Good Manners

[the captians wench]

What bothers me most about all of this is that some people here genuinely wish to take away people's personal freedoms to be who they want in lieu of a completely binary and archaic model that forces people into one of two categories all for the express purpose of legitimizing their particular way of life. I mean, who needs tolerance when you could just force everyone to be like you?

Seems awfully insecure to me.

In my years on this forum I've noticed one thing more than anything else. Tolerance is one sided.

Sure we can go around saying we should accept everyone and hold hands and sing, but the minute some one expresses a view that doesn't fit into the veiw of the tolerant, that person is put in the stocks.

I'm not forcing you to share my opinion. I'm not marching on congress telling them to bring back "traditional manners". But I am a little saddened that it's not more prominate, and honestly it is for selfish reasons. I like to be treated a certian way and if more people in the world felt the way I do then I would be more likely to be treated that way. Just as some one some time ago thought as she lost her job so that it could be given back to the soilder boy that had it before her.

Look, I'm not saying the world would be a better place if it were my way, I'm saying tolerance goes beyond supporting only the views you deem tolerant.

Equally dishonest is to try to say that the attack of the traditional role of the male is something that only exists in the minds of men of a certain age who feel threatened. Because the traditional male role and any expression there of, is no longer accepted or even tolerated in today's society. Its considered ill mannered and rude to act in an assuming manner because you are a man. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, I'm simply pointing out that as real change has come to society, the effects on those living in that society are real to, they are not just imagined.
.

This is what I was trying to say earlier. I guess I missed the boat.

 

[JMohegan]

I have a hard time caring about the comfort level of goddamn ducks that are going to die in two weeks anyway, when there are so many suffering humans that I could spend my time and energy caring about. I'm such a jerk!

I guess I'm a just a dirty, dirty humanist. You know, the kind of filthy person who sees humans as more worthy of my empathy than ducks.

You may ask, why choose? Why not spread your empathy around to all living creatures? Well, I'll tell you. It is because they are delicious and I want to eat them.

Okay! Throw fake blood on my fur coat now and let's get it over with!!

Nope. No fake blood throwing.

Your excuses don't make you a humanist. Nor does my abhorrence of the force-feeding of animals make me non-humanist.

But you knew that already.

 

[the captians wench]

You may ask, why choose? Why not spread your empathy around to all living creatures? Well, I'll tell you. It is because they are delicious and I want to eat them.!

Okay, I'm sorry, that statement is a winner.

And I have no informed opinion on the subject at this time.

This just made me giggle.

 

[where]

I am glad you were amused by it.

The point of the story was to point out the irony that first of all I find it pretty damn funny that the topic is about good manners. Those who have been most forceful in championing thier view has pretty much wrecked what credibility they so enthusiastically espoused about good manners.

Secondly it was and wasn't an ad hom because I did offer supporting evidence, you just got your heels dug in to far to be objective enough to see it. No the evidence I presented wasn't about feminization of boys/men or what you call the bizarre etiquette of osg. I purposefully stayed away from those two topics and haven't given my opinion on either of them, rather you will note that I mentioned two keywords in the story which I knew you would pickup on because you used them both in a false statement. You said...

"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."

Does it really only exist in the minds of men who feel threatened?

You want supporting evidence? This thread is exhibit A of the hate toward those who would even hint that they espouse traditional roles and or values. In other words its ok to be part of the BDSM community or live your life anyway you want to as long as you do not hold any of "those" views, because those who hold such views are ignorant, closed minded, stupid, and bigotted. And history clearly shows how the gay community and women have suffered under that old way.

The fight for women's rights. The fight for gay rights. The fight? What an interesting word to describe something that's a myth... a chimera. Something that only exists in the minds of men of a certain age who feel threatened.

Yet exhibit B, thousands of parents remove their children from public schools each year for a number of reasons, but among the top reasons are parents who "feel threatened", and who do not want their children taught tolerance for the same sex lifestyle which is now required by law to be part of the ciriculum.

Maybe the hate and the hypocrisy is justified. The scorecard is no where near even and there is still a long way to go before equality and acceptance is realised.

but...

