|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She isn't saying anything. She's just observing a few things happening around her.
FWIW, I still walk on the outside of the sidewalk when I'm with my wife...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to get off-topic, but I just wanted to say shhh, thanks for that Shakespearean reference in your subject line. ;-)
In any case, I get the same impression. She's not really making an argument here, although I *DO* think she's lamenting somewhat about the passing of the treatment of women as delicate flowers. Perhaps she's simply weighing the differences in her own mind.
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
--William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chivalry is a tradition to be respected by men and taught to son by father. It is NOT to be legislated. Somehow, at the behest of the feminists, we seem to have convinced ourselves (as a society) that it can be legislated.
It cannot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chivalry needs to die if true equality is ever going to happen. Why should we men STILL pay for women's way on dates when their out making just as much money? I have heard people use the agruement that the woman is allowing as to have sex with her. But my couter agruement to that is, i'm just as much allowing HER to have sex with ME as she is allowing ME to be with HER.
But allas the chances of chivalry dieing is pretty much zippo. So maybe women should develop a form of chivalry.
Plus isn't chivalry somewhat of an insult towards women also? After all it did come about due to the believe that women were "inferior."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that chivarly's day has passed. As a friend of mine put it: Are men supposed to open the door for a woman when she's coming into an office to interview for the same job he's there trying to get?
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i don't know if this is a strong indication, but in my social circles, chivalry doesn't exist. everyone pays for their own and whatnot. given, there are still residual effects of chivalry seen from time to time (intergeneration ettiquite for example). essentially though, it's gone in my circles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plus isn't chivalry somewhat of an insult towards women also? After all it did come about due to the believe that women were "inferior."
While we commonly assume that chivalry arose from beliefs about female inferiority, I'm inclined to ask of anyone here who might know: Has any form of chivalry ever been known to have been practiced toward any other class of people that were deemed inferior? Did white people ever practice chivalry toward black people, for example?
Just as an aside - I can come up with several rationalizations that might compel a man to be chivalrous toward a woman even if he considers her his equal:
1) She can get pregnant, and I can't - so sex should be her call.
2) She is the potential prey of so many evil men that it's up to me, as a good man, to be extra kind and considerate of her to make up for the threat posed by the bad ones.
3) She is more sensitive and kind than I am, and so the least I can do to repay her for that is to treat her with extra kindness and sensitivity.
4) She has to endure the agony of childbirth and PMS - therefore, she suffers enough already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
essentially though, it's gone in my circles.
Hey, Brad. Just for kicks. Next time you're out to eat with friends, ask the waitress why she serves the women first (lots of places do this).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While you brought up some interesting points, Hawth, and I agree that women and men don't always have the same problems or difficulties in life, aren't there things that men must deal with which would call for some sort of "chivalrous" attention to men?
Also, I personally don't think there are any more men who treat women as "potential prey" than women who treat men as "potential prey," but that's my own perspective on things.
And women are more sensitive and kind than men? I think they sometimes express it in different ways, but I don't think a gernalization like that is just.
I have the feeling that you gave those as examples of rationalizations that men often use, but aren't necessarily your opinion. Is that correct?
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) She can get pregnant, and I can't - so sex should be her call.
Birth control
2) She is the potential prey of so many evil men that it's up to me, as a good man, to be extra kind and considerate of her to make up for the threat posed by the bad ones.
women are horny too
3) She is more sensitive and kind than I am, and so the least I can do to repay her for that is to treat her with extra kindness and sensitivity.
men are sensitive too
4) She has to endure the agony of childbirth and PMS - therefore, she suffers enough already.
the first part i'll agree that women who are pregnant should get SOME special treatment. but men suffer too.
I know think those were your personal opinions Hawth, i was just making couter agruments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hrm... interesting. i'll be sure to give that a shot next time i see something like that happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Brad. Just for kicks. Next time you're out to eat with friends, ask the waitress why she serves the women first (lots of places do this).
Or try going to a resturant with just one woman. Who gets the check?
