninja kitties battling by way of funny poses and cute speech. 

I just want to add, although I am already off-topic a bit in this section of this post, that, in mathematics at least, there are some ideas that you can not even think about without a language, because they are so abstract (or that seems to be the case) ... in a way language can promote more abstract thoughts and abstract thoughts can create new words and build language even further ... To me, abstract thoughts and language are intimate connected (not all language have to be spoken or in characters ... for instance, I think of looking at a painting as a conversation between me and the painting, I try not to talk out loud , which is indirectly a one-sided communication from the painter)... (so, if words are ideas, wordy messages have the potential to have a lot of ideas that become seemingly complex and harder to understand, a case for brevity ... although, going over an idea in multiple ways adds more chances of understanding the idea .... also, I think language is important in the acquisition of abstract ideas i.e. learning abstract concepts) .... And when I think about everything I just said in this section ... that, to me, the fact that humans have such abstract languages and seem to be able to communicate ... that alone makes me think that humans are pretty incredible



> 3). *Regarding gender roles:* I think there is no way I am going to get people to understand me because I can't seem to articulate it right. So here is a last attempt - _I believe in gender roles as flexible roles people fill to perform their contribution of a relationship_. Female and male both capable of filling each others shoes, if and when necessary and this is not just straight relationships but more of the "Primary Nurturer" and the "Primary Protector" role. One more logical and the other more emotional which is not to say both could not be women/men/NF/NT/SP/SJ or whatever!
> 
> *** I think it is unreasonable for people to expect both each party to full fill themselves and the relationship entirely upon themselves. That would essentially mean there is no relationship. Only two people who are in relationships with themselves who have committed to nothing more than convenience and common companionship (not the elevated companionship of that of an SO).





> AGAIN - the concepts in my head really have NOTHING to do with gender.
> 
> It is more like _"Hey, you are good at this and suck at that. Just so happens I'm good at what you suck at. And vice versa. How about you help me and I help you and together we conquer the (our)*world*". _Of course you need* trust*. Which is so rare that anyone is willing to give anyone a chance it's ridiculous. You can never know if you can trust someone unless you do! And if you think that people _(even the most dedicated and loyal to you)_ if you think that disappointments will not happen then it's time to *manage **expectations*. Of course people can't get over disappointments without *emphatic communication* which is practically non existent.




I think I understood that except the word "gender" through me off before because a lot of people seem to use it to mean the biological sex of a person ... and I have heard it used a lot to mean an identity ... but if you mean that some traits are positive in some cases and negative in others and it is important to find someone who compliments you and takes on certain roles in the relationship due to their abilities then I agree with that and I agree with everything else you said ... it was just the word "gender" that through me off because it can be used differently that I misjudged what you meant by it I think ... like I said ... communication is really hard 



> 4). *Regarding the mystery text that I could only read when highlighted and the font was super small.*





> Indeed, *misplaced* emotional backlash. Because those arbitrary social norms are called courting behavior which in fact seen in both the straight and gay community and healthy to both parties so as to establish an appropriate pace of the relationship. That's all I want to say on that ... Because frankly, people are assholes and evil and it should not matter what sexual orientation a person is. Nor should it matter what other people do (courting gestures) so long as they are not hurting people.


Fair enough (sorry about the font) ... I agree with that ^__^ ... well, Maybe not the people are ass-holes part ... I would say "*some* people are ass-holes" ... I would feel really sad if it was more than some lol (If we must, let's agree to disagree on the amount )



> * _And honestly, there was some strong aversion to the chivalry concept quite early in this thread. So I think my difficulties with controlling my emotions when articulating my thoughts is due to the hypersensitive feeling from said such anti-chivalry peeps (both male and female) *_


