Rules for a Gentleman in 2025

[onehitwanda]

As a Brit, it's actually quite scary to see a mind work this way.

It's worse to constantly have to suppress the hypervigilance. I've lived in the UK since 2010 or so, and I am still hard-wired to look for exits, avoid standing with my back to people I don't know, evaluate groups against my internal strife-o-meter, and generally act in the manner of when rather than if something happens.

One of the things I love about living in the UK is that the odds of something awful happening to me are significantly lower than in my country of birth. It is probably possible - even today - for a child born in the UK to live their entire life never encountering anything but the odd petty theft.

Western European countries are remarkably safe places to live.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This wouldn't be an issue to me. My response would be an emphatic "It's a really good book, though!"

I think it's reasonable to give copies of the same book to several people, if they're people you'd expect to enjoy it. But I don't think I've ever met a book that would be a good fit for everybody I know.

(Also, don't be like the guy who gifted my family three copies of the same book across various occasions because he wasn't keeping track of who he'd already given it to.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Funny. I read once that men used to walk building side when with a woman due to muggings/ pple being pulled and yanked into alleys. Yes I realize muggings was probably a polite euphemism.

I'd read that the gent walked on the road side, so that splashes from passing horses wouldn't wet the lady's skirts.

 

[Erozetta]

I think it's reasonable to give copies of the same book to several people, if they're people you'd expect to enjoy it. But I don't think I've ever met a book that would be a good fit for everybody I know.

(Also, don't be like the guy who gifted my family three copies of the same book across various occasions because he wasn't keeping track of who he'd already given it to.

I've only gifted books to a few people. No one older than me in my family gets books. But when I gift a book it's usually 50% "I like this book and would love to have a discussion on it."and 50% "I want you to know a little bit more about me and how my mind works, and this book might help with that."

I've never gifted a book without writing a note and I tucking it inside detailing why I gifted the book to them specifically.

I'm also cheap as fuck and have a lot of younger family members who like to read. I will gift siblings in a family different books in the same series with a note telling them to share, so the same book to the same family won't happen.with me, lol.

 

[onehitwanda]

I will gift siblings in a family different books in the same series with a note telling them to share, so the same book to the same family won't happen.with me, lol.

This is thinking with Portals!

 

[StrangeLife]

In my opinion, he main rule for a gentleman is to use your arms to support your own weight during sex.

The rest is optional.

 

[StillStunned]

That overly long and specific list makes me glad I don't interact with anyone except my wife, and she has me trained to her exact liking.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Constantly asking for consent and thus announcing every single thing you want to do during sex seems ridiculous to me. Reading body language is a valuable skill in lovemaking.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Constantly asking for consent and thus announcing every single thing you want to do during sex seems ridiculous to me. Reading body language is a valuable skill in lovemaking.

Yes, but learning to read a new partner takes time. You want the first encounter to be good.

Murmurs of "OK? Was that good? May I...?" and getting happy sounds in response, while watching their face for potential tensing up, isn't exactly onerous.

I have to admit I'm surprised by how many of you are against casual greeting kisses, but thinking about it, it may be more of an urban thing and popular with under-65s.

 

[SimonDoom]

That overly long and specific list makes me glad I don't interact with anyone except my wife, and she has me trained to her exact liking.

This stems from the long-observed truism, from which many and perhaps most "rules" of a good marriage can be profitably derived, that when the wife is happy, everybody is happy.

 

[StillStunned]

This stems from the long-observed truism, from which many and perhaps most "rules" of a good marriage can be profitably derived, that when the wife is happy, everybody is happy.

More accurately: when the wife is *unhappy*, so am I.

 

[SimonDoom]

Constantly asking for consent and thus announcing every single thing you want to do during sex seems ridiculous to me. Reading body language is a valuable skill in lovemaking.

I wonder if this is partly an age thing. I would say that in all relationships I've had there's been a lot of communication, verbal and otherwise, but I've never been in a relationship that observed a "verbal consent before every step taken" rule. And I've never heard a woman say she wanted or expected that.

I'd say, again, in the context of sex as in others, if you follow a rule of being thoughtful and paying attention it takes care of most things.

 

[SimonDoom]

More accurately: when the wife is *unhappy*, so am I.

Ah yes. You nailed it. When I was married, her happiness didn't guarantee my happiness, but if she wasn't happy it was misery city for all.

 

[onehitwanda]

it may be more of an urban thing and popular with under-65s.

It's those dastardly French dogs, sneaking in with their panache and their casual sensuality.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd be interested to hear from more of the younger AH members on this topic.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

It's those dastardly French dogs, sneaking in with their panache and their casual sensuality.

Yes, I’m here to say that the kissing one is pretty normal in my world. Though I think the ‘one kiss’ rule creates all sorts of confusion and awkwardness: one person tries one kiss, the other goes for two. Anglo-Saxon articles like this have always tried to establish one kiss as the non-French alternative.

For better or worse, I see one obligation of the gentleman/gentlewoman as to make it extremely fucking clear what is going to happen during the greeting: handshake, hug, one kiss, two, whatever - just put the other person at ease by removing all ambiguity.