I'v have had this happen several times. One time a friend and I went to a resturant and the waitress handed me the full check for the both of us. I politely mentioned that it should be seprate checks. Another time, made really pissed off. I was walking through the mall and saw a friend of mine at the McDonalds and went to say hi to her. The person that was getting her order handed me the recipe. Already being in somewhat of a bad mood that day, I ended up getting reallly pissed about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know think those were your personal opinions Hawth, i was just making couter agruments.
The ultimate counter-argument is that just because one sex's biology creates differences in the way they must cope with life is no reason for another sex to "make up" for not having to bear that burden.
Men "making up" for the fact that women get pregnant is apologizing to them for being male. Likewise, would we every ask women to make it up to us because they don't get jock itch, prostate cancer, or torsion? Or how about women making it up to men because men can be seriously hurt by being kicked in the genitals?
No, we'd never ask for that, and there's no reason why we should be asked to make anything up to women because they get pregnant or have periods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott and Nagzi:
Yes, I was citing those rationalizations to merely illustrate what many men might feel - not necessarily what I think we should feel, or even what I feel, for that matter. Ultimately, each of those rationalizations comes from the "heart" - not the brain. The counter-points you both provided come from the brain, as they rightly should. But, you have to admit - a lot of men aren't thinking and rationalizing completely from the brain when they deal with women (and nor are women when dealing with men).
Mainly, I wanted to make the point that chivalry can be compelled by something other than a patronizing superiority complex in men. I'm irritated when certain feminists merely refer to how chivalry "demeans" women, thus completely ignoring and negating any benevolent intent on men's part. Even if it is an ill-considered act of kindness and consideration, it should still be appreciated as such, if that's what it is.
Scott, I agree with you on the concept of female chivalry. If you want my honest opinion, I think that a lot of the "wifely/womanly duties" which feminism was quickest to condemn and abolish were actually acts of female chivalry. And no, I'm not referring to women submitting to sex even when they don't want it, or anything of that nature. I'm thinking more of things like making the husband feel comfortable when he arrives home from work, out of appreciation for the fact that he's had to be away from home all day long and could use a warm welcome.
Of course, it's also important to note that women might have an easier time talking themselves out of such chivalrous rationalizations because most of men's "suffering" can be logically explained as something that a (male) government imposes on men (therefore, it's men's "own choice" that we and other men suffer, so it's primarily men who should feel guilty about men's hardships, and not women)- whereas women's "suffering" either comes from men (leading to male guilt-based chivalry) or from Nature (leading to sympathy-based chivalry).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, one more thing.... would we ask women to treat us with greater respect and dignity than they do themselves because we live shorter lifespans (on average) than they do?
Nope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawth: "While we commonly assume that chivalry arose from beliefs about female inferiority, I'm inclined to ask of anyone here who might know: Has any form of chivalry ever been known to have been practiced toward any other class of people that were deemed inferior?"
I don't think it has anything to do with inferiority. I think it has to do with perceived weakness and need for protection. It's not just a matter of physical weakness but also weakness in a sense of having less power. Considered that way, then the answer to your question is yes. We treat children with a kind of chivalry. Similarly it was -- and to some extent still is -- considered the duty and obligation of those who are rich to look after those who are poor through charitable activities or donations.
In theory, the trade-off was: Men have most of the worldly economic and political power, but good men -- that is, gentlemen -- will protect women from suffering abuse of that power by bad men.
Those were good days. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"isn't chivalry somewhat of an insult towards women also? After all it did come about due to the believe that women were 'inferior.'"
"The women wants to dominate, the man wants to be dominated
(particularly before marriage.) This was the reason for the gallantry of medieval Knights."
Immanuel Kant
"There should be complete equality between the sexes, which will do away
with that resulting form of hypocrisy called gallantry, or politeness to ladies."
August Strindberg
"The lady--that monster of European civilization and Teutonico-Christian stupidity ..
the institution of the lady, is a fundamental defect in our social scheme, and this
defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must spread its baneful influence in all directions."
Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nagzi: "Chivalry needs to die if true equality is ever going to happen."
True equality will never happen. Men and women are too different for perfect equality to exist. The idea should be to strike a balance that minimizes inequality but still respects the natural and socially conditioned differences between the sexes.
nagzi: "Why should we men STILL pay for women's way on dates when their out making just as much money? "
Well, as far as I'm concerned this a private matter between the two individuals. BUT ... one reason the man might still pay is to prove that he is a good provider and is willing to look after his woman economically. Some women cherish the idea that someday they will be able to stop working or at least reduce their hours in order to care for the children they hope to have. By letting you pick up the check, she is sending the message that she expects you to be the primary provider if you end up getting married some day. Or, she could just be cheap ...
ngazi: "But my couter agruement to that is, i'm just as much allowing HER to have sex with ME as she is allowing ME to be with HER."
Yeah, but let's face it pal, YOU probably want it a lot more than SHE does. Surely you've noticed that from time to time? Or are you Brad Pitt in disguise? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
Yeah, but let's face it pal, YOU probably want it a lot more than SHE does. Surely you've noticed that from time to time? Or are you Brad Pitt in disguise? :-)
--
Well, I have found the opposite to bee true in some cases, sorry to dissappoint you... ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but let's face it pal, YOU probably want it a lot more than SHE does. Surely you've noticed that from time to time? Or are you Brad Pitt in disguise? :-)
well...let see. I don't know a single female virgin, but I know 6 male virings (including myself). All the men that i know believe in sex in relationships, but two of the women that know have
Plus just goto a bar or a dance club and you'll see just as many women wanting "it" as men.
The thing is women are taught to value their sexuality, but we men aren't. If men were, you'd most likely be seeing women having to work for "it."
And no, I'm not Brad Pitt. And I don't wish to be Brad Pitt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In theory, the trade-off was: Men have most of the worldly economic and political power, but good men -- that is, gentlemen -- will protect women from suffering abuse of that power by bad men.
If men have all the power, why do women make all the rules?
I think thats from Warren Farrel, but I forget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's face something else. IF men were to start saying "No" more often when presented with sexual opportunities from women, you'd start to see woman's true sexual nature. Anyone here ever said "No" to a woman? I have. Anyone else want to share what kind of reaction you received?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules? is an awesome book by Jack Kammer. Its short, aphoristic style has a lot of appeal to people I've met who would not otherwise be willing to read a book by Warren Farrell or others.
Download the book (for free) here:
http://www.rulymob.com/
I still believe it is impossible for there to be a "separate but equal" relationship between men and women when chivalry exists. Chivalry is not just about etiquitte:
Chivalry is what makes judges give women lighter stenences than men for the same crime.
Chivalry is what makes men downplay domestic violence against men.
Chivalry is what makes men devaulue their own lives on a continual basis, and think of themselves as less worthy or less human than women.
In fact, chivalry is one of the biggest impediments to the men's movement today. Most men are simply unwilling to give up treating women as little princesses because they fear losing the approval of women (both socially and sexually, particularly the latter).
This is my humble opinion.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's face something else. IF men were to start saying "No" more often when presented with sexual opportunities from women, you'd start to see woman's true sexual nature. Anyone here ever said "No" to a woman? I have. Anyone else want to share what kind of reaction you received?
Its not a very pretty site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YOU probably want it a lot more than SHE does
hello stereotyping. hey, news flash: in my last relationship i had about a once per week need frequency, she maybe thrice that. so i'm not quite sure how your statement holds up in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But she's calling the effort to call attention to the plight of Afghan men the work of individuals whose sensitivity exceeds their common sense--those are fighting words.
Once again we see the women portrayed as "worthy victims" and men as "unworthy victims."
I urge men's activists to use their power and capacity for violence to fight against such vomitous and destructive drivel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh, and although i'm brad, i'm not a pitt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lemme think... i think the line that stands out the most is "i know you want it". the reaction i've seen is an extensive coersion. "no" just doesn't seem to register.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I consider the article on chivalry to be an indirect response to the national effort to draw attention to the plight of Afghan men; in effect, suggesting that these unworthies [Afghan men] ought to be accorded the same respect and treatment as their sisters is unchivalrous. It's an attempt to minimize the effort--you have to look near the end of the article, but it's spelled out for you. I awoke from my slumber to point this out for you. ;)
It's not so much that the writer is lamenting chivalry, as she is attempting to formulate some position from which to disparage the effort to bring attention to Afghan men as worthy victims; by implication, everyone who wrote to voice their criticism of formulaic mainstream media treatment of Afghan men is accused of possessing more sensitivity than common sense. Feminist journalists have been blindsided, apparently.
