Good Manners

[intothewoods]

<snip>
i am perfectly capable of choosing my own food in a restaurant (though i do tend to be indecisive, i'll pick something), and ordering for myself if i must. i'm also quite capable of seating myself, opening doors, and walking in a more or less straight line without a gentle hand at the small of my back. but when a man takes it upon himself to do these things, it tells me that he recognizes me as a female. it tells me that he has not succumbed to modern social conditioning which tells us that there is no such thing as men and women, as in all ways we must act and be treated the same. it tells me that he recognizes himself as a man, and is quite comfortable owning that. and to repeat an earlier comment, i like men.

I like men too. As Keroin says, it's all about choice -- the choice to express your masculinity or feminity in a way that is comfortable for you. Many men have no interest in taking the lead in a social setting. They're not succumbing to anything other than their own nature. If anything, the pressure to be a man in the way that you describe was something they had to overcome in order to be true to themselves. And sometimes it's not an identity issue at all and quite simple. My husband/PYL is pretty old school in many ways, but I don't think it would ever occur to him to order for me. It's just not that big of a deal to him either way. Now, who drives the car? That's another story.

it has nothing to do with bdsm, or even D/s, and nothing to do with dating or whom i would find to be a compatible partner (my brain doesn't even work that way with regard to relationships). it has to do with my being a female who prefers being treated as such, because otherwise i am sharing a space with someone who does not accept me on even the most basic level.

fortunately though, i haven't had many one-on-one experiences with such people...you know the uber-modern "unisex"-minded. perhaps like really does attract like. i find it interesting though that even back in high school my two homosexual friends (one male, one female that lived as male) treated me the same way, and i responded to them in like fashion. they always paid my way when going out (tho i certainly had more cash than either), would refuse to let me lift a thing in their presence, always protected me from bullies or random guys hitting on me, etc. they saw me as very female...and that once meant something precious and delicate to be cared for. now what does it mean? anything at all?

I haven't had many experienes with the unisex either, but I did read that book Middlesex. Did your friends treat all females in the same way? There are plenty of gay men who are masculine and chivalrous -- the chivalry part in particular I think really reflects your culture and upbringing.

 

[the captians wench]

Sooooo...

If a woman enjoys having sex and wants to do so without running the social etiquette maze, she is not worthy of respect?

Okay, what does it say about me that I swing both ways here?

I know, I'm easy. But sex is good.

 

[intothewoods]

I watched a TV program once where they set up a situation and secretly filmed people's responses. There was an actor, lying on the ground as if they might be injured or unconscious, on a sidewalk, in the middle of the day.

They performed the experiment in a small town first and a big city second. In the small town EVERY person walking by stopped to make sure the person on the ground was OK, and all seemed genuinely concerned. In the big city, hardly anyone stopped to check on the person on the ground. Some stepped right over them.

I tend to wipe my shoes on such folks and empty any trash I have lingering in my pockets. Then I throw my head back and cackle maniacally. City living bitches!

 

[Keroin]

Okay, what does it say about me that I swing both ways here?

I know, I'm easy. But sex is good.

It says that you are a woman capable of making choices that are unique and best for you.

Good for you!

Go Wenchie

(And yes, sex is good).

 

[Keroin]

I tend to wipe my shoes on such folks and empty any trash I have lingering in my pockets. Then I throw my head back and cackle maniacally. City living bitches!

Just as I suspected.

Do you also have a black mustache that you twirl and white cat that sits on your lap as you laugh an evil laugh?

I know it's a sweeping generalization but I've lived in a variety of places - large and teeny weeny - and I have noticed more general courtesy in *most* of the smaller towns. I have theories as to why and it's not because big city people are all assholes, not at all.

 

[ownedsubgal]

For starters, the whole, "used to be nice to women because they were thought to be fragile" is a bunch of hogwash. Seriously. That only applied to the Upper Class -toffs- people who could afford to keep women in the house doing nothing. The rest of society had to work bloody hard -as in 16 hours, seven days a week hard- and that included the women. Furthermore, the housewife job did not mean sitting at home doing nothing. Most people lived on farms, where the housewife was not only expected to do the washing up and cooking -and this was back when women had to make their own soap- but supervise the stores for the rest of the year, act as general nurse and doctor to the family, seamstress (no one bought close at the store) and take on a good portion of the work in the household, and the education of the children. Add to that she would often have up to twelve children who would be born with no more anaesthetic than a shot of spirits. If they could afford that. Being a woman used to be a very hard lot, and I am constantly annoyed by "modern women" denigrating their foremothers.