I'm sorry *hugs* ^__^



> 5). *Regarding Opening Doors: *In all honesty I would NOT WANT to be "Treated like a queen". I would prefer to be treated like me. I would prefer the person be who they are and I be who I am and both parties compliment each others being so that at the end of the day we both feel like better people being with the other. Opening doors and all that jazz is nothing more than courting behavior and "charm". _I would absolutely not want a man to do it unless it were a part of his general style. _I so happen to be a lady who would prefer her husband to do the ordering after 30 yrs of marriage. If it was not in his nature and he did it just to get me, it wouldn't work. I like being asked, "what do you want". and I say, "Ummmm " and then the waiter comes and he says "I'll have the this and she'll have the that". It makes me feel secure like he is in control of the situation. It does not mean I am an insecure person nor do I need someone to make me feel secure. I can financially provide for me and my son. But I sure as eff am not walking down dark allies. It's a subconscious feeling that has the purpose of bonding. *No more. No less*. I prefer not to make things any more complicated than they have to be. Or at least I try


lol "treated like a queen/king" was a bad phrase (I did not know how to word it lol) ... and I agree with this ... and yeah, the word "courting" is better (I was just confused by how people were using chivalry  ... and how some people irl might say that "chivalry is dead" because no one opens doors for them ... although I would )

But yeah, I think I agree with this ^__^

(I'm confused  ... did I only think I was disagreeing with you before ... or do I just think I'm agreeing with you now  ... that's it, I'm just gonna believe "reality" is just a figment of my imagination i.e. reality is not independent of my mind ... go gangs of wild ninja kitties ... go ... and fight in ultimate meme form!!! ... using your ultimate technique!!! ... Lolcat!!!!) 



> *
> Final Thought: *I think people are goal oriented beings. While a person is making headway pursuing a goal they experience the feeling of happyness. The mind set of Happy is a different rant for a different day. But overall, I think way too many people throw in the towel with regards to relationships because they do not understand the value of goals within the relationship setting. I mean goals NOT involving the goodies


That is a good point ^__^ *takes notes* ... wait, not involving the goodies :crying: //jk ... but that is a good point (I'll remember that one) ... I think too many people look to find happiness in relationships too ... instead of being happy with themselves first



> I'm not gonna elaborate. I charge 60$ an hour if one would like me too though. :tongue:


Hmmm ... let me get back to you on that one ... $60 an hour for *your* time is a bargain though :wink:




> You are an incredible being Mr. Meepers. Intelligent, Kind, Charming, Silly, And I wish you all the best in the whole wide world. I hope you find what you are looking for in life, I really do. And I appreciate you so much for being you. It makes my experience of this forum that much more pleasant, I think I'll stink around


REALLY?!?!?!?!?!?! ^__^ :blushed::blushed::blushed::blushed::blushed::blushed:
Thank You ^__^ ... I could say (and mean) the same thing for you too (and it would be very true) :blushed::blushed::blushed::blushed::blushed:
... but I'm too busy blushing right now :blushed::blushed::blushed::blushed:



> I do however feel it is no longer in my best interest to continue to collect data regarding the man / woman (common consensus) information. When I revisit the "dating table" so to speak .. I may be back. Or maybe not. Either way, until that time, I think it's in my best interest to force myself to focus on my goals which have made some excellent headway. And to focus on my money which may sound cold but in reality (for me) it's not. I tend to not value material things and maybe it's time I start, at least a little bit. IDK, maybe I'm just doing that because it feels like I live in a world where people _lease people_ (don't commit) and _buy things_.


That does not sound cold to me ^__^ .... Awe. That last sentence is really a good point *hugs*



> And I would prefer not to be like that, nor be hurt .. .so I walk the tightrope of me


Awe *hugs* ... You should not walk all over yourself :tongue:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

sometimes I feel like many people actually _want_ to be treated like dirt (of both genders). fine with me, but they can go somewhere else to get that kind of treatment, cuz I have too much pride to treat people like dirt.


----------



## CrabbyPaws (Mar 5, 2012)

*Rambling on:* 
I don't know. I was also raised in a pro chivalry environment, but it wasn't like to the extent that I was to wear 'ladylike' clothes at all times and act like a lady and be frail and bat my eyelashes, but the men in my family were taught to be well mannered and to respect others - in a gentlemanly way to both women and men, and the women in my family were taught to be modest and to respect ourselves. That just means when you are with others hold some kind of dignity, personality, don't be nosy, be respectful and kind, and whatever you do behind the doors is up to you. And you didn't have to wear a dress that fell to the floor to achieve that, it was all in the way you acted.