(Warning: sarcasm ahead) Remember to use your male power, capacity for violence and the almost certain conditional probability that you're an abuser if you're male (end of sarcasm) to combat institutionalized media bigotry against "unworthy" victims, even if that's unchivalrous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never considered chivalry and insult and frankly I've never met one of those mythical beasts that get all bent out of shape if a guy opens a door for her. I'm thinking this was an urban legend or happened once or something.
Dates: The person who asks the other person out should pay or should say up front that the offer is dutch. Even when I accept a date (and I do expect the offeree to pay) I always offer to pick up the tip or to buy the refreshments at the movies if he got the tickets (or I bring along a homemade treat to share as a surprise). Usually he strenously declines any offer to pay (chivalry?), and I don't push it.
If the relationship goes past a couple of dates however, I feel I should ask him out and pay just as often.
I NEVER have sex with anyone in payment for any degree of expenditure. I have sex with a man out of mutual attraction or not at all. If I get even the slightest wiff of that expectation, it's hasta la vista baby. Honestly most men are not like that but I hear a lot of horror stories from other women about it outright quid pro quo requests.
I think some of the protective instinct towards women IS out of a realization of some physical vulnerability. This is a tough area. I certainly don't think men should feel guilty about the acts of other men, but it doesn't hurt to at least acknowledge that women are somewhat more vulnerable in some situations. I've actually been in the situation of 2 men coming to my rescue and I can say the feelings are powerful and mixed. Gratitude to the men who stepped up, violent hatred of the man who placed me in a position of needing help. There is a little bit of why should I have to thank someone for saving me from something that I shouldn't have to face, like paying the mob for protection money. But when you step away from it, the men who helped me weren't under any obligation to help me (other than calling the police) but I'm sure glad they did. And anyway, they would have probably helped a man in a similar situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In theory, the trade-off was: Men have most of the worldly economic and political power, but good men -- that is, gentlemen -- will protect women from suffering abuse of that power by bad men.
My memory from history classes in pre-PC days is that the chivalric code imposed obligations of conduct and gestures of respect on both knights AND ladies. The thrust of a ladies obligations were the maintenance of female modesty.
I see the original deal as "I won't importune you if you won't importune me."
Nowadays, feminine modesty is a wholly discredited concept. You waste your time extending respect to someone who has no idea how to return it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think chivalry is anachronistic. In today's world it's common courtesy.
I bet I open a door for a man at least once a day. Usually for men coming out of a coffee shop with his hands holding a paper and briefcase and a coffee as I'm going in.
One situation that bugs me. If a guy holds the door for me going into a coffee shop or some such and lets me enter first, then I'm ahead of him in line. This is awkward because he got to the door first so he should be ahead of me in line. And he probably need the coffe just as desperately as me. What do you do? I don't want to make a big commotion about it, but should I offer to let him go ahead in line? Advice appreciated.
When I was pregnant both men and women let me have a seat on the bus or opened doors or offered to carry things for me. It wasn't just men who were chivalrous, but it was appreciated either way.
I always hold doors for elderly people but I'm unsure whether to or not for wheelchair users. It feels like I'm being condescending. One day I'll ask a wheelchair user what they prefer.
Several times on airplanes and other places men have let me go ahead of them to the toilet. This is awfully nice. I'm not sure if they're being chivalrous or planning to spend a long time in there and don't want me hanging around outside the door.
One thing men are NOT chivalrous about is parking spaces. But then, neither are women. It's dog eat dog in the parking world. We need more chivalry there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was curious to find out what Chivalry meant since I have an idea but often times my idea of what a word means is not quite what it really the real meaning. The definition that applies the best is, "2a. The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy and honesty." Since I think the issue we are trying to address is courtesy, "1. Polite behavior; gracious manner or manners." and to go a bit farther, "polite:1. Marked consideration for others, correct manners or tact; courteous."
