Gentleman or not?

[papilllon]

Many of you are familiar with the “Taken in hand” philosophy I think. As it is here in Lit, different people there have different interpretations of what a TIH relationship is. Some claim this is nothing like D/s while others come from a clear BDSM background. In my opinion, these relationship are all D/s ones with just different levels of power exchange.

One thing that seems to be a consensus when you travel a bit on the TIH website is the idea of dominant men being gentlemen. I had once a conversation with a man who wondered if chivalry wasn’t in fact a way for a man to “submit to the woman by way of worshipping her”. I had never thought of it that way and even after contemplating the idea, I couldn’t view chivalrous men as submissive.

On the contrary! To me, chivalry is very much associated with domination. It makes perfect sense to have a man open the door for me and help me put on my coat and still remain very much the dominant one. In fact, it makes me feel more submissive towards a man if he’s a gentleman (at least in public ) as it makes me feel protected and cared for, which are things I need when in a relationship with a man. I also found erotic the idea that the same man who’s opening the door for me would later be giving me a sound spanking.

What do you think of chivalry in your own relationship? Is it something you need? Does it influence how you view your partner? Do you consider a chivalrous man to be less dominant then one who’s not?

Papillon

 

[poppy1963]

It seems to me that the art of Chivalry very much is a dominant indication. The sub is still awaiting the cues from the Dom and he is guiding all the dynamics. I like this idea very much. A chivalrous man does elicit a more submissive response from me...as I am both touched by that behavior and feel a bit unworthy of it at times...but cared for anyway.

Plus there is an enigmatic element as to how others might imagine the relationship...a secret side that others may not suspect at all...that is appealing to me.

 

[nymphee]

I tend to expect chivalry from men without being in a sexual relationship, but I'm lucky that many of my male friends are extremly old fashioned, gentlemanly types. I don't mean that I would be offended if a man did not open a door for me, or walk on the outside of the pavement, but because I am used to it, I would probably notice the ommission.
As far as my realtionship goes, even before we moved in the general direction of BDSM, my man has always been a gentleman, and he has always, always seen himself as my protector and I have certainly never considered him to be submitting to me. Rather, there is a delicious juxtaposition between being treated so gently and sweetly in public, and being thrown around in the bedroom as well as a sense of consistency of control.
Perhaps it is the people I have grown up around who are responsible, but I find chivalry one of the biggest turn ons, and would probably not be attracted to a man who wasn't.

 

[SpectreT]

It can go either way. Chivalrous behavior can in fact be a "worshipping" of the woman, an extended public service to her.

It can also come from a posessiveness and protectiveness towards a woman he sees as his. He owns her, he has responsibilities to her and to himself.

I've been on both sides of it, and those sentences are what it boils down to, more or less.

 

[nymphee]

Thanks, SpectreT, that's a really good way of putting it. I think the latter is the way it exists in my relationship, but they're both really useful definitions!

 

[St_George]

On Chivalry

I think chivalry transcends D/s. It is a man's duty (we should all be gentlemen, at least in public) to behave chivalrously to all women, regardless of whether we are in a sexual relationship or not. It is neither a matter of submission nor of dominance, but one of common courtesy and good manners! IMO, there is not enough chivalry in the world and people would do well to revive it.

 

[papilllon]

It can go either way. Chivalrous behavior can in fact be a "worshipping" of the woman, an extended public service to her.

It can also come from a posessiveness and protectiveness towards a woman he sees as his. He owns her, he has responsibilities to her and to himself.

I've been on both sides of it, and those sentences are what it boils down to, more or less.

I think you made a very good point. I can't really remember witnessing a chivalrous attitude that would correspond to the first definition but a submissive man would indeed be a gentleman with his Domme.

Your second definition was right on and I simply love it!

 

[poppy1963]

I think chivalry transcends D/s. It is a man's duty (we should all be gentlemen, at least in public) to behave chivalrously to all women, regardless of whether we are in a sexual relationship or not. It is neither a matter of submission nor of dominance, but one of common courtesy and good manners! IMO, there is not enough chivalry in the world and people would do well to revive it.

Curious St_George...do you have a strong concept of how women should behave towards men in public? Is there a dutiful way on a woman's side as well?

 

[papilllon]

I think chivalry transcends D/s. It is a man's duty (we should all be gentlemen, at least in public) to behave chivalrously to all women, regardless of whether we are in a sexual relationship or not. It is neither a matter of submission nor of dominance, but one of common courtesy and good manners! IMO, there is not enough chivalry in the world and people would do well to revive it.

I couldn't agree more but most men my age aren't chivalrous. They're just not brought up this way anymore. Very few of them at the very least... Usually, men who are chivalrous tend to be in their 40's or older. Well, from my experience that is. In my corner of the world, a gentleman is a rare specimen.

Some women do get offended though when a man opens the door for them so maybe this is why many men have just given up... It would be nice to see more chivalry though.

I brought this up in here because chivalry makes me feel more like a woman, which in turn makes me feel more submissive. It's a subtle reminder of differences between men and women and it has an old-fashioned connotation that hint on D/s for me.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Many of you are familiar with the “Taken in hand” philosophy I think. As it is here in Lit, different people there have different interpretations of what a TIH relationship is. Some claim this is nothing like D/s while others come from a clear BDSM background. In my opinion, these relationship are all D/s ones with just different levels of power exchange.

One thing that seems to be a consensus when you travel a bit on the TIH website is the idea of dominant men being gentlemen. I had once a conversation with a man who wondered if chivalry wasn’t in fact a way for a man to “submit to the woman by way of worshipping her”. I had never thought of it that way and even after contemplating the idea, I couldn’t view chivalrous men as submissive.

On the contrary! To me, chivalry is very much associated with domination. It makes perfect sense to have a man open the door for me and help me put on my coat and still remain very much the dominant one. In fact, it makes me feel more submissive towards a man if he’s a gentleman (at least in public ) as it makes me feel protected and cared for, which are things I need when in a relationship with a man. I also found erotic the idea that the same man who’s opening the door for me would later be giving me a sound spanking.

What do you think of chivalry in your own relationship? Is it something you need? Does it influence how you view your partner? Do you consider a chivalrous man to be less dominant then one who’s not?

Papillon

I find that bad mannered, rude and chivalry cuts across submissives, dominant, and vanilla men. If the man is rude and bad mannered he will be that way regardless of whether he is traditional or D/s. If he is chivalrous he will be regardless of whether he is traditional or D/s. Being in this or any other lifestyle does not change anyones fundamental core. People do not change who they really are.

Eb [YMMV]

 

[IsabellaSnow]

TIH is an interesting site and I agree with the philosophy.

Shame they disabled their personal ad section.

 

[papilllon]

TIH is an interesting site and I agree with the philosophy.

Shame they disabled their personal ad section.

Beautiful site, yes.

I have no idea why they disabled the personal ad section though.

 

[St_George]

Curious St_George...do you have a strong concept of how women should behave towards men in public? Is there a dutiful way on a woman's side as well?

My old school motto was "Manners Mayketh Man". It just sort of stuck with me. You ask a good question. I suppose a woman has the duty to behave in a lady-like fashion - legs together, hands folded in lap, that sort of thing.

 

[Ebonyfire]

My old school motto was "Manners Mayketh Man". It just sort of stuck with me. You ask a good question. I suppose a woman has the duty to behave in a lady-like fashion - legs together, hands folded in lap, that sort of thing.

Only if she is not wearing pants. If she is her own person she can sit how she pleases. It is called freedom.

Eb

 

[St_George]

Only if she is not wearing pants. If she is her own person she can sit how she pleases. It is called freedom.

Eb

Even if she is wearing trousers, it would still be considered impolite for a lady to sit with her legs apart in company. She does of course have the freedom to decide to ignore what is considered polite.

 

[poppy1963]

My old school motto was "Manners Mayketh Man". It just sort of stuck with me. You ask a good question. I suppose a woman has the duty to behave in a lady-like fashion - legs together, hands folded in lap, that sort of thing.

To be careful of not projecting seductiveness then...? That makes sense as well.

 

[papilllon]

To be careful of not projecting seductiveness then...? That makes sense as well.

I think you can sit very "properly" and still project seductiveness. A smile, a look, the way you bend your head just sligthly before lookin up again...

 

[Ebonyfire]

Even if she is wearing trousers, it would still be considered impolite for a lady to sit with her legs apart in company. She does of course have the freedom to decide to ignore what is considered polite.

Polite by who's standards? that is what I mean. It is also impolite to assume that all people's standards are the same.

The Standards gestapo cracks me up.

 

[poppy1963]

I think you can sit very "properly" and still project seductiveness. A smile, a look, the way you bend your head just sligthly before lookin up again...

I think so too...in fact, that kind of behavior is seductive to such a man in and of itself!

I think my question was more how St_George saw it as he described how he felt men should act in public across the board. And it sounded like that's what he was getting at...the woman making every effort NOT to send off seductive vibes on purpose. The chemistry of seduction...ah, well....heehee...that's a whole other thing!!!

 

[subtleone]

It can go either way. Chivalrous behavior can in fact be a "worshipping" of the woman, an extended public service to her.

It can also come from a posessiveness and protectiveness towards a woman he sees as his. He owns her, he has responsibilities to her and to himself.
I've been on both sides of it, and those sentences are what it boils down to, more or less.

Couldn't agree more, although it has to be said that he would have to possess chivalrous qualities regardless of the relationship dynamic in order to pull this off. I, like nyphee love the idea that he can treat me with such regard in public and then like a serf in the bedroom.

 

[poppy1963]

Polite by who's standards? that is what I mean. It is also impolite to assume that all people's standards are the same.

The Standards gestapo cracks me up.

I suppose you make a good point...such things should be agreed upon between the couple...not set standards of a community or something like that! I think that's what I like best....that each couple self-determines the rules more than a community does. That's where things went amiss I think in times gone by.

 

[CutieMouse]

I think you can sit very "properly" and still project seductiveness. A smile, a look, the way you bend your head just sligthly before lookin up again...

Too true... otherwise why would the steriotypical quiet, ladylike [hottie] librarian fantasies be such a big deal?

 

[papilllon]

I think so too...in fact, that kind of behavior is seductive to such a man in and of itself!

I think my question was more how St_George saw it as he described how he felt men should act in public across the board. And it sounded like that's what he was getting at...the woman making every effort NOT to send off seductive vibes on purpose. The chemistry of seduction...ah, well....heehee...that's a whole other thing!!!

Even though the question wasn't aimed at me, I had to comment. The seduction dance between men and women just simply fascinates to me.

Papillon

 

[papilllon]

Too true... otherwise why would the steriotypical quiet, ladylike [hottie] librarian fantasies be such a big deal?

LOL

Yep! Very true.

Papillon

 

[Ebonyfire]

I suppose you make a good point...such things should be agreed upon between the couple...not set standards of a community or something like that! I think that's what I like best....that each couple self-determines the rules more than a community does. That's where things went amiss I think in times gone by.

Do you think it is a control thing? That is what I always thought. After all, we know historically men wore elaborate makeup than women. And some adventurous women could and did adopt the dress of men in polite society. Didn't Queen Elizabeth I do it? There are others I am sure.

Eb