It would be insulting for me to sit here and tell you that all the oppression, fear and violence of the past exists only in the minds of women or gays of a certain age who feel threatened. And it would be dishonest.

Equally dishonest is to try to say that the attack of the traditional role of the male is something that only exists in the minds of men of a certain age who feel threatened. Because the traditional male role and any expression there of, is no longer accepted or even tolerated in today's society. Its considered ill mannered and rude to act in an assuming manner because you are a man. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, I'm simply pointing out that as real change has come to society, the effects on those living in that society are real to, they are not just imagined.

Some, probably most, will adjust and be assemilated. Some will live out their days pretty much disgruntled and some will try to find a place where they can still be themselves and fit. As has been mentioned before, and I agree, I believe this is also one of the reasons you see a migration to the BDSM community. which brings me full circle back to the bizarre etiquette of osg.

I do not think that it is only men in recent years you see coming and exploring the BDSM community, I think traditional minded women also have come here as well. In large part because of the same reasons traditional men have come.

If I were to come to a BDSM board I would not think her comments as a person who identifys herself as being a slave or a submissive as being bizarre. Perhaps if she posted the same comments on a woman's right forum, I would think they were bizarre as it would clearly cause a comotion.

Her views may be uncommon and I may not totally agree with them but they are not bizarre. I certainly didn't think it deserved the dismissive and belittling response it got.

you twisted what I was saying and created an ad hom attack. at no point did I say that what are considered 'old-fashioned manners' are bizarre or outdated, I challenged osg's assertion that it is completely 'normal' and 'vanilla' for a man to choose what his female companion eats in a restaurant. If you had bothered reading my posts I accepted that within a bdsm dynamic then it might be considered the norm, but not in a so-called vanilla dynamic. And so far no one has provided any support for osg's assertion. mostly I suspect because there isn't anything in any text that suggests that that is anything other than ungentlemanly behaviour. So therefore I am within reason to call osg's assertions as 'bizarre' because they are.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post because you clearly didn't read any of my other posts on 'traditional' gender roles and I can't be arsed to repeat it.

I know you were kidding, but given the responses of others, I'll answer that straight.

Empathy is a trait found in men who are secure in their own masculinity.

Bullies are weaklings at heart, and they know it. Hence the desperate attempt to convince otherwise.

I judge people to an extent on how they treat animals. people who willfully treat animals badly, are pretty much beneath contempt.

 

[JMohegan]

What? You can't give a simple 3 word answer? Well then, to you.
(Again, I'm kidding kidding, hence the and )
Let me ask you this:

Is it wrong to want a particular part of the animal to come out a certain way- specifically, is the enlarged liver that is desired for foie gras wrong?

The wanting isn't wrong. It's the cruelty necessary to satisfy the want that is wrong.

Realizing that we can't always get what we want is a mark of maturity. Tempering our wants with recognition of the impact of our behavior sometimes sucks! But the capacity to do just that is the hallmark of an ethical human being.

 

[Keroin]

The wanting isn't wrong. It's the cruelty necessary to satisfy the want that is wrong.

Realizing that we can't always get what we want is a mark of maturity. Tempering our wants with recognition of the impact of our behavior sometimes sucks! But the capacity to do just that is the hallmark of an ethical human being.

.....

 

[KoPilot]

In my years on this forum I've noticed one thing more than anything else. Tolerance is one sided.

Sure we can go around saying we should accept everyone and hold hands and sing, but the minute some one expresses a view that doesn't fit into the veiw of the tolerant, that person is put in the stocks.

I'm not forcing you to share my opinion. I'm not marching on congress telling them to bring back "traditional manners". But I am a little saddened that it's not more prominate, and honestly it is for selfish reasons. I like to be treated a certian way and if more people in the world felt the way I do then I would be more likely to be treated that way. Just as some one some time ago thought as she lost her job so that it could be given back to the soilder boy that had it before her.

Look, I'm not saying the world would be a better place if it were my way, I'm saying tolerance goes beyond supporting only the views you deem tolerant.

It's good to acknowledge that we're both talking about fantasy worlds here.

What I don't get is the whole "baww society doesn't understand me so instead I'm going to fantasize about a world in which everyone else that isn't like me is marginalized instead". That's just as bad.