Now to reply to few comments: In my opinion all dating is about sex in someway. People are either looking for a long-term relationship and a family and kids or just the physical pleasures of the act. If it's not then its not a date and your just "hanging out" with a friend. If it was simple what fun would it be. The desire for sex is always there but the problem is when desire turns into an expectation or demand.
The complex social communication that occurs between men and women is something we have been working on since time began and will until the sun explodes. I feel that the complex ideas involved with the code of chivalry for men and "southern belle" for women are two sides of a complex system of rules that required give and take from both sides. The problem is that now the restrictions that these rules have placed on women have been highlighted by the women's movement. While on the other side men are still receiving mixed signals for what is expected of them. To sit around and wait for a woman to ask them for a date will mean many lonely nights. Men still "know" the expectations, based on the code of chivalry, required of them and have to "ask" for a woman's permission to break the rules of conduct. Women are much more free to say yes or no to sex today than years ago. While some stigma still exists it is negligible. Men still suffer from a serious stigma if they say no to sex.
I think the author was coming from a radical feminist point of view in the article. She was trying to connect the idea that chivalry was used to control women's position in society and limit their power. Since the growth of women's rights men have turned to more violent means to control women and female power.
There are a few problems with this idea. First she assumes that chivalry is about power. I think the definitions show different. Chivalry can be used to abuse people just like any system of belief can. Ideology justified abuse for thousands of years religions have conquered nations using it, governments have tried to exterminate races and some feminists abuse use it now.
Another problem with this is that the majority of crime is gender on gender. yes that means female on female. While male on female is more publicized it is not the most common. (Little something I learned in Criminology. Really puts a kink in radical feminist theory about crime.)
Finally she failed to mention the fact that the code of chivalry also effected how men dealt with other men. It is a code of respect, honesty and bravery which are all positive virtues we all could aspire to follow.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think chivalry and common courtesy are exactly the same. Holding a door for someone, in spite of its reputation as such, really isn't chivalry. I hold doors for all types of people all the time. I'm not putting those people on pedestals (chivalry), I'm simply extending some fleeting form of friendship, acknowledging that they exist and that I'm a decent individual.
Chivalry, in my mind, is that mindset that puts women on a pedestal, and encourages men to make ourselves their servants. Now, if I went out of my way to open doors for women only, because they were women, *that* would be chivalry. And as Scott put it, chivalry is also the attitude that prevents judges from sentencing women to the same sentences men get for similar crimes... that feeling that women need to be idolized and worshipped by men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One situation that bugs me. If a guy holds the door for me going into a coffee shop or some such and lets me enter first, then I'm ahead of him in line. This is awkward because he got to the door first so he should be ahead of me in line. And he probably need the coffe just as desperately as me. What do you do? I don't want to make a big commotion about it, but should I offer to let him go ahead in line? Advice appreciated.
If there like most they're not going to say anything or compline. But what you could do is if coffee shop has two sets of doors to be openned, let the man open the first set and open and hold the second set for him. If there is only one set of doors pretend that your looking at the menu and then get in line right after him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 05, @04:07AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t think it is correct to equate chivalry and common courtesy. Chivalry might better be termed the male half of Victorian manners. Manners were different for men and women because they were devised to regulate people’s conduct within the boundaries of the gender roles of the time. The manners of a gentleman to a lady were balanced by the manners of a lady to a man. Any research on the conduct requirements for women of those times will reveal that such conduct is now considered inappropriate and archaic and thus is no longer practiced. As the cultural context for these gender role manners has disappeared so should the gender role manners; certainly women have had no compunction in ridding themselves of these archaic expectations.
This does not mean an end to manners, and I think I should now explain my definition of ‘common courtesy’: Rather than being polite and considerate on the basis of the other’s gender, both men and women can be basically courteous, considerate and helpful to everyone (inside of an appropriate context - offering to carry a stranger’s shopping bags might result in her thinking you a thief); special help such as carrying things, offering up your seat, and so on, can be decided on the basis of the other’s need – both men and women can give up their seats to the elderly or to a pregnant woman, for example.