And I really admire people who were raised or act the same way. I just think it is respectful, at least as a starting point. After that if you loosen up with someone getting to know them and realise that they prefer to be more comfortable then that is totally cool, but I think as a 'default' sort of thing, chivalry is definitely preferable for me. 

I think actually only recently people have made chivalry seem as if it is the means to get laid. You just know it when someone says something nice these days especially to a woman it has some hidden intention, but I don't think it ever was that way to begin with. I think both women and men contributed into cheapening it and changing the message of it. I think definitely it is good that people are more free and loosened up but I think it should still have some sort of balance and not go to the extreme opposite. Who wouldn't love a guy who helps old ladies or opens the door for you or stands up when you enter the room and greet you (and when you leave). I think it is amazing because you acknowledge each other and give everyone a feeling of importance. I think maybe women didn't like it because they felt trapped by it, into a certain catagory that they should be like, maybe almost felt passive towards it, but in this generation women have more freedom and I don't think that freedom should be used to get rid of chivalry but to make it more equal. 

*Skip to here:*
Edit: I have been thinking about it and I've kind of identified the beginning of the bad reputation and the end but was kind of confused about how it went from point a to point b.
*Point a*: Uprising of women equality "No I can do anything now so leave me alone" the phase where women finally found their independence and the kind of long awaited side effect was to push everything away in fighting for it.
*Point b*: Men using it now to get women in bed.

But I think what happened in between is that women independence was accepted and they didn't need to fight for it anymore, so when the whole fad (even though equality is not a fad but you understand) kind of died down, women realised that they want the closeness again in their new found, reborn, self. I think because women were fighting for their independence, they needed to be heard and so pushed those kind of gestures away in revolt, but now that they have won their place, they wanted men (or their desired partners) to give them that attention to their new true selves. However, meanwhile, the men were made to act differently throughout that time and it was no longer the natural thing in society, so it just became bait that players picked back up to get women in bed. 

So perhaps that is how chivalry got a bad rep, but this is just my crazy theory.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

kaleidoscope said:


> @_Yardiff Bey_, I have two stories for you that'll make you facepalm big time. Warm up that palm.
> 
> - Cousin A: Was dating a guy who she was *not* attracted to or had any feelings for, and decided to break up with him after he bored her to tears. He begged her not to because he was obviously completely smitten by her. So my dear cousin actually tells him she'll get back with him if, after he gets back from his trip to Paris, he gets her pretty things :dry: The poor guy complies for I don't know what fucked up reason, and she breaks up with him cause he didn't get her anything expensive.
> 
> ...


^^; sry but that is soo funny for some reason! XD ROFL


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

I was just glancing over this thread again and thought I would just add somethings.

Chivalry 
the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms
Chivalry | Define Chivalry at Dictionary.com

Chivalry is DEAD because we don't hit each other with swords anymore :tongue:

No, seriously ... to me, Chivalry is about having the honor and courage to do what is right. You act honorably and have the courage to stand up for what is right/good, even when there is backlash ... that is not to say that you should be rigid in your beliefs, but I think you need enough conviction in your beliefs to stand up for them (but also keep an ear open to listen to other ideas and actually question your believes to make sure they are still true ... seems conflicting ) ........ If you want to add generosity and common courtesy to the idea, then I'm down with that.

Looking at it that way, chivalry seems like an awesome thing to me ... something that maybe everyone should have (maybe)

Personally I don't believe in treating men and women differently just because they are a different sex (I can't say that I succeed in doing this, but I try to treat everyone equally based on who they are on the inside and how long I know them ... Well, I do treat people differently based on how I feel about them), of course I treat S.O. differently ^__^ ... so I try to have the same expectations of people regardless of sex.

That being said, I have opened doors for probably a few hundred people (at least close to a hundred a year the first few years, probably much much much much more) since moving to a very urban are near the big apple and I have been here for a, lets say, few years. I'm still young, but no one has ever been mad at me for opening doors for them and people have opened doors for me too (both men and women alike). The most grateful are the ones with their hands full, especially the ones with children in strollers carrying several bags. ... And yes, I will open doors for women more (I think women are more aesthetically pleasing, so seeing a woman smile as I hold the door adds more bounce to my step than a guy's smile does).

The worst reactions I will get are people who don't really even seem to see me. They seem to be on autopilot with a facial expression that says "I'm in a rush". ... Meh, whatever.
But, I am curious as to the women who are actively rude and obnoxious to men who hold doors for them. Just how common are they???

As far as giving up my coat: Unless I am sick, I usually love the cold, but I can be sensitive to the heat so I always offer my jacket to friends who are cold (sometimes I just overheat with a jacket). Why? because I can take the cold well ... I like the cold (although I do need to be careful because sometimes I will shiver a bit without really feeling cold or that cold) ... On the other hand, if it is summer and you have a cold can of soda to spare ... for the love of whatever it is you believe in, please let me have it lol :tongue:


As far as puddles are conquered ... I have only conquered those with an ex-SO ... I actually found someone shorter than me (how? //jk) :tongue: and whenever there was a puddle that looked deep enough (most people don't want wet socks), if I could sideways step over it, I would hug her, lift her up, sideways step over the puddle, and move the rest of my body and her body across (no need for a jacket when I can help someone with the power of hugs ^__^).

So for me, I don't want to act a certain way towards women because I am a man (by sex) and they are women ... I act certain ways towards people because it is courteous, and sometimes it is easier for me, so I will go out of my way a little because it is not much for me, an individual person.


----------



## Grau the Great (Mar 2, 2012)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Personally I don't believe in treating men and women differently just because they are a different sex (I can't say that I succeed in doing this, but I try to treat everyone equally based on who they are on the inside and how long I know them ... Well, I do treat people differently based on how I feel about them), of course I treat S.O. differently ^__^ ... so I try to have the same expectations of people regardless of sex.


This is usually how I try to do things, too. Like you said in your post, I'll hold a door open for anyone who's walking close enough behind me, not because they're a woman or whatever, but because it's kinda dickish to slam a door in someone's face. And I've never encountered anyone who's acted offended for having a door held open for them, lol. I'm actually kinda hoping I come across one now.

I will say, this, though. I live in the New York City area, and commute around a lot with the mass transit systems it has (bus, subways, and so on). I have a very specific idea on the right time to give up your seat. I'll do that for four groups of people: 1. those who are injured/hurt in some way and standing would be uncomfortable, 2. older people (regardless of whether men or women, 3. pregnant women, and 4. a mother or father with small kids with them.

This is where I disagree with how some people interpret chivalry, because if a young woman my age or a bit older steps onto the train/bus, no way in hell would I offer her my seat the way I've seen some other guys do. Why would I? With the four groups of people I mentioned, there is a reason to, but last time I checked, most people in their 20s and 30s, regardless of their gender, are perfectly capable of standing. I would give up my seat on a bus for, say, my mom or my sister or a close friend, but that has more to do with the fact that I care about them than their gender and 'what is appropriate'.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

@Grau the Great

I don't give up my seat for able bodied individuals, especially those around my age. They're perfectly capable of standing during the ride. Though, as a cisgendered female, people's expectations of me, as far as chivalry is concerned, are much lower. These annoying double standards..lol A man giving up his seat for an able bodied woman is going beyond chivalry. It's just unnecessary inconvenience. 

I give up my seats for the following:
-the elderly
-pregnant women (i'd hate to be pregnant, tired and stuck standing in a crowded bus, so i don't want another woman to go through this)
-parents with infants or very young children
-anyone carrying a lot of stuff that's hard to handle while standing
-anyone injured


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

A chivalrous man in New York City?!!?!?!!?!? *Hits self to see if it is dreaming*



Grau the Great said:


> This is usually how I try to do things, too. Like you said in your post, I'll hold a door open for anyone who's walking close enough behind me, not because they're a woman or whatever, but because it's kinda dickish to slam a door in someone's face. And I've never encountered anyone who's acted offended for having a door held open for them, lol. I'm actually kinda hoping I come across one now.
> 
> I will say, this, though. I live in the New York City area, and commute around a lot with the mass transit systems it has (bus, subways, and so on). I have a very specific idea on the right time to give up your seat. I'll do that for four groups of people: 1. those who are injured/hurt in some way and standing would be uncomfortable, 2. older people (regardless of whether men or women, 3. pregnant women, and 4. a mother or father with small kids with them.
> 
> This is where I disagree with how some people interpret chivalry, because if a young woman my age or a bit older steps onto the train/bus, no way in hell would I offer her my seat the way I've seen some other guys do. Why would I? With the four groups of people I mentioned, there is a reason to, but last time I checked, most people in their 20s and 30s, regardless of their gender, are perfectly capable of standing. I would give up my seat on a bus for, say, my mom or my sister or a close friend, but that has more to do with the fact that I care about them than their gender and 'what is appropriate'.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Grau the Great said:


> This is usually how I try to do things, too. Like you said in your post, I'll hold a door open for anyone who's walking close enough behind me, not because they're a woman or whatever, but because it's kinda dickish to slam a door in someone's face. And I've never encountered anyone who's acted offended for having a door held open for them, lol. I'm actually kinda hoping I come across one now.
> 
> I will say, this, though. I live in the New York City area, and commute around a lot with the mass transit systems it has (bus, subways, and so on). I have a very specific idea on the right time to give up your seat.* I'll do that for four groups of people: 1. those who are injured/hurt in some way and standing would be uncomfortable, 2. older people (regardless of whether men or women, 3. pregnant women, and 4. a mother or father with small kids with them.
> *
> This is where I disagree with how some people interpret chivalry, because if a young woman my age or a bit older steps onto the train/bus, no way in hell would I offer her my seat the way I've seen some other guys do. Why would I? With the four groups of people I mentioned, there is a reason to, but last time I checked, most people in their 20s and 30s, regardless of their gender, are perfectly capable of standing. I would give up my seat on a bus for, say,* my mom or my sister or a close friend*, but that has more to do with the fact that I care about them than their gender and 'what is appropriate'.


What I have in bold from your post, an SO, or anyone else who may really need a seat (I have not needed to yet, but someone having trouble standing on the subway for instance only while it is moving)

There are times that I just need a break, or my feet are tired, so I'm not going to give up my seat willy nilly ... although, I won't rush to a seat just for myself either.


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

Maybe said:


> A chivalrous man in New York City?!!?!?!!?!? *Hits self to see if it is dreaming*


Maybe I should move to NYC and show them how it's done!


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Premium G said:


> Maybe I should move to NYC and show them how it's done!


YES please !!!! Take an army with you - I know a lot of ladies who would simply faint upon the sight. Warning: we ladies can be strong & lovely, but we are not accustomed to such behavior from men, so please forgive the initial shock and white faces.


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

Maybe said:


> YES please !!!! Take an army with you - I know a lot of ladies who would simply faint upon the sight. Warning: we ladies can be strong & lovely, but we are not accustomed to such behavior from men, so please forgive the initial shock and white faces.


As a non-alpha male, I think I would bring only myself if that is the case :laughing:


----------



## Grau the Great (Mar 2, 2012)

Boss said:


> @_Grau the Great_
> 
> I don't give up my seat for able bodied individuals, especially those around my age. They're perfectly capable of standing during the ride. Though, as a cisgendered female, people's expectations of me, as far as chivalry is concerned, are much lower. These annoying double standards..lol *A man giving up his seat for an able bodied woman is going beyond chivalry. It's just unnecessary inconvenience. *
> 
> ...