to be clear: i am black, born and raised in the south in a very rural community. while my own parents were "well-off," they were both raised extremely poor on farms, and were using outhouses well into the '60s. my aunt who cared for me frequently as a child worked as a maid for white families, in the part of town where people were still proudly living in actual plantation homes. even today, there is a law on the books that black people are not permitted to own property in that part of town. anywho, she would often take me with her to work, and put me to work myself...the little stuff like dusting tiny knickknacks, polishing silver, etc. i once watched her, in her 50s, move aside a piano so that the rug underneath could be cleaned. then when her work day was over, it was home to make sure her own home was spotless and dinner hot for my uncle when he got home at 5. she raised more children than can be counted...her own, then many of her own grandchildren, plus those from poor or troubled families in the church.

so you could definitely say that she was a very strong woman...in all ways one can be so. but i still noticed the way my uncle always held out her chair at the dinner table, how he wouldn't let her bend to lift the big turkeys and hams out of the oven in his presence, how he would regularly ask her, in an almost fatherly way, "do you need any money, dear?" and i saw the same kind of thing between my grandparents who led even rougher lives. so i have no idea at all about weird "upper class" Victorian-ish chivalry and manners. my experiences have only been with regular folk.

 

[FurryFury]

I watched a TV program once where they set up a situation and secretly filmed people's responses. There was an actor, lying on the ground as if they might be injured or unconscious, on a sidewalk, in the middle of the day.

They performed the experiment in a small town first and a big city second. In the small town EVERY person walking by stopped to make sure the person on the ground was OK, and all seemed genuinely concerned. In the big city, hardly anyone stopped to check on the person on the ground. Some stepped right over them.

I saw that too. Happily I live in a small community just out side of a decent sized city.

FF

 

[Braschi]

The thing about ordering for someone is that it kind of slips out of the usual context of common courtesy or even chivalry, because it's somewhat personal. What you want to eat is based on your personal tastes, and I find it hard that someone on the first date would know what their companion would want to eat. Consequently, if they don't ask first, they are either making an assumption about someone, or trying to decide for them. That wouldn't be a good thing at all.

It's a matter of personal choice, I guess; there are going to be people who don't like it, and society has rather thrown out the rule that it's the guy's job to look after his date to ensure she has a good time. The general rule of thumb applies here, as well: ask your partner, talk about things, maintain open communication. Then do what's best for your particular situation.

In the original situation, that seems to be what happened: if the woman was unhappy or uncomfortable with what he did, then it's also her responsibility to speak up and let him know.

As a manner of example, I frequently order for my sister when we go to a restaurant, because she's invariably on the 'phone whenever the waiter comes around. But, that's only because I have a pretty good idea of what she likes, doesn't like, and what she'll probably eat. Besides, if I screw up, we can always order something else. On the other hand, if it's someone I don't know, then they have to order, or at least tell me what they want first.

Sooooo...

If a woman enjoys having sex and wants to do so without running the social etiquette maze, she is not worthy of respect?

Ah, errr, that kind of came out wrong. I was putting two ideas into one paragraph and it didn't convey what I was trying to say.

I meant to say that I agree with you in that a lot of chivalry was about working and respecting women, instead of just fucking them. And that now that women are more open about their sexuality, that that working and respecting part is no longer there.

Then I was going for the corollary, leaving the sexual part behind. Chivalry is a form of showing respect, regardless of whether you're getting laid later or not, but since it's become acceptable for men to not show respect, women have not tried to be "respectable". In other words, they don't demand men to be chivalrous, so men aren't. The modern idea seems to blur a bit the differences between men and women, and thus the requirement for men to respect women. Women who go along with that tend to be less "ladylike", for lack of a better word. So, if a woman is trying to act like "one of the lads", then she will be treated as one; instead of if she acted like a lady, she'd be treated like one as well (i.e. more respectful in response to her more "respectableness").

 

[Braschi]

(And yes, sex is good).

It is? B-but every time I think about sex I get this tumor in my groin. That can't be good, can it?

I know it's a sweeping generalization but I've lived in a variety of places - large and teeny weeny - and I have noticed more general courtesy in *most* of the smaller towns. I have theories as to why and it's not because big city people are all assholes, not at all.