So why has chivalry (the special, deferential treatment of women) in many ways survived in modern society? I can think of two reasons: Many women want to eat their cake and have it too: they want the benefits of both equality and special deference. This can be done on a conscious basis where the unfairness is rationalized away, or in a subconscious way, where the woman simply demands or accepts what will benefit her in each particular situation, and the inequity doesn’t even occur to her because she hasn’t thought the issues through. Many men still practice chivalry for a few inter-related reasons: conditioning, seeking the approval of women, ego and self-identity, and seeking to stand out above a male rival.
To elaborate: Western men are still conditioned to chivalry and thus it is often tied to their self-image. By seeking to demonstrate their chivalry, their ability to protect women, to be ‘women’s champion’, etc. men bolster their own feelings of specialness and self worth, and this can be an ego trip where they feel superior to other men (especially in the eyes of women); it is at the same time a tactic to win approval from women and gain an edge over male rivals.
Men have to be willing to risk female disapproval and simply treat woman with ‘common courtesy’. This is treating them as equals. Men can still be romantic and fully considerate without giving women special deference. Women have to realize that chivalry as special deference to women is as antiquated as the ‘lady’s manners’ they shrugged off and get used to receiving and giving ‘common courtesy’, no more, no less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We learned in one of my equine classes that the word "chivalry" came from the French "cheval," meaning "horse." It referred to a code of conduct for knights, who of course rode horses. How knights were supposed to treat women was only one part of the code. It was a complete list of rules to live by, a medieval Miss Manners.
Only in relatively modern times has chivalry taken on the very narrow definition of the proper way to treat a lady. Like many words, it evolved into something very far removed from the original definition. Etymology is fascinating!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claire4Liberty said: "Only in relatively modern times has chivalry taken on the very narrow definition of the proper way to treat a lady. Like many words, it evolved into something very far removed from the original definition."
This is a very good point and one that should be born in mind during tonight's chat. We could waste a lot of time arguing over "chivalry" when we don't even agree on what the word means. Perhaps we should speak of "old chivalry" and "new chivalry," so we know what we are speaking about and can discuss both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that separating the concept of chivalry into "old" and "new" is a very good way of discussing them. my feeling is that the real meaning of chivalry is just in general what society considered good manners that had expectations for both sides but overtime it has changed into a one sided issue. The women's movement has pointed out the problems with the "Victorian" code for women and only highlighted situations where "chivalry" can be abused. I equate this with the negative connotation associated with masculinity in society. I think Ms. Hoff-Summers pointed this out in her book "The War against Boys." There are many positive aspects to masculinity to only discuss the negative aspects is "bashing." Bravery, courtesy and honesty are all, in my opinion, positive attributes but they are not one-sided expectations, men deserve the acknowledgment of these positive attributes and reciprocation of them.
If anyone is interested a discussion of this tpic from a theoretical standpoint please email me.
Happy holidays everyone!
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me: YOU probably want it a lot more than SHE does
Brad (and others, more or less): "hello stereotyping. hey, news flash: in my last relationship i had about a once per week need frequency, she maybe thrice that. so i'm not quite sure how your statement holds up in that regard."
Stereotypes almost always contain at least a grain of truth. Otherwise, they wouldn't be stereotypes. Anyway, it's not a matter of individuals. Of course there are individual men who want less sex and individual women who want more.
But let me ask you, and others who share your POV ... do you really see no difference between male and female sexuality? Between male and female attitudes toward sex? Because the differences are everywhere to be seen. Perhaps you don't see them because they are so deeply ingrained in our society that you take them for granted and overlook them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But let me ask you, and others who share your POV ... do you really see no difference between male and female sexuality? Between male and female attitudes toward sex? Because the differences are everywhere to be seen. Perhaps you don't see them because they are so deeply ingrained in our society that you take them for granted and overlook them.
Now let me ask you, what have you seen regarding a shift in female sexuality over the past 30 years? I've seen them open up and conform more to masculine sexual stereotypes than feminine. Most of my girlfriends were the ones to initiate sexual contact with me. I'm 30. Perhaps age difference has something to do with the perception here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If anyone is interested a discussion of this tpic from a theoretical standpoint please email me.