You know, it's funny. Most young women I know/are friends with who are around my age (read: all of them) take that view. _"I really don't care, and I'm perfectly healthy enough to stand. It's almost strange to have some random dude jump up and offer me a seat as soon as I turn up somewhere." _

However, I've had the hilarious experience of a woman slightly older than myself standing next to where I was seated on the bus and staring down at me the entire ride home, presumably because I didn't give her my seat. I guess she thought it would act as some kind of public shaming, but I thought it was hilarious, especially because she looked like she was in better shape than I was at that time. People can be funny :tongue:


----------



## Grau the Great (Mar 2, 2012)

Maybe said:


> A chivalrous man in New York City?!!?!?!!?!? *Hits self to see if it is dreaming*


Eh, I'm hardly a pillar of chivalry as compared to someone more traditionalistic. My dad, for example, is hilariously traditional, and is a huge fan of pretty much all of the 'over-the-top' behaviors described in this thread. I don't do any of that, which annoys people with his outlook lol, but I do try to do what I think is right, without focusing on a particular gender.

On a sidenote, why do some people have it locked into their minds that women should get a head start in running out of a fire? Are women more flammable then men? I was on the fire department for 5 years, and was never told of this. It's behaviors like that that cross the line from 'right' to 'stupid'. People in that unfortunate position need help regardless of what gender they were coincidentally born as. I'm far from a progressive, but that level of traditionalism makes me bang my head against walls.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

I don't equate chivalry with being traditional or irrational... I equate it with kindness!



Grau the Great said:


> Eh, I'm hardly a pillar of chivalry as compared to someone more traditionalistic. My dad, for example, is hilariously traditional, and is a huge fan of pretty much all of the 'over-the-top' behaviors described in this thread. I don't do any of that, which annoys people with his outlook lol, but I do try to do what I think is right, without focusing on a particular gender.
> 
> On a sidenote, why do some people have it locked into their minds that women should get a head start in running out of a fire? Are women more flammable then men? I was on the fire department for 5 years, and was never told of this. It's behaviors like that that cross the line from 'right' to 'stupid'. People in that unfortunate position need help regardless of what gender they were coincidentally born as. I'm far from a progressive, but that level of traditionalism makes me bang my head against walls.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Maybe said:


> I don't equate chivalry with being traditional or irrational... I equate it with kindness!


Kindness???? ... Then I be very chivalrous towards you :wink: ..... :tongue: ....... *hugs* ^__^ *and cuteness* .... Oh wait, I just confused cuteness with kindness :tongue: - sorry, but I'm not kind (somewhere in this post is a lie :tongue



Grau the Great said:


> On a sidenote, why do some people have it locked into their minds that women should get a head start in running out of a fire? Are women more flammable then men? I was on the fire department for 5 years, and was never told of this. It's behaviors like that that cross the line from 'right' to 'stupid'. People in that unfortunate position need help regardless of what gender they were coincidentally born as. I'm far from a progressive, but that level of traditionalism makes me bang my head against walls.


I understand what you are saying, "Women and children first" ... and, well, children first seems obvious ... but, I think women tend to still be the main care takers of children and it is really hard to say "main care takers of children and children first" .... I mean, it probably has to do with "chivalry", but since we are still not there with men being the main caretakers of children almost as much as women ... since that is not the case as of yet and many people won't be in this situation, I think that won't be tackled for a while 

.... Although, if they said "single parents and children first", I think that would be okay (clearly pregnant women first also)


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Yardiff Bey said:


> Sadly, for me it has already been ruined. Perhaps I had the misfortune of running across far too many of the silly girls who ruin things for others.


 :sad: this is why I throw hissy fits every so often; it's not fair ...

*Thank you for being honest* though. 

At least SOMEONE is willing to admit it. I'm afraid I made a complete ass of myself in a different thread when I was trying to pick at this very issue. It's like no one wants to admit that this is a reality, and then of course I look like the crazy person (story of my life). This right here is what makes dating later in life that much harder than it has to be, and my allergies ruin any hope of settling for cat! It's so unfair ... ugh :/

*Good thing I decided to just start having celebrity crushes, better late than never! :tongue: *


----------



## Yardiff Bey (Jun 5, 2011)

kaleidoscope said:


> @_Yardiff Bey_, I have two stories for you that'll make you facepalm big time. Warm up that palm.
> 
> - Cousin A: Was dating a guy who she was *not* attracted to or had any feelings for, and decided to break up with him after he bored her to tears. He begged her not to because he was obviously completely smitten by her. So my dear cousin actually tells him she'll get back with him if, after he gets back from his trip to Paris, he gets her pretty things :dry: The poor guy complies for I don't know what fucked up reason, and she breaks up with him cause he didn't get her anything expensive.
> 
> ... I'm not kidding.


Golddigger.



kaleidoscope said:


> Cousin B: Married to a doormat, who does everything for her. Cooks, cleans the house, you name it. She actually woke him up at 2am in the morning because she was hungry. He got up like the good husband he is, made her a sandwich and she bitched because he didn't put any sauce in it. AND bragged about it the next day to me. :dry:


Next corpse to be pulled out of the river.

LOL it's nothing new to me. Heard it, seen it, had it done to me. Grew a spine. Told 'em to fuck off. Some of my extended cousins have done similar shit. *amused*


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Yardiff Bey said:


> Sadly, for me it has already been ruined. Perhaps I had the misfortune of running across far too many of the silly girls who ruin things for others.


You're stronger than that.

And you are incredibly chivalrous. 

But that's a nice size bark you have on you.:wink:


----------



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)

Yardiff Bey said:


> Golddigger.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I enjoyed reading this- thanks for my ISTJ fix. It's been awhile.
:tongue:


----------



## RetroVortex (Aug 14, 2012)

Boss said:


> @_Grau the Great_
> 
> I don't give up my seat for able bodied individuals, especially those around my age. They're perfectly capable of standing during the ride. Though, as a cisgendered female, people's expectations of me, as far as chivalry is concerned, are much lower. These annoying double standards..lol A man giving up his seat for an able bodied woman is going beyond chivalry. It's just unnecessary inconvenience.
> 
> ...


Those are situations I'd probably fold for as well.
(Well.. I generally tend to sit windowside with a spare seat anyway. People don't sit next to me normally anyway (I'm basically people repellant! XD) Sometimes I won't give up a seat if I'm sitting further back. I guess its because we expect those at the front to give those seats up really)


----------



## Yardiff Bey (Jun 5, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> You're stronger than that.
> 
> And you are incredibly chivalrous.
> 
> But that's a nice size bark you have on you.:wink:


You know, it's incredibly disconcerting when there is one person who can casually reach through all my defenses and touch the hidden freaking softie inside. >_<



Laguna said:


> I enjoyed reading this- thanks for my ISTJ fix. It's been awhile.
> :tongue:


You're welcome. You'll have to book for your next fix though, and I might have to charge admission. :tongue:


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Kindness???? ... Then I be very chivalrous towards you :wink: ..... :tongue: ....... *hugs* ^__^ *and cuteness* .... Oh wait, I just confused cuteness with kindness :tongue: - sorry, but I'm not kind (somewhere in this post is a lie :tongue


AAWWWWWW Mr. Meepers is the Meepingest chivalrous Meep on the planet! Oh wait, I think I just confused SWEEETEST KNiGht in shining Armor for Mr. Meepers. But I was not confused! :kitteh: HUGGG


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Maybe said:


> AAWWWWWW Mr. Meepers is the Meepingest chivalrous Meep on the planet! Oh wait, I think I just confused SWEEETEST KNiGht in shining Armor for Mr. Meepers. But I was not confused! :kitteh: HUGGG


Oooo ... I'm shiny ^__^ ... SHINY *__* ... and Thank you ^__^ *hugs back*


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

duplicate


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

@Mr. Meepers


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

lol @Paradox1987

I just remembered something. When I was in India, I saw this old rickshaw driver gentleman having a hard time moving forward on a road in poor condition. A very old lady was on the rickshaw thing, and I decided to step in help the elderly man out. I helped push the rickshaw ahead, and that's that. It was the humane thing to do, and it might as well count as chivalry. Being a woman didn't keep me from doing what needed to be done. Though, a couple of my friends watching thought I should have just let some "guy" do it. And to me, it's like, if I am fully capable of doing something, I won't wait around for someone else to do it. As others have affirmed several times throughout the thread, it would be best if chivalry were approached from a gender neutral perspective.


----------