 

[lovecraft68]

Being a 'gentlemen' can also be a con act and they're just trash once they hook someone.

Never forget how charming Ted Bundy was.

Remember the Man vs Bear discussion and always take the bear.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Yes, but learning to read a new partner takes time. You want the first encounter to be good.

Murmurs of "OK? Was that good? May I...?" and getting happy sounds in response, while watching their face for potential tensing up, isn't exactly onerous.

Well, I assume that the encounter being good also means not having to answer a questionnaire during sex

The first time, you go slow and obviously ask before any major thing in sex, such as penetration. But IMO, the trick is to pay attention at the tension and clenching, hisses, moans and so on. It's not easy as both are likely to be nervous. Going slowly is the only thing I can suggest.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

Being a 'gentlemen' can also be a con act and they're just trash once they hook someone.

Never forget how charming Ted Bundy was.

Remember the Man vs Bear discussion and always take the bear.

Yes, good point. A sure sign of a cad is someone who’s a bit too slick with the gentlemanliness. A real gentleman shouldn’t be too gentlemanly.

Re Bundy, the article only had room for 125 rules: they didn’t have space to write ‘Don’t bludgeon your date into unconsciousness before tying them up and murdering them.’ Modern etiquette is a minefield!

 

[Statius]

Common sense, common courtesy and respect go a long way.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This one made sense decades ago, before power door locks, when not opening the passenger door first meant your date would be left standing by the door, potentially in the cold or rain, until you unlocked it from the inside. Now that all of the doors can be unlocked with a push of a button before you get to the car it seems kind of condescending, implying that your date is somehow incapable of opening a car door.

Is that true of all the simple courtesies?
Does opening the door into the restaurant imply she can't do it?
If you pick up the tab at dinner with a friend, does it imply he couldn't afford it?

 

[SimonDoom]

Being a 'gentlemen' can also be a con act and they're just trash once they hook someone.

Never forget how charming Ted Bundy was.

Remember the Man vs Bear discussion and always take the bear.

Man v. Bear is interesting, sort of, but it's REALLY an illustration of how a cultural milieu can make people choose irrationally.

Obviously, and I mean obviously, if you are going purely on statistics, if you are a woman in the woods your odds of being at risk of personal danger are greater encountering a bear than encountering a man. Most men are not criminals, not rapists, and not dangerous. ALL bears are potentially dangerous. If a man wants to attack you in the woods, there are many things you can do to protect yourself. If you encounter a bear and it wants to attack you, you are pretty much shit out of luck.

The other thing that's interesting about this choice is that it ignores the upside; the focus is entirely on risk, not benefit. There's literally no benefit, ever, to encountering a bear in the woods, unless you just happen to enjoy bear encounters. But if you are a woman walking in the woods and encounter a man the odds of the encounter being beneficial dramatically outweigh the odds of it being harmful. You might need directions, or want to know the time, or where the nearest water is, or advice on a good campsite, etc., or just want to chat with a human.

The fact that so many women choose "bear" rather than "man" is interesting in what it says about our culture, and our perceptions, and our focus on danger and fear and the negative, but it's not a reflection of statistical reality.

Plus, as somebody who has spent a lot of time backpacking and hiking in the woods, I know that most people in the woods are not dangerous. The dangerous people tend to hang out in the cities.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It's worse to constantly have to suppress the hypervigilance. I've lived in the UK since 2010 or so, and I am still hard-wired to look for exits, avoid standing with my back to people I don't know, evaluate groups against my internal strife-o-meter, and generally act in the manner of when rather than if something happens.

One of the things I love about living in the UK is that the odds of something awful happening to me are significantly lower than in my country of birth. It is probably possible - even today - for a child born in the UK to live their entire life never encountering anything but the odd petty theft.

Western European countries are remarkably safe places to live.

So is the US outside a few cities, and if you aren't involved with illegal drugs in anyway those places are much safer than the media would have you believe.

New York City is safer than London.
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compar...don&country2=United+States&city2=New+York,+NY

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Being a 'gentlemen' can also be a con act and they're just trash once they hook someone.

Never forget how charming Ted Bundy was.

Remember the Man vs Bear discussion and always take the bear.

If you put any rational woman in a room with two exits and said, "there's a bear through that door and a man through that one" every single sane woman would take the door with a man.

The number of Ted Bundys in the world is vanishingly small. Assuming every nice person has an ulterior motives is a recipe for a life of unhappiness.

 

[SimonDoom]

So is the US outside a few cities, and if you aren't involved with illegal drugs in anyway those places are much safer than the media would have you believe.

New York City is safer than London.
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&city1=London&country2=United+States&city2=New+York,+NY

Probably the single most weirdly ignored or unknown statistic is that the crime rate in the USA has dropped like a rock since 1993. It hasn't done so at a consistent steady rate, but the crime rate today is lower than it was then, or when I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s. You're a lot safer today walking down a New York City street, or taking the subway, than you were in the 1970s. Yet somehow this (easily provable) fact escapes many people, and I've personally found that many people are astounded and incredulous when this is pointed out to them.