Why not simply join us in the chat room tonight (Wednesday) and engage the discussion that way? :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For reasons I care not to explain right now, I was effectively single for about a year beginning in the late summer of '96. Since it had been, at that time, 17 years since I had been single for real, and because most of the women I was in contact in that year were divorced, I'm unable to determine if their sexual appetites were the same as their younger, never-married sisters. But I can DEFINITELY tell you that they were way more aggressive than I remembered them being before I got married. (This is not meant to indicate my own encounters, just general indications.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't necessarily call it aggressive. Older women in general are more comfortable with their sexuality... I mean more sexually confident and than younger women.
I know this is true for me. I'm WAY more confident than I was at 20. Too, I've read that in general many women enjoy sex more and have more orgasms the older they get. I can vouch for that one too for both myself and most women friends aroune my age (35). The standard line about women hitting their sexual prime later than men appears to be true.
That may explain why 17 years later, women seemed more interested in sex than you remembered them being when you (and they) were younger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nightmist: "Now let me ask you, what have you seen regarding a shift in female sexuality over the past 30 years? I've seen them open up and conform more to masculine sexual stereotypes than feminine. Most of my girlfriends were the ones to initiate sexual contact with me. I'm 30. Perhaps age difference has something to do with the perception here."
Certainly there have been changes in female sexual behavior, but the basic physiological and psychological differences remain. No doubt more women are willing to be the sexual pursuer than was the case decades ago because the social taboo against such behavior has lessened. However, observation of the wider world shows that men still have a more casual attitude toward sex than women. In this area, men and women are just wired differently, for some pretty basic biological and evolutionary reasons. If this is not the case, how do explain the fact that strip clubs for men remain much more common than those that cater to women? Or that men remain the overwhelming majority of consumers of porn?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If this is not the case, how do explain the fact that strip clubs for men remain much more common than those that cater to women? Or that men remain the overwhelming majority of consumers of porn?
Heh. I actually dispute those comments as well. If you look at Internet porn sites, you'll find women surfing them as often as men. I am, in fact, the IT manager at my place of work, and I can tell you now that I find about 50 percent more pornography in the caches and e-mail attachments folders of women than I do men (photos of naked men being kicked in the groin, etc., etc.).
Likewise, my city has a large number of strip clubs for men and no official strip clubs for women, but some of the regular "night" clubs around town host male strippers every weekend, and women are charged about $5 to get in, while men are charged $15-$20 at the strip clubs. The strip clubs for men have sparce audiences. The male strip shows at the "night" clubs are always packed.
I think women hide their sexuality better than men. We don't expect them to be hornier than we are, so we picture them in our minds as not. I say they are. Actually, no, I take that back. I say some are. I can guarantee I'm not as one-track sexually minded as some other guys are, in spite of the dumbass stereotypes with which we've been saddled.
Although I do agree that men and women are different as sexes, I also think that our sexual natures are natures which have been more socialized than actually different. Hell, science can't even agree on this.
Watch "The Learning Channel" on any given night and you'll see one show on human sexuality that says, "Males are wired to spread their seed, to give themselves a better chance of producing offspring, while females are wired to stick with one partner for protection." Watch the same station one night later and you'll see another show on human sexuality with another scientist saying, "Well, we think women are actually wired to sleep around and men are more like loyal dogs. Women want to make sure they're impregnated by the best seed, so they sleep around so that men's sperm will fight for fertilization and the best sperm will win." Or some such.
It's hard to know what to believe anymore. Sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women's virtue is man's greatest invention" C. Skinner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
me: "If this is not the case, how do explain the fact that strip clubs for men remain much more common than those that cater to women? Or that men remain the overwhelming majority of consumers of porn?"
nightmist: "Heh. I actually dispute those comments as well. If you look at Internet porn sites, you'll find women surfing them as often as men. I am, in fact, the IT manager at my place of work, and I can tell you now that I find about 50 percent more pornography in the caches and e-mail attachments folders of women than I do men (photos of naked men being kicked in the groin, etc., etc.)."