 

[the captians wench]

It's good to acknowledge that we're both talking about fantasy worlds here.

What I don't get is the whole "baww society doesn't understand me so instead I'm going to fantasize about a world in which everyone else that isn't like me is marginalized instead". That's just as bad.

I agree.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm not forcing you to share my opinion. I'm not marching on congress telling them to bring back "traditional manners". But I am a little saddened that it's not more prominate, and honestly it is for selfish reasons. I like to be treated a certian way and if more people in the world felt the way I do then I would be more likely to be treated that way. Just as some one some time ago thought as she lost her job so that it could be given back to the soilder boy that had it before her.

Look, I'm not saying the world would be a better place if it were my way, I'm saying tolerance goes beyond supporting only the views you deem tolerant.

Wench, I wonder if you would feel the same sadness if Jounar lived nearby. If he did, then you would be treated in a way that makes you feel good on a regular basis, and it might not matter to you what everyone else does.

This may be wide of the mark, but I'm reading you as someone longing for the presence of a lover, rather than someone longing for a society with rigid gender-based codes.

 

[sweepthefloor]

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?

Appropriate because: "What sounds good?" is the same as asking what would she like.
And even if he did not say: "What sounds good?"-- I think I would be tickled pink just thinking that the man thinks he knows what I would like and had the courage to order it.
He might not be a mind reader: but he gave it a shot, and thats what counts to me.

 

[the captians wench]

Wench, I wonder if you would feel the same sadness if Jounar lived nearby. If he did, then you would be treated in a way that makes you feel good on a regular basis, and it might not matter to you what everyone else does.

This may be wide of the mark, but I'm reading you as someone longing for the presence of a lover, rather than someone longing for a society with rigid gender-based codes.

I know this is going to sound very ill of me, but you're probably right. I am a very selfish creature by nature. Which is very odd considering I am very service oriented as well.

Anyway, if I were dating, then I would still want things to go the way I have discribed. But yes, personally, it really doesn't matter to me if your date goes the same or is different. It doesn't mater to me if Jane is buying Bob dinner as long as they are happy.

My problem is that when I was making myself availible (granted I didn't go on many dates) the trend was fairly clear cut. If I was out with a man over 30, he did the things I expected, if the man was under 30, he was less likely to do the little things, but usually hit on the bigger ones. Grant you this is just an observation from my limited experience, but it seems to me that this would be socity conditioning. And it does concern me to some degree because should I choose to be avaible again, it really cuts down on my fishing area.

Again, selfish I know, but this is why I don't speak up much.

 

[JMohegan]

I know this is going to sound very ill of me, but you're probably right. I am a very selfish creature by nature. Which is very odd considering I am very service oriented as well.

Anyway, if I were dating, then I would still want things to go the way I have discribed. But yes, personally, it really doesn't matter to me if your date goes the same or is different. It doesn't mater to me if Jane is buying Bob dinner as long as they are happy.

My problem is that when I was making myself availible (granted I didn't go on many dates) the trend was fairly clear cut. If I was out with a man over 30, he did the things I expected, if the man was under 30, he was less likely to do the little things, but usually hit on the bigger ones. Grant you this is just an observation from my limited experience, but it seems to me that this would be socity conditioning. And it does concern me to some degree because should I choose to be avaible again, it really cuts down on my fishing area.

Again, selfish I know, but this is why I don't speak up much.

Awww, Wench, don't be so hard on yourself. There's nothing wrong with wanting to find a partner that meets your needs, and nothing wrong with wishing the finding were easier.

 

[eastern sun]

You're absolutely right. That treasure trove of knowledge does exist, but it doesn't constitute medicine, nutrition nor psychology. Those are fields or science- they're based on a lot of hard core thinking and research. Hear-say is just hear-say, regardless of how steeped in tradition it is. And why is tradition good? Is it its traditional-ness? 'cause, then why don't we practice medieval medicine and rub toads on sores? I'm using a very biased argument to make a point, but my point remains valid. Not all knowledge is equal, even if applying does seem to work out in a select few cases.

Just for the record, I completely disagree with you. I don't think you know what I'm referring to at all . . . not superstition, not hearsay . . . but empirically derived knowledge based on generations of experience.

