|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:19 pm
Lord Vyce I wouldn't mind being picked up by a girl, front row seat to the bewbehs! whee Haha! I had a short boyfriend who enjoyed the pleasure of viewing the boobages right on...resting comfortably when hugging me...Stupid a** messed that up razz PeachyKeenTastic Chivalry, for me, seems very demeaning for men. As a woman, I don't feel like I need a man to open the door for me. I don't mind having the door opened for me if I too can return the favor. There is nothing wrong with manners and polite behavior, and the sort, but if we scream out equal rights and equal pay, why should men still have to pay for dinner all the time? Why can we not split the bill, or take turns paying for it at a restaurant. The whole jacket on water thing, I think it is wasteful, you get a perfectly nice coat, and dirty and messy and for what? I think it is not worth it. I don't mind being treated like a princess sometimes, but I don't think it should be one-sided as is often seen. I agree with that for a certain extent. I mean, I am very traditional when it comes to manners and the sort, yet I would either pay half the bill or alternate who gets to pay it. Some of the things are real silly and I would get rather embarrassed at the whole coat on the puddle thing...but I really do like the idea of being carried across. Man that's the sort of stuff that Mills and Boons publish.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:29 pm
I don't care about sex equalization and all that society crap. Even if chivalr is completely dead, I'll still be chivalrous. Truly, not opening a door for a lady lets down my dignity.I jsut practice chivalry to be a nice person, and it's really bugging me that some people are offended by that. It boggles me how one can be offended by an act of kindness.
Acually, chivalry was the code knights used. It focused around battling and incading castles and following orders and all that jazz. The being nice to ladies part was added late into the Middle Ages to further idealize the knight in shining armor.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:42 pm
Steve, you're right on that last part.
Knights, believe it or not, weren't all that chivalrous how we believed them to be. I'm sure i've said it before, that knights were feasibly allowed to rape and ransack an enemy's encampment/village after routing stationed troops. Due to the Feudal hierarchy, commoners would pay knights for protection, knights would pay barons for land, and barons were rich folk that paid taxes to the king.
Of course, taxes were mostly compromised of knights and peasants' taxation. Barons paid relatively little.
My point? Commoners didn't have to pay Knights in gold. They could pay a local Knight for protection by means of their daughters / sisters.
The whole 'opening a door for a lady' thing? Only if the door led to the bedroom, and the woman was willing. Otherwise, it was opened by throwing the woman through the door and towards the bed.
mrgreen Sorry for the History lecture, folks.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:32 pm
Tailos Steve, you're right on that last part. Knights, believe it or not, weren't all that chivalrous how we believed them to be. I'm sure i've said it before, that knights were feasibly allowed to rape and ransack an enemy's encampment/village after routing stationed troops. Due to the Feudal hierarchy, commoners would pay knights for protection, knights would pay barons for land, and barons were rich folk that paid taxes to the king. Of course, taxes were mostly compromised of knights and peasants' taxation. Barons paid relatively little. My point? Commoners didn't have to pay Knights in gold. They could pay a local Knight for protection by means of their daughters / sisters. The whole 'opening a door for a lady' thing? Only if the door led to the bedroom, and the woman was willing. Otherwise, it was opened by throwing the woman through the door and towards the bed. mrgreen Sorry for the History lecture, folks. Also, just something cool I learned: "Chivalry" basically means "man on a horse"...or...rather... "Knight on a horse". The origin of the word was to embody the spirit of the knightly honor of "virtue", not necessarily his code of conduct, but the driving spirit behind him and his horse. Also, back then, "soldier" was an insult because the words for "soldier" implied that you "sold" yourself to people in exchange for protection (ie: mercenary). Knights were supposed to be upholding justice/honor/etc of their nobles, not just taking a payoff.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:05 am
Oni-Angel Tailos Steve, you're right on that last part. Knights, believe it or not, weren't all that chivalrous how we believed them to be. I'm sure i've said it before, that knights were feasibly allowed to rape and ransack an enemy's encampment/village after routing stationed troops. Due to the Feudal hierarchy, commoners would pay knights for protection, knights would pay barons for land, and barons were rich folk that paid taxes to the king. Of course, taxes were mostly compromised of knights and peasants' taxation. Barons paid relatively little. My point? Commoners didn't have to pay Knights in gold. They could pay a local Knight for protection by means of their daughters / sisters. The whole 'opening a door for a lady' thing? Only if the door led to the bedroom, and the woman was willing. Otherwise, it was opened by throwing the woman through the door and towards the bed. mrgreen Sorry for the History lecture, folks. Also, just something cool I learned: "Chivalry" basically means "man on a horse"...or...rather... "Knight on a horse". The origin of the word was to embody the spirit of the knightly honor of "virtue", not necessarily his code of conduct, but the driving spirit behind him and his horse. Also, back then, "soldier" was an insult because the words for "soldier" implied that you "sold" yourself to people in exchange for protection (ie: mercenary). Knights were supposed to be upholding justice/honor/etc of their nobles, not just taking a payoff. Yes... supposed to being the key words. I can't imagine them ever straying from the rules set for them... *cough, cops, cough* xD
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:18 am
I'm just surprised by the fact that some guys will put women on a pedestal, and not even stand up for themselves when they're treated like dirt. Some of you remember that thread I linked to a few months ago? The guy who thought (and still thinks) that real men let themselves be treated like rugs by all types of women?
I think it's pathetic.
Real men and women aren't men or women. They're human. they make mistakes, sure, but one isn't superior to the other. Women aren't supposed to be stuck in the kitchen, and we aren't supposed to treat them like goddesses, much less in the cases when they clearly don't deserve it. I can't believe that there are men and women that think that men shouldn't hit back because "women are fragile". That pisses me off to a level that I don't even look at my mom for a few hours. Men and women like that know the answer is bullshit, but they still believe it to be so. Worst of all, if a girl knocks me out, and I said that I would knock her out as soon as I got up, they look at me like I'm some sort of monster. I'm not. I'm just sick of the one-way street that is "chivalry". Geez. It's not like I'm a wife-beater or a mysogynist (sp?). As you can see, the whole thing just pisses me off, and I can't stand people who think this way. (you know, to this extent.)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:25 pm
Hell, for a minute I thought I was reading the Etymology sub forum of a Grammar Nazi Guild blaugh
Culture and society greatly affects the way we perceive our world and mannerism. For example, in South African society, women are highly valued and are often "bought" via the lobola system which operates on the same means and manners as the Indians with dowry or "bridewealth". If an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old and gets her pregnant, although both of them were consenting and of consenting age, the boy's family will have to pay a fine for "dishonouring" the 16 year old girl. This is Black South African culture.
For us White South Africans, we are pretty much the type that invites the fiancee to dinner with the parents and announce the engagement like that? And with some families, the family of the Bride pays for the wedding, etc.
What is a great contradiction here is, is that the majority of women beaters in the country are predominantly Black. Sure, there is a small minority of Whites here, yet, there is still a larger percentage in the middle class range where you would think the lack of potential of drugs/alcohol/circumstances playing a role in the abuse. That's not to say that all Black men are women beaters. But the general thought process according to Sociologists here are that men "own" their wives and therefore have the "right" to beat them. And many women allow it. I mean, my domestic worker aka my Black mom gets hit by her husband at home and albeit that she hates him doing it and knows that it is wrong, she still stays with him and allows it to happen.
I agree that there is a double standard here with regards to chivlary, but as there are double standards with most other things. A man who sleeps around is a stud but a women that does is labeled a slut or whore? How fair is that? We just come to label certain things the way we do because it is a general agreement that our fragile society has made amongst different cