Good Manners

[where]

I think we'd agree that the phenomena under discussion are actually happening. We just disagree on the interpretation, which probably comes down to some philosophical thing about the meaning of "female" or "male".

but you make it seem it is something that is new. and more to the point something that is a threat. you think that this is marking a change in society. it's not. there is a bit or RW media hype about it (like catching teh ghey a few years back) but it is not new, not increasing and not wiping out masculinity as we know it.

 

[Keroin]

And for the record, I've raised my girls to not be CONSTRICTED by their gender, but I have certainly not ignored that they are girls. So I buy my kid pretty bras from Victoria's secret AND write a check to the school to pay for her wrestling team uniform.

You rock, SB.

 

[Braschi]

Hah! I always knew that being submissive was being manipulative

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.

Yes, exactly. I have this bad habit of associating being ladylike with being respectable, but there are definitely other ways to be respectable. Sorry about that.

The important point is that you get along with your friends and are happy.

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.

Yes, I noticed that too. I wonder what that says about our society...

OK, I LOL'd. Honestly...are you being serious here?

No. That's why I went on to say I don't know

But how are women respectful in a traditional setting? They aren't?

Dude, here's a shovel, dig yourself in a little deeper.

So I, the hapless female, cannot navigate a restaurant menu? Despite an "intellectual analysis"? I am that incapable of coming to a decision and thank goodness there is a man who will step up and make that difficult choice for me?

And you don't see how that could be construed as being incapable?

Look, I totally get where Wenchie (et al ) is coming from. She's an independent, capable woman who also enjoys being with a man who will treat her like a fragile princess (even though she is clearly no such thing...well, maybe a princess but not fragile). Cool. Hey, some folks on this board enjoy being puppies and kitties...rock on. What you're suggesting is that there is some tangible, logical reason why a male should order food for a female, outside of their own desires to have that happen or the necessity of the situation (ie. I have to go to the washroom and the waiter is on his way).

Um, no.

Yeah, I did dig myself deeper with that bit, except that's not what I was saying or implying. I was just trying to get back a Kybele because I was annoyed at the implication of women not thinking...

But, I'm pretty sure you know that's not what I'm saying, either My point is that not ordering in a restaurant, or not choosing a particular dish, does not mean you're stupid. Wenchie has a better grasp of that, so I'm sticking with her

Yes, people are different. And in fact, people are so different that you can't really just put them into two clean-cut categories! Imagine that, huh??

So your solution to that is we treat everyone like bars of soap, each identically different?

If I'm carrying a 50 pound bag of cement, I would very much appreciate being offered help regardless of who's offering. But if someone offers to carry a 2 lb grocery bag for me, I would personally consider that rude because my kneejerk reaction is "what, you don't think I can fucking carry this?", so in that case, and many others like it, acknowledging that I am capable is a much greater show of respect to me than being "traditionally" courteous.

So... tl;dr, I hate making sweeping generalizations about people based on their gender. If your worldview says it's okay to do that, then there's really nothing more to discuss.

Then lets not make sweeping generalizations of people, and assume that just because they are being helpful, they are trying to denigrate you. If someone is offering to help you when you clearly don't need it, then, yes, you can suspect ulterior motives. But that doesn't mean that ALL people who offer to carry your bags are trying to be disrespectful

EDIT: Your and osg's Utopian society seems to leave out the numerous people who do not identify as pure girly girl or pure manly man. What do you propose we do with gays, lesbians, transsexuals, transgendered folk, tomboys, bisexuals, and everyone in between? Do we see a little boy's inclination to be nurturing and passive and try to beat it out of him while we still can? Turn him into a "real man"? Do we take a girl, who CLEARLY wants to pursue sports, cars, and baggy clothes, and get her nothing but Disney princess gear and dresses for Xmas? We're moving away from that mode of thinking for a reason.

Well, let's not go to extremes.

For me -I can't speak for osg- it's the other way around. If a boy wants to be nurturing (and where is passive a traditional trait in women?), fine. What I find wrong is that if said boy starts being, well, boyish, he gets diagnosed with ADHD, and if you open a door for a woman, you're called a "chauvinist". Or if I ask my date what she wants to eat before ordering on her behalf -because I'm talking to the waiter anyway-, then suddenly I'm "raising red flags", and it means I want to subjugate her and... well, do whatever it is that misogynistic pigs do. (I'm afraid I haven't gotten my Secret Patriarchy Manual yet, so I'm a bit hazy on the hating women part. )

If a woman wants to practice sports and not have men open doors, go right ahead. That's not my problem. It starts becoming my problem when that women implies that my girlfriend is stupid, lazy or manipulative because she lets me take her out for pizza which I order, and then attacks me for being "outdated" and "sexist" because I open the door to the car for her before driving her home.

 

[rosco rathbone]

but you make it seem it is something that is new. and more to the point something that is a threat. you think that this is marking a change in society. it's not. there is a bit or RW media hype about it (like catching teh ghey a few years back) but it is not new, not increasing and not wiping out masculinity as we know it.

If I "make it seem like something new", that's just me having a bit of fun. I disagree about the increasing, and the threat, though.

 

[where]

If I "make it seem like something new", that's just me having a bit of fun. I disagree about the increasing, and the threat, though.

OK, well evidence it increasing or threatening traditional masculinities.

 

[rosco rathbone]

OK, well evidence it increasing or threatening traditional masculinities.

The actual efeeminization of young males isn't so much a threat as a symptom of things that are very threatening: great changes in technology, economy and culture that have totally disrupted traditional ways and families. Why do you think that peasants in Afghanistan are fighting a 21st century mechanised army? That's an extreme example, but it certainly serves as evidence that "traditional masculinities" are under threat.

 

[intothewoods]

I think we'd agree that the phenomena under discussion are actually happening. We just disagree on the interpretation, which probably comes down to some philosophical thing about the meaning of "female" or "male".

I think there is also a disagreement about the degree to which this is actually happening. First of all, I have to say, while I totally agree that gender roles have changed over time, I feel like there is this assumption that the past was the 1950s. It's not been this linear evolution. We've had more progressive times and more conservative ones in the past, right? And to build on that, there's definitely been a backlash against feminism or what people perceive to be feminism and political correctness.

where are all these strong men being thrust onto the outskirts of society? honestly? this is being said without tongue-in-cheek? And women who are deferential to men are outliers as well? Where the hell is this place? Not where I've lived for the past 41 (and some odd) years.

And for the record, I've raised my girls to not be CONSTRICTED by their gender, but I have certainly not ignored that they are girls. So I buy my kid pretty bras from Victoria's secret AND write a check to the school to pay for her wrestling team uniform.

Right? Even my self-identified feminist friends who are married are quite deferential to their husbands. They're not deferential on every topic, but those who have good marriages know that requires some give and take.

I swear I could have forced my kid to wear a dress every day and it would not have mattered one iota. The point is - unless you have your head up your ass, you can tell your kid's personality and it's pretty clear from early on that it is what it is, no matter what lectures you give him.

 

[KoPilot]

So your solution to that is we treat everyone like bars of soap, each identically different?

My god... you're one of those people that equates big government with Nazi Germany, aren't you?

But that doesn't mean that ALL people who offer to carry your bags are trying to be disrespectful

It's entirely possible to do things "unknowingly". Your ultimate goal may not have been trying to insult me, but I will be offended that your means of showing respect are based on an outdated model that I want nothing to do with. And if you know me, then I expect you to understand that. If you're a stranger, I'll cut you slack.

For me -I can't speak for osg- it's the other way around. If a boy wants to be nurturing (and where is passive a traditional trait in women?), fine. What I find wrong is that if said boy starts being, well, boyish, he gets diagnosed with ADHD, and if you open a door for a woman, you're called a "chauvinist". Or if I ask my date what she wants to eat before ordering on her behalf -because I'm talking to the waiter anyway-, then suddenly I'm "raising red flags", and it means I want to subjugate her and... well, do whatever it is that misogynistic pigs do.

I have not ever once heard anything like that go on ever, with anybody. I'm going to take this as hyperbole, and even then... I think you're being a little ridiculous.

 

[intothewoods]

The actual efeeminization of young males isn't so much a threat as a symptom of things that are very threatening: great changes in technology, economy and culture that have totally disrupted traditional ways and families. Why do you think that peasants in Afghanistan are fighting a 21st century mechanised army? That's an extreme example, but it certainly serves as evidence that "traditional masculinities" are under threat.

Let's have a real discussion about what feminization is and what's actually changing. The idea that men are deprived from paying for dinner or opening doors -- and that it's a cultural crisis -- is silly.

 

[where]

The actual efeeminization of young males isn't so much a threat as a symptom of things that are very threatening: great changes in technology, economy and culture that have totally disrupted traditional ways and families. Why do you think that peasants in Afghanistan are fighting a 21st century mechanised army? That's an extreme example, but it certainly serves as evidence that "traditional masculinities" are under threat.

maybe I have an issue with what you refer to as 'effeminisation'. I will agree that we are now in this era of post-modernity and that identities have changed as have roles, but there is little to evidence a threat to traditional masculinities, unless you perceive change as threat. But that would then mean defining how masculinities have been theorised and perceived through the ages, which then makes the notion of 'traditional' masculinities defunct, because you then have to choose which tradition you are looking at. Are you looking at 1950s masculinities? 1914 ones? how about 1860s or 1750s? or 1450s? So which masculinities are you talking about? cause they have been changing and evolving since we started painting on walls with blood.