The knowledge we have today does not necessarily reflect an improvement in all cases on the knowledge we as a people had yesterday. We become ignorant of some things as we gain knowledge of others.

For instance, I genuinely believe that both the earth and we as a species have lost the particular benefits that came from our shorter life spans in the past. Hopefully we will be able to use our intelligence to address the problems we've caused before we do irreversible damage to our environment. I don't know how long we can count on the earth to clean up after us.

And, in my humble opinion, courtesy and good manners would be a great place to begin.

 

[Tabea]

Maybe I can use my au pair experience to make comments more relevant to the topic.

I was in a wealthy area in England with many au pairs. I found it strange that the parents always found it very important to teach their kids good manners while at the same time treating their au pairs poorly. The kids constantly got told to say “please” and “thank you” even for things they should be entitled to like meals or baths. The parents were all quite wealthy. But all families saved every penny concerning their au pairs. My host mother proudly told me that their house was worth 1.3 million£. They also had a house at the beach. The one year old had several dresses for 90£. The mother went shopping several times a week. I got paid 50£ a week, 5£ less than their previous au pair. I never got paid for overtime and there was a lot of overtime. I was expected to work at any time without any advance notice. Like many others I had to buy food because I wasn’t given enough. One au pair was told she was drinking too much milk and should buy her own, even though she just used milk for one bowl of cereals a day.

My host parents never asked me if I would like to eat with the family on weekends.

I often looked after small children who were visiting for several hours. Their mothers would come into the playroom and take their children without acknowledging me at all.

There was an au pair in my area who lived in the middle of nowhere, a mile away from the next bus stop where a bus would only stop 2 times a day if you phoned in advance. Her host parents were also unwilling to drive her anywhere and expected her to spend at least 5 hours a day cleaning their mansion. She mentioned to her host mother that she was unhappy. She was immediately told to pack and then the host mother closed the door behind her. She didn’t even drive her to the train station but left her on her own in a foreign country in the middle of nowhere. When I told my host mother about this incident she replied she would have done the same with me, it is the standard procedure. As soon as an au pair mentions she is unhappy she is somehow expected to steal.

I found it shocking that people who find it so important to be perceived as well mannered and posh behave in those ways towards other people. Saying please and thank you often to people you see as equals does not make anybody a decent person.

“My” children were very spoilt and my host mother didn’t back me up when I was consistent with her kids. They were often difficult to control in public. My host mother never attempted to change this but she always told the kids to say thank you. I found this completely pointless.

 

[eastern sun]

Let me put this as subtly as possible: you're wrong. For most of history, people have screwed which has resulted in kids some of the time (sometimes in death for the woman and the unborn baby, unfortunately). Of those kids that were born, a whole host died very young for a ton of reasons, but, primarily 'cause their parents' knowledge wasn't worth crap in terms of medicine. So what did people do, in order to guarantee that at least some kids would survive? They tried to have as many kids as possible- or fucked as often as possible, resulting in a lot of kids (take that any way you will).

Taaa-daaa. Pardon my being so crass, but that's the miracle of humanity's care for children. There have been no profound efforts to do anything. Nowadays modern parents choose to focus and fawn on a small number of kids (for the most part) because they know those kids will survive.

I don't disagree with your description of our history. But I do think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Parents - and more often larger family and kin groups - have exercised knowledge and skills in the raising of the young for millenia, precisely because the odds were so slim. I can't fully understand your reasons for asserting otherwise.

 

[eastern sun]

Maybe I can use my au pair experience to make comments more relevant to the topic.

I was in a wealthy area in England with many au pairs. I found it strange that the parents always found it very important to teach their kids good manners while at the same time treating their au pairs poorly. The kids constantly got told to say “please” and “thank you” even for things they should be entitled to like meals or baths. The parents were all quite wealthy. But all families saved every penny concerning their au pairs. My host mother proudly told me that their house was worth 1.3 million£. They also had a house at the beach. The one year old had several dresses for 90£. The mother went shopping several times a week. I got paid 50£ a week, 5£ less than their previous au pair. I never got paid for overtime and there was a lot of overtime. I was expected to work at any time wihtout any advance notice. Like many others I had to buy food because I wasn’t given enough. One au pair was told she was drinking too much milk and should buy her own, even though she just used milk for one bowl of cereals a day.