There was a study about that, I forget where, but the idea was that they put people in individual rooms, and then they would talk with other people over a 'phone. Then, one of the people they were talking to would fake a seizure. The people who were having one-on-one conversations were more likely to seek help, than people who were talking in a group. The people in group said that they thought "someone else would take care of it".

I've noticed this in other areas as well; for example, if someone has a heart attack in a crowded trainstation, they are less likely to receive help than if they had the heart attack in a residential street with one or two people.

It has to do with the level of responsibility people feel: if they are the only ones there, then they feel more compelled to help. If there are lots of people around, then they can either excuse themselves by thinking that someone else will do it, or will do whatever everyone else is doing and ignore the situation. Interestingly, and this has happened to me, in the crowded trainstation example above, as soon as someone starts helping the person, then people will crowd around and more people will offer to help.

so i have no idea at all about weird "upper class" Victorian-ish chivalry and manners. my experiences have only been with regular folk.

I didn't mean to say that people of the lower classes weren't chivalrous, but that the idea that women were weak and incapable was a upper-class thing. As far as I know, everyone was quite good-mannered (except, maybe drunken sailors ), regardless of class (though, evidently, the upper class had more time to practice etiquette, but, that's another matter).

 

[where]

I'm not saying that a woman ordering for herself emasculates men. What I'm saying is that act is not considered threatening at all, when a man making a jump and ordering for the woman (with or with out her choice already given to him) is viewed as him dominating the situation. That's my point. That when ever a man asserts himself, even slightly, he's suddenly this abusive prick that we need to be on our guard for.
I think you are conflating old-fashioned gentlemanly behaviour (Placing the order for the woman) with controlling (deciding what she is going to eat). Some 'assertive' behaviour in ANY gender is actually just rude.

On the contrary, I feel like this trend to not let a man do anything that might make him look even the slightest bit as in a position above a woman lest he be an abuser, holds us down rather than strengthens us as women.

I am perfectly able to order, and even choose my own meals, as well as open my own door and OMG drive . But do I enjoy when a man does that for me? Yes absolutely. Do I find it appealing in a primitive way? Deffo. Do I think less of a man who doesn't do these things? No, but if we are on a date then they would shift into short term status.

I personally believe we have lost something here. But I also enjoy being treated like I'm a fragile being.

And no, it's not just chivalry that has died, but courtesy as well. People being nice to one another, and polite just because it's the right thing has never really happened on a whole. People were polite in public because it was socially expected of them, where it is not anymore, for the most part.

you say you value courtesy and politeness but should such actions be entirely dependent upon gender? because that is what you seem to be arguing.

I'm glad that I can be looked upon as an intellectual equal to my male dinner companion, but damn it I want him to treat me like I'll break if I have to push my own chair in, or fumble with my coat.

how likely is a man to see a woman as an intellectual equal if she isn't willing to even decide what she want to eat? that is a serious question. maybe some of the men can chime in here?

first, i don't put a "bdsm spin" on anything...bdsm is not even a part of my lifestyle, but that's neither here nor there with regard to this topic. believe it or not, the type of manners illustrated in the OP used to very much be "mainstream," and it makes me sad that so many have rejected this is a normal interaction to the point where they can only justify it by explaining it away as some form of bdsm, or an example of people with a control fetish. the reality is it's very natural for some people, and moreover, quite preferable to being treated in the way which has now become "mainstream."

ummm I'd like to see some evidence that it has EVER been mainstream for men to order for a woman in restaurants without asking them what they wanted first. That behaviour illustrated in the OP is very far from the mainstream even before the rise of feminism. It can only be explained in terms of the man being very ungentlemanly or because there is a bdsm dynamic going on. Have a read of some of the books on etiquette and manners from the 1920s on and you will see that women were treated with the utmost courtesy, their needs and wants indulged. A far cry form this fictitious 'norm' of men automatically assuming control and micromanaging every aspect of the life of their significant female.

i am perfectly capable of choosing my own food in a restaurant (though i do tend to be indecisive, i'll pick something), and ordering for myself if i must. i'm also quite capable of seating myself, opening doors, and walking in a more or less straight line without a gentle hand at the small of my back. but when a man takes it upon himself to do these things, it tells me that he recognizes me as a female. it tells me that he has not succumbed to modern social conditioning which tells us that there is no such thing as men and women, as in all ways we must act and be treated the same. it tells me that he recognizes himself as a man, and is quite comfortable owning that. and to repeat an earlier comment, i like men.

I think you need to maybe educate yourself about the real world out there. The perception you have of the real world seems quite alien to me. Men hold doors open for women (and yes sometimes vice versa, are men not worthy of the same courtesy they extend to women?) and to suggest that there is no recognition of the differences in gender would mean you are living in a bubble given the hyper-sexualised society we live in. Men still act like men and women still act like women despite what the misogynistic crew would have you believe.

it has nothing to do with bdsm, or even D/s, and nothing to do with dating or whom i would find to be a compatible partner (my brain doesn't even work that way with regard to relationships). it has to do with my being a female who prefers being treated as such, because otherwise i am sharing a space with someone who does not accept me on even the most basic level.

so if I want to open my own doors and choose what i eat I'm less of a woman? Are women who expect to be treated like indecisive, fragile little bird the only true women?

fortunately though, i haven't had many one-on-one experiences with such people...you know the uber-modern "unisex"-minded. perhaps like really does attract like. i find it interesting though that even back in high school my two homosexual friends (one male, one female that lived as male) treated me the same way, and i responded to them in like fashion. they always paid my way when going out (tho i certainly had more cash than either), would refuse to let me lift a thing in their presence, always protected me from bullies or random guys hitting on me, etc. they saw me as very female...and that once meant something precious and delicate to be cared for. now what does it mean? anything at all?

I've never met any of these 'unisex people you refer to, but I can now see why you like this scene. it absolves you of any personal responsibility, manipulates others into paying for you and providing protection.

 

[KoPilot]

Chivalry is a form of showing respect, regardless of whether you're getting laid later or not, but since it's become acceptable for men to not show respect, women have not tried to be "respectable". In other words, they don't demand men to be chivalrous, so men aren't. The modern idea seems to blur a bit the differences between men and women, and thus the requirement for men to respect women. Women who go along with that tend to be less "ladylike", for lack of a better word. So, if a woman is trying to act like "one of the lads", then she will be treated as one; instead of if she acted like a lady, she'd be treated like one as well (i.e. more respectful in response to her more "respectableness").

I think this is because we're slowly moving away from a binary gender system. Which I WHOLLY endorse. I don't want to be treated differently because I've got tits and a cunt; that's going to make me mad. I would rather be treated with respect and courtesy because I'm a fellow human being.

As far as the ordering thing, it's all shades of gray. If S ordered for me without asking, I'd get angry. But if he knew what I wanted and did it as a little surprise, I'd get starry-eyed.

 

[KoPilot]

I've never met any of these 'unisex people you refer to, but I can now see why you like this scene. it absolves you of any personal responsibility, manipulates others into paying for you and providing protection.

I think she's talking about "metrosexual" dudes.

And yeah, I've had that hunch for a long, long time.

 

[where]

I think she's talking about "metrosexual" dudes.

And yeah, I've had that hunch for a long, long time.

are these the same as the 'feminized' men rosco et al rant on about? never met any of them either.

 

[KoPilot]

are these the same as the 'feminized' men rosco et al rant on about? never met any of them either.

LOL most likely: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=metrosexual

 

[rosco rathbone]

are these the same as the 'feminized' men rosco et al rant on about? never met any of them either.

So I'm an et al now, am I?

 

[where]

LOL most likely: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=metrosexual

see, just about all of those things could have been applied to most middleclass men in the 1700s.

it's a bullshit term made up by men who feel threatened by women and by the other men who don't feel threatened by women.

 

[Keroin]

Ah, errr, that kind of came out wrong. I was putting two ideas into one paragraph and it didn't convey what I was trying to say.

Fair enough.

I meant to say that I agree with you in that a lot of chivalry was about working and respecting women, instead of just fucking them. And that now that women are more open about their sexuality, that that working and respecting part is no longer there.

Then I was going for the corollary, leaving the sexual part behind. Chivalry is a form of showing respect, regardless of whether you're getting laid later or not, but since it's become acceptable for men to not show respect, women have not tried to be "respectable". In other words, they don't demand men to be chivalrous, so men aren't. The modern idea seems to blur a bit the differences between men and women, and thus the requirement for men to respect women. Women who go along with that tend to be less "ladylike", for lack of a better word. So, if a woman is trying to act like "one of the lads", then she will be treated as one; instead of if she acted like a lady, she'd be treated like one as well (i.e. more respectful in response to her more "respectableness").

I *think* I understand what you're aiming for here but you're missing a crucial element. I don't just "act" like one of the lads, I simply *am* how I am. Thankfully, I live in a society that allows me to be who I am. And among the lads I am shown a great deal of respect - just not the kind of "chivalry" you speak of. The kind of respect they show me is also far, far more valued by me than the "man pays for the meal and takes off his hat when I enter a room" sort of respect.