That's interesting, but how much is hard-core porn? How much do you think is downloaded for pure sexual gratification vs. curiosity/amusement/mild sexual interest.
Well, purely for the purpose of sociological research for my MANN-related duties, I have visited quite a few ... err ... houses o'smut. It is as rare as a non-fake breast in a Vivid video to see a woman alone in one. This is true not only in the sleazy places I am forced to visit for research purposes, but also in shiny clean, upscale places as well. Occasionally, women browse along with their boyfriends, but the absence of women by themselves indicates that relatively few -- I'm not saying NONE, but relatively few -- women watch porn solo for sexual gratification. If the interest in this were as great among women as it so clearly is among men -- not ALL men, but many, many men -- wouldn't you see more women looking for porn to "gratify themselves" with?
nightmist: "Likewise, my city has a large number of strip clubs for men and no official strip clubs for women, but some of the regular "night" clubs around town host male strippers every weekend, and women are charged about $5 to get in, while men are charged $15-$20 at the strip clubs. The strip clubs for men have sparce audiences. The male strip shows at the "night" clubs are always packed."
I see you've been doing your share of research as well, NM. :-)Again, how many women go alone to the "girls' nights"? How many get lap dances?
NM: "I think women hide their sexuality better than men. We don't expect them to be hornier than we are, so we picture them in our minds as not. I say they are. Actually, no, I take that back. I say some are. I can guarantee I'm not as one-track sexually minded as some other guys are, in spite of the dumbass stereotypes with which we've been saddled."
I certainly am not claiming that women don't get horny, or that there aren't women who are one-track sexually minded, or that all men ARE. I just think the proportions are very different, and that this has been demonstrated in female and male sexual behavior for a long, long time.
Consider also that among homosexuals, men are much more promiscuous than women. Since, for gays and lesbians, there is no need to adapt their sexual behavior to fit the opposite sex, we see a "purer" expression of male -- or female -- sexuality.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree, but it certainly is a pleasure to discuss the issue without its being politicized and without being insulted!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's interesting, but how much is hard-core porn? How much do you think is downloaded for pure sexual gratification vs. curiosity/amusement/mild sexual interest.
It's all pretty hard-core, much of it violent.
Well, purely for the purpose of sociological research for my MANN-related duties, I have visited quite a few ... err ... houses o'smut. It is as rare as a non-fake breast in a Vivid video to see a woman alone in one. This is true not only in the sleazy places I am forced to visit for research purposes, but also in shiny clean, upscale places as well. Occasionally, women browse along with their boyfriends, but the absence of women by themselves indicates that relatively few -- I'm not saying NONE, but relatively few -- women watch porn solo for sexual gratification. If the interest in this were as great among women as it so clearly is among men -- not ALL men, but many, many men -- wouldn't you see more women looking for porn to "gratify themselves" with?
Try surfing this site: http://www.clothedfemalenakedmale.com and the other hundreds of sites associated with it. There is currently a HUGE Internet-fed fetish with women clothed and in control and men naked and in submission. From the looks of it, it's a majority female audience, although I'm certain the men involved are doing this of their own free will (yuck!)
I see you've been doing your share of research as well, NM. :-)Again, how many women go alone to the "girls' nights"? How many get lap dances?
I have no idea on the numbers, but I know those places are packed. I have female friends that go there. While male patrons of strip clubs are kept six feet away from the dancers at all times, female patrons of the male strip shows have, actually, jerked off the dancers on-stage.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree, but it certainly is a pleasure to discuss the issue without its being politicized and without being insulted!
Indeed. Too many agreements in these areas become personal. I think we can probably agree on that. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) She can get pregnant, and I can't - so sex should be her call.
Maybe this is why chivalry and chastity belts go together so well...
-------------------------------------------------- -------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soory I cann't make it to chats on Mon or wed. nights due to Judo class.
no clue where this quote is from but it rings so true.
"Erotica is what turns me on, porn is what turns you on." Gives an interesting twist on what we might consider "porn" for women.
One of the things I have learned about men and women is that women want sex as much as men and men do not always want sex (we just have act like we do).
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