I often looked after small children who were visiting for several hours. Their mothers would come into the playroom and take their children without acknowledging me at all.

There was an au pair in my area who lived in the middle of nowhere, a mile away from the next bus stop where a bus would only stop 2 times a day if you phoned in advance. Her host parents were also unwilling to drive her anywhere and expected her to spend at least 5 hours a day cleaning their mansion. She mentioned to her host mother that she was unhappy. She was immediately told to pack and then the host mother closed the door behind her. She didn’t even drive her to the train station but left her on her own in a foreign country in the middle of nowhere. When I told my host mother about this incident she replied she would have done the same with me, it is the standard procedure. As soon as an au pair mentions she is unhappy she is somehow expected to steal.

I found it shocking that people who find it so important to be perceived as well mannered and posh behave in those ways towards other people. Saying please and thank you often to people you see as equals does not make anybody a decent person.

“My” children were very spoilt and my host mother didn’t back me up when I was consistent with her kids. They were often difficult to control in public. My host mother never attempted to change this but she always told the kids to say thank you. I found this completely pointless.

Your charges, and others like them, are notorious around the world. They are being groomed to be the ruling class.

When manners are a mask, imparting a notion of gentility, but fail to actually reflect genuine generosity and care, you have the possibility of doing great and horrible things for the world at large.

If you're just a boor and an asshole, you most likely only get to do the horrible things to your family and close associates.

 

[teknight]

Let me preface everything I'm about to say with this. You come across as a hippie to me. I dunno if you are or not, and I'm not calling you that, but I'm perceiving you as such.

Just for the record, I completely disagree with you. I don't think you know what I'm referring to at all . . . not superstition, not hearsay . . . but empirically derived knowledge based on generations of experience.

You use words completely differently from me. Your empirical is not my empirical, as my toil is not your toil.
What you claims as millenia of empirical knowledge, was not done via the scientific method, so whereas it might be perfectly valuable and correct, its value is still actually questionable.

The knowledge we have today does not necessarily reflect an improvement in all cases on the knowledge we as a people had yesterday. We become ignorant of some things as we gain knowledge of others.

This goes off the topic...and what have we given up that was so valuable. Actually can I ask that you explain this, should you want to, in the link I've posted in my sig? Right now, we're both off topic for the thread.
What have we given up that was so valuable?

For instance, I genuinely believe that both the earth and we as a species have lost the particular benefits that came from our shorter life spans in the past. Hopefully we will be able to use our intelligence to address the problems we've caused before we do irreversible damage to our environment. I don't know how long we can count on the earth to clean up after us.

You are using biased language. Yes, we are a polluting species, and we have a huge footprint, however, all we're really doing is altering the environment by simplifying it and thus creating new ecosystems, much as they're weaker by virtue of not being as complex as that which we're replacing.

I don't disagree with your description of our history. But I do think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Parents - and more often larger family and kin groups - have exercised knowledge and skills in the raising of the young for millenia, precisely because the odds were so slim. I can't fully understand your reasons for asserting otherwise.

Yes, they have, but what I'm saying is that a lot of what we used to do was useless and maybe even detrimental. Seriously, we didn't really have good medicine until the 20th century when we actually started understanding how the human body works, that pathogens exist. Etc. This "knowledge" you speak off was outright wrong, from holding a geocentric viewpoint to whatever else you want. I will grant that we currently value things differently than we think our ancestors did, but either that's a question of choice and as such, neither choice is inherently better, or, we understand more, so our choices are more rational (on those few occasions when we are actually thoughtful) and as such better.
But please, let's stop the thread-jack, I'll gladly discuss this with you in my own little BS thread- "teknically correct"

 

[00Syd]

Nope. No fake blood throwing.

Your excuses don't make you a humanist. Nor does my abhorrence of the force-feeding of animals make me non-humanist.

But you knew that already.