 

[rosco rathbone]

maybe I have an issue with what you refer to as 'effeminisation'. I will agree that we are now in this era of post-modernity and that identities have changed as have roles, but there is little to evidence a threat to traditional masculinities, unless you perceive change as threat. But that would then mean defining how masculinities have been theorised and perceived through the ages, which then makes the notion of 'traditional' masculinities defunct, because you then have to choose which tradition you are looking at. Are you looking at 1950s masculinities? 1914 ones? how about 1860s or 1750s? or 1450s? So which masculinities are you talking about? cause they have been changing and evolving since we started painting on walls with blood.

Leave it to an academic to think that people go around "theorizing" things.

 

[teknight]

Sorry for going back to early posts....

Hm, oddly enough I just realized that I would have sex on the first date but I wouldn't do a dinner out. So the term "intimate" is relative I guess, lol.

LOL

i have to say i'm surprised by all the negative responses. personally i didn't really read the exchange in the OP as D/s-ish at all, but more basic gentlemanly courtesy. there is a certain code of good manners between male and female that seems to be quickly dying out, particularly here in the west, and that really makes me sad. i rather enjoy being treated like a woman.

And what does it mean to be treated "like a woman"?
The code that's dying out has its origins in days gone by, when the relationship between men and women was fundamentally and overtly unequal (something, that, quite frankly, I can't stomach). Whether I'm expressing it correctly (through my words/actions) I expect my partner to be my equal, not my sub (and I'm not using the term as a stand in for pyl...I'm being "vanilla" here). I am willing to accommodate her if that is how she expects to be treated (upbringing is what it is, and if it impresses her that I hold the door open, hey, more brownie points for me), but all out shoving my impression of what manners ought to be on some unsuspecting person is just rude. I guess I'd try to preface the "iffy" moments with a "May I.."

Yes! I would be exactly the same - if a man can't tell within seconds of meeting me that I'm not (as K so delicately puts it) an "old fashioned gal", then he's not paying attention - which is the opposite of good manners.

As to being "treated like a woman"? I'd rather be treated like a fully-functioning human being, thanks.

But then I'm a bedroom-only sub/bottom.

I'm sorry, but I've obviously not met either you, nor Keroin, so I make the following statement from sheer ignorance: Is it fair to expect someone to know you within seconds of meeting you? Again, the two of you might well make it clear, but I think that such an expectation is a little overblown. That's why one goes on dates with a stranger- to get to know them...and that's the fun of the process..

Good manners show respect to yourself and the fellow human being you are with. As for how you define good manners and what qualifies as overboard or rude negligence, that is a matter of various factors, like age, culture, educational and social background, etc. and I would guess may even depend on one's personality. So, good luck in trying to please everyone! LOL

Still, I find it interesting that such a strong response was sparked by what to me seems like a harmless situation. He might have been nervous, might have been trying hard to impress her by being polite, could have done a better job by asking her if he should order for her, sure. But none of that would make him rude in my book. In my experience good manners in dating are a dying art and whoever makes an honest effort to cultivate them deserves at least the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Manners change with time- and, what are you ultimately cultivating? Your own world view? You're right in the first part that manners are about respect, but clinging on to a set of manners, 'cause a book proclaims them as manners (or 'cause your parents taught you, or whatev') and being inflexible seems like you're not really respecting anyone else other than your own ego.

 

[where]

I think there is also a disagreement about the degree to which this is actually happening. First of all, I have to say, while I totally agree that gender roles have changed over time, I feel like there is this assumption that the past was the 1950s. It's not been this linear evolution. We've had more progressive times and more conservative ones in the past, right? And to build on that, there's definitely been a backlash against feminism or what people perceive to be feminism and political correctness.

bingo. I think the ef/feminization is a bullshit meme created by the right wing along with 'PC" and 'feminazis' because they are scared their big boy toys are going to be taken from them.

 

[where]

Leave it to an academic to think that people go around "theorizing" things.

I'll take that as you admitting you have no evidence to base your silly claims upon.