No, I don't act like "a lady"...pfft. No thank you. But I am still respected, respectful and respectable.

 

[where]

So I'm an et al now, am I?

vetgit and the other wingnuts on the gb spout the same paranoid crap. I admit I was shocked when you came out with it.

 

[rosco rathbone]

vetgit and the other wingnuts on the gb spout the same paranoid crap. I admit I was shocked when you came out with it.

That's true, I do agree with vetteman on the efeeminization of young middle class males.

Metrosexuals to me are just guys who put a lot of effort into grooming and dress. My cousin is one, and he's all man.

 

[where]

That's true, I do agree with vetteman on the efeeminization of young middle class males.

Metrosexuals to me are just guys who put a lot of effort into grooming and dress. My cousin is one, and he's all man.

but it's a chimera. it doesn't exist except in the minds of men of a certain age who feel threatened by what may or may not be post-modernity.

 

[teknight]

This might not seem very polite, but you bastards have made me wanna read the whole damn thread...'cause obviously I have something important to say...or some such.

 

[rosco rathbone]

but it's a chimera. it doesn't exist except in the minds of men of a certain age who feel threatened by what may or may not be post-modernity.

The weird thing is that BDSM is becoming the repository of traditional sex roles that are being redefined as perverse by society at large, for instance "Christian BDSM" and so on. I'm fascinated by this. It's leading to a schism in the BDSM community.

 

[where]

The weird thing is that BDSM is becoming the repository of traditional sex roles that are being redefined as perverse by society at large, for instance "Christian BDSM" and so on. I'm fascinated by this. It's leading to a schism in the BDSM community.

way to dodge the issue!

and yeah, before I really felt comfortable defining what I did as BDSM, I think I said to you that most vanilla marriages are like what many BDSM people are after. we just never label it as such.

now, back to your irrational fear of supposedly effeminised young men....

 

[rosco rathbone]

way to dodge the issue!

and yeah, before I really felt comfortable defining what I did as BDSM, I think I said to you that most vanilla marriages are like what many BDSM people are after. we just never label it as such.

now, back to your irrational fear of supposedly effeminised young men....

I'm not dodging, just politely overlooking your attempt to marginalise and pathologize from a rather dubious position of authority.

 

[Braschi]

I think this is because we're slowly moving away from a binary gender system. Which I WHOLLY endorse. I don't want to be treated differently because I've got tits and a cunt; that's going to make me mad. I would rather be treated with respect and courtesy because I'm a fellow human being.

hehe, well I'm WHOLLY against that, because people are different and there's nothing wrong with being different. And being different means you get treated differently. It so happens that there are a host of other differences between men and women aside from their genitals (and then there are those who have both genitals, or none). So, it's not a matter of treating someone differently because they've got tits or a penis, but a matter of social conditioning that allows us to get along. On average men are taller and stronger than women, which means on average, they should show deference towards women. It doesn't mean that women are incapable or anything to do with whether they have tits or not; it's a matter of natural human differences that we have to learn to accept and get along with.

So, while it's true that we should have the same amount of respect for all of our fellow human beings, it's also true that that respect can be shown in different ways. For example, you might show respect for the President of your country by calling him "Mr President"; on the other hand, that President might show respect for you by calling you "Sir." It doesn't mean that either one is being respected because it exclusively because one is the President, and you are a citizen; but that's how a President shows respect to a citizen, and how you should show respect for your President.

The same applies to men and women. Men show respect towards women by opening doors and holding chairs. Women show respect by not shouting, listening or being caring. Or I don't know. There doesn't seem to be a formal social thing for women showing respect...

how likely is a man to see a woman as an intellectual equal if she isn't willing to even decide what she want to eat? that is a serious question. maybe some of the men can chime in here?

Likely for me. One thing is being intelligent, another entirely being decisive. Besides, why are you assuming that she is "unwilling" to decide; maybe the situation is that there are lots of things she likes, but doesn't know which she would enjoy more. Maybe she's done a more intellectual analysis of the menu and her feelings about eating, and has discovered that what she wants to eat might be less healthy, while what she should eat is not something she's particularly inclined to eat. So, she is thinking these things over while the man just stupidly picks the first thing he feels good about and is done with it.

How about that? Why do we always have to assume people aren't capable or are less intelligent for whatever reason?