I thought that the word 'humanist' was used jokingly enough in my post to indicate just that

 

[ownedsubgal]

RJ, osg says she is not allowed to go farther than her own mailbox unaccompanied. Never runs errands alone, never does a single thing without an escort. She says she is kept in isolation, and only taken out by her master or others he designates - including the men to whom he whores her out for cash. She also says she has lived with her master for the entirety of her adult existence.

Her presence on this board does not make the lifestyle she describes representative of that which naturally follows when people are dominant or submissive. Further, it is beyond asinine for her, or anyone else, to hold up her experience and extrapolate from that to provide commentary on any "traditional" lifestyle that has ever existed in the United States.

it's really difficult for me to respond to you because i'm well aware of the low opinion you have of me or anything i could possibly post. but it's important that i conduct myself like a grown woman and stand up for myself.

now, i'm gathering from what you've posted above that you feel that because of the way i live, i could not possibly have any idea about the "real world," and therefore have no right to any opinion or viewpoint about anything which goes on in that world. but here's the thing...i do live in the real world, just like you or anyone else. i am not in some remote cabin in the woods 100 mi from the nearest market. i'm not on some commune.

no, i don't go out and about on my own...so what? i am still out and about, grocery shopping, catching a movie, dining out, going to the gym and the park, helping set up scenery at the high school for t.'s latest school play. beyond this, let's clarify some things: i have been a slave for 10 years, i have not lived with my Master for all those years. even that first year of isolation that so many seem to find so "extreme," he kept me someplace nearby, but i did not have the privilege of sharing a home with him. all together there were 2+ years when we did not live together...and it's directly due to many negative experiences (such as being raped) i had trying to be "out and about" on my own that i live under the structure i do now. because believe it or not, i have a Master who cares and wishes to keep me safe.

but yes, i am part of the real world. i observe the codes of conduct which have become common and acceptable, and those which have been rejected. but i also notice that not everyone has tasted the kool-aid. i notice that among men above a certain age and especially from non-western upbringings, something like ordering your date's meal is very much "normal." believe it or not, most of the people with whom i directly interact are quite "vanilla." i was also raised in quite the "vanilla" family, and was even fortunate enough to observe a few examples of very happy and productive male HoH relationships. so, JMohegan, why are my experiences and thoughts any less valid than yours?

and this is unrelated to the thread topic, but must be said: back in september you posted quite a few false statements about my Master and i, for everyone to take as gospel truth, but i felt powerless to do anything about it. not anymore.

He also whores her out, for money, to men who sometimes use her brutally and occasionally impregnate her, at which times he takes her for abortions. He orders her to cut off contact with all prior family and friends, and convinces her that psychiatrists are bad, police are bad, and the system in general is grossly unfair because it persecutes people like them, who are just trying to live their own lifestyle...

in all of that there are perhaps two (partially) true statements: the fact that i am sometimes whored out, and the fact that for a period of time i was denied contact with those i had known prior to being owned. the fact that this was not permanent i guess is not quite as interesting. i have never been impregnated by a client, or used what we would deem to be "brutally" by a client. in fact i develop quite close, personal relationships with those individuals and they are selected by me. of course this is entirely different from the other men i serve in various ways, 100% at my Master's direction and control. these other men are almost always Dominants, and those experiences are intended to be educational and challenging. "brutal" use may sometimes come into play there. as for the rest...the world being against us, etc....i may feel that way at times, but he certainly doesn't. after all, he is the one who called up favors and searched doggedly for a good psychiatrist who could really help me. after countless sessions with shrinks who were either too narrow-minded or too overwhelmed by my issues to help, and countless trials with meds which would either do nothing, flock up my heart, or make me sleep 16 hours a day, i begged him to just let it go for a while. despite the many ways it has screwed us, he still has faith in the system for the most part. i don't. but then, he's an optimist.

/end hijack

 

[JMohegan]

now, i'm gathering from what you've posted above that you feel that because of the way i live, i could not possibly have any idea about the "real world," and therefore have no right to any opinion or viewpoint about anything which goes on in that world.

Assuming that your tale is true, then you are a real part of the world as it actually exists.

In either case, you are entitled to present whatever opinion you'd like. Free speech, and whatnot. Carry on.

 

[BiBunny]

In my years on this forum I've noticed one thing more than anything else. Tolerance is one sided.