For the record, I like my steak so blue it's almost moo-ing should i ever get to NYC

 

[teknight]

The actual efeeminization of young males isn't so much a threat as a symptom of things that are very threatening: great changes in technology, economy and culture that have totally disrupted traditional ways and families. Why do you think that peasants in Afghanistan are fighting a 21st century mechanised army? That's an extreme example, but it certainly serves as evidence that "traditional masculinities" are under threat.

WTF is this "traditional family"? Where does it exist? And why is its existence a good thing?

 

[rosco rathbone]

The past IS "the 1950s", when that decade is taken as shorthand for "the recent past, in living memory, when things were a good deal different but not unrecognizably so".

The differences between all those different eras that Kybele names are trivial (efeeminizationwise) compared to their differences from today.

In other words, big, recent changes have happened. The pill. Modern divorce law. Labor saving machinery, etc etc etc.

 

[Keroin]

I'm sorry, but I've obviously not met either you, nor Keroin, so I make the following statement from sheer ignorance: Is it fair to expect someone to know you within seconds of meeting you? Again, the two of you might well make it clear, but I think that such an expectation is a little overblown. That's why one goes on dates with a stranger- to get to know them...and that's the fun of the process.

I would not go on a date with someone I'd never met. I have zero interest in that. And I wouldn't go out for dinner for a first date, either - but for the sake of the discussion, let's say I would. Whoever I was with, we would have had some kind of communication - emails, phone calls, etc. In other words, we would have had enough exchanges for him to get to know me. And, as I said, I'm not hard to read.

So if we've clicked enough to warrant a first date, chances are he isn't going to be the kind of guy who would order my food for me. But if he did, that would tell me he has no clue who I am.

 

[teknight]

I would not go on a date with someone I'd never met. I have zero interest in that. And I wouldn't go out for dinner for a first date, either - but for the sake of the discussion, let's say I would. Whoever I was with, we would have had some kind of communication - emails, phone calls, etc. In other words, we would have had enough exchanges for him to get to know me. And, as I said, I'm not hard to read.

So if we've clicked enough to warrant a first date, chances are he isn't going to be the kind of guy who would order my food for me. But if he did, that would tell me he has no clue who I am.

You did say that, and I wound up putting words in your mouth. Sorry 'bout that-making you repeat yourself, that is. But, at the same time, it clarifies things.

 

[where]

The past IS "the 1950s", when that decade is taken as shorthand for "the recent past, in living memory, when things were a good deal different but not unrecognizably so".

The differences between all those different eras that Kybele names are trivial (efeeminizationwise) compared to their differences from today.

In other words, big, recent changes have happened. The pill. Modern divorce law. Labor saving machinery, etc etc etc.

no bigger changes than happened during the industrial revolution. and you think that in the 1950s men were men and women just shut up and got fucked? you need to stop watching MadMen and read some social history.

 

[Netzach]

I stumbled across a discussion at FetLife this morning that made me curious...

The following question was posed:

Two people are meeting for a first dinner date. While looking at the menu, the man asks the woman "What sounds good?" The woman responds "X", and when the waiter arrives table side, the man says "The lady would like X; I'll have Y." Was his behavior appropriate or not, and why?

The fascinating thing to me was the disparity of responses - everything from praise for "showing good manners" to "OMG what a douche!" to "Total RED FLAG/he's trying to assume control too quickly!" (Rants about "misogynistic behavior hiding behind acts of chivalry" occurred, as well.)

So - where do good manners fit in this whole BDSM / D/s thing, and how do the dynamics of power impact their use?

If there's a tablecloth on the table, it's fine with me. It's like "not wiping snot on the napkins." I feel like it's more for the benefit of the social construct of "nice place" than for my benefit, really, just as my deference in this case is to the situation, not the guy.

If there isn't it's just freaky weird.

I've never been with a guy who was visibly ruffled at my go with the flow make the other person comfortable impulses on this.

 

[Netzach]

*scratches his chin*

I tend to agree.

Aw my heart bleeds.

Who orders if you are a bio fem and a T girl? I guess whoever wants to. Yes it's SO liable to draw stares and derision when you are conforming to gender norms and you both have dude/girl plumbing.

See the tears?

Sorry, this is ridiculous to me. Absurd. I've had the experience of being seen as "gender appropriate" and "not" and the idea of "gender appropriate" being harder is a crock.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Sorry, but this entire post just strikes me as fantasy land. I live in a place in which there are plenty of parents who make an effort not to impose traditional gender norms on their kids, and let me tell you, none of that requires you to ignore real differences between boys and girls. I don't know one parent who does this, not one. It's as plain as night and day that there are differences between boys and girls, even if you force your boy to have a doll or buy your girl toy monster trucks. Does. Not. Matter. No parent that I know would say otherwise. There is a difference between ignoring gender and recognizing that not all kids fit into a particular box.