Sure we can go around saying we should accept everyone and hold hands and sing, but the minute some one expresses a view that doesn't fit into the veiw of the tolerant, that person is put in the stocks.

I'm not forcing you to share my opinion. I'm not marching on congress telling them to bring back "traditional manners". But I am a little saddened that it's not more prominate, and honestly it is for selfish reasons. I like to be treated a certian way and if more people in the world felt the way I do then I would be more likely to be treated that way. Just as some one some time ago thought as she lost her job so that it could be given back to the soilder boy that had it before her.

Look, I'm not saying the world would be a better place if it were my way, I'm saying tolerance goes beyond supporting only the views you deem tolerant.

Yep. You said almost exactly what was going through my head as I was reading through the thread. If anyone doubts this, he/she need only look at the reception that certain posters get pretty much every time they open their mouths. This place seems, in my opinion, to have gotten a hell of a lot more intolerant and narrow-minded than it's been in recent memory.

 

[the captians wench]

Yep. You said almost exactly what was going through my head as I was reading through the thread. If anyone doubts this, he/she need only look at the reception that certain posters get pretty much every time they open their mouths. This place seems, in my opinion, to have gotten a hell of a lot more intolerant and narrow-minded than it's been in recent memory.

*pounces teh bunny*

 

[sb2009]

sorry about the Foie Gras issue LOL

So when I was 14 and on my first day at this restaurant, I walked in the huge walk-in freezer and fell into a big pan of it. So I was naturally upset. The sous chefs were all saying "oohhh you are in big big trouble....you have to go tell chef, you are probably going to get fired."

So, being 14 and a big scaredy cat, I was terrified. I went to "Chef" and couldn't get a word out without breaking into snot-bubbling wails. The sous chefs burst into laughter and Chef pulled me into his arms and said soothing words in German. I spent the next five years being a spoiled spoiled "chefs pet" there. He was like a grumpy father figure who forced me to eat things like calf brains and sweetbreads.

oh, memory lane...

 

[sb2009]

and really people, tolerance doesn't mean people have to say "oh yes you are absolutely corrrect" when someone is in fact, incorrect.

 

[RJMasters]

you twisted what I was saying and created an ad hom attack. at no point did I say that what are considered 'old-fashioned manners' are bizarre or outdated, I challenged osg's assertion that it is completely 'normal' and 'vanilla' for a man to choose what his female companion eats in a restaurant. If you had bothered reading my posts I accepted that within a bdsm dynamic then it might be considered the norm, but not in a so-called vanilla dynamic. And so far no one has provided any support for osg's assertion. mostly I suspect because there isn't anything in any text that suggests that that is anything other than ungentlemanly behaviour. So therefore I am within reason to call osg's assertions as 'bizarre' because they are.

I do not know of anytime when a man would tell a woman what she would eat at a resturant and that somehow be considered normal behavior or good mannered. I "understand" that it may be more normal within a BDSM relationship, however I suspect that a vast majority of even BDSM relationships do not have this as an aspect of their dynamic.

With a much broader brush, there were other expereinces which touched on or shaped my views regarding men telling women what they were going to eat in the past. I assure you that these other expereinces were quite normal and part of vanilla mainstream.

Back in the day husbands/fathers would tell women what they and the rest of the family were going to eat on a day to day basis in normal vanilla dynamic. Quite often a dutiful wife would ask her husband just before he was walking out the door to go to work, what he wanted her to make for supper and he would say I want this tonight. It may sound weird, but as I grew up, I thought women always ate salad because it was the only way to opt out without being offensive.

Many of times my dad forced me and my sisters to eat crap we didn't want or like and threatened a spanking for being ungrateful if we gave him any backtalk about it. Never once did I see my dad force my mom to do this but I never saw my dad ever consult her as to what she wanted for dinner that night either. But generally(in my expereince) women tended to defer to their husband's choice to what was going to be served and ate.

On the rare occasion we as a family did go out to eat, part of the excitement and fun was actually getting to choose for youself what you wanted to eat....as long as what you ordered wasn't over $2.50.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post because you clearly didn't read any of my other posts on 'traditional' gender roles and I can't be arsed to repeat it.

Fair enough.