I know plenty of men who are more than remotely authoritative and protective and I know plenty of women who are deferential towards men. They aren't involved in bdsm, aren't deemed abnormal or unacceptable. What you describe is not some major deviation from mainstream culture.

obviously we've been raised in dramatically different environments, and have observed dramatically different things in modern society. Oprah tells young girls that they can be whatever they want to be...as long as that's a strong, assertive independent woman. pop music tells us that a woman who hasn't "got her own," who wants to in any way be taken care of by a man, is an undesirable gold-digger. and your shrink tells you that if your boyfriend needs to know where you are at all times...it is a "red flag," chances are he's a controlling a**hole and you need to run away as fast as you can. certain masculine and feminine traits, and especially the way those traits play out in relationships, are now actually labeled as psychiatric disorders. that's not fantasy land, that's what's happening in the here and now.

 

[JMohegan]

It's not like I'm saying I sit there with the waiter staring on and refuse to place an order. No one said I'm not willing to choose my own food. I have chosen my own food before, and infront of a man, and even given my order directly to the waiter.

But that's not the situation that was placed before us. Not how I saw it. The man asked his female companion what she would like, she told him, and he placed the order. At least that's how it apeared to me. And in my little bubble he would get high points for that simple act.

In my interactions with men, this was the scene more often than not. And while we waited on dinner to arrive, we had conversation. The whole reason we got to the point we were was most likely because we had spoken previously and he enjoyed my company and I his. Had that not been the case, we wouldn't be at dinner mainly because you do have to carry on conversation in a nice place or just sit there and stair at the table the entire night.

Being willing and able has nothing to do with it. And it may surprise you that I have bought my dates dinner before, and even gone half-sys with a few and didn't think any less of the man. But on a first date I do expect certian things, and they will be well aware of my views before it even gets to that point. They will probably get fucked either way, but if they would like to be asked to fuck again, they will fall into the catagory of the type of man that treats me the way I like to be treated.

And while I do respect that we all have choices to choose whether we want to be treated this way or not, I'm still going to feel a bit of sadness that it is not more prominate. Just like I feel a bit of sadness everytime I have to put on a bra and slacks instead of a corset and heavy dress. And I have every right to feel that sadness and express that sadness and it makes me no less an intellegant woman than some one who thinks women who don't split the bill are manipulative.

You have every right to your sadness, Wench. Of course.

But here's the thing. Your nostalgia focuses on only part of the world as it was. You're forgetting, or ignoring, or maybe you just never really knew about, the downside of former times.

When such manners were prominent, women really were dependent, in large measure, upon men. Dependent, in the control of, and lesser than. The mores were reflective of the general societal structure.

And so, back in the day, the manager's position in your restaurant would have gone to a male, not you. Legally. After all, he had a family to support! For the same reason, your position on the lower rung would have been compensated with a smaller salary. Legally.

Never mind the fact that your lover lives across the pond, and is unable to provide for you financially, to make up the difference in your salary and career prospects. Never mind the fact that you take justifiable pride and personal satisfaction in achieving a managerial role. Back in the day, all that would have been just too fucking bad.

So while I say you're entitled to your sadness, Wench, I also would encourage you to temper it with a dose of historical reality. To that end, I *highly* recommend this book. It is at once lighthearted, and piercing.

 

[ownedsubgal]

if you read your post, that is pretty much what you said you do. you get people to pay for you, even when they are poorer than you, you get them to stick up for you and treat you like something that is unable to fend for herself (though you are clearly able to carry stuff/whatever). Tell me, how is that not manipulative? how is that not absolving you of all and any responsibility?

where have i said or implied i "get" people to do anything for me? or that i even expect such treatment? because i certainly don't...with anyone i don't know well, i expect to be treated like nothing special. i expect to have to do everything for myself, to watch my own back, and to be wary of the world at large on top of that. i don't expect any doors held open or help with my heavy groceries. there is a difference between expecting certain treatment, and appreciating certain treatment. i appreciate when those things are not as i had expected them to be.

responsibility? before i was owned i fully recognized the fact that i was 100% responsible for my own welfare, personal safety, and just general day to day life functioning. i sucked quite miserably at it, but i understood it was no one's bag but my own.

 

[rosco rathbone]

no bigger changes than happened during the industrial revolution. and you think that in the 1950s men were men and women just shut up and got fucked? you need to stop watching MadMen and read some social history.

I'll give you the industrial revolution, which happened practically yesterday. I don't watch "Mad Men" and you're putting words in my mouth about the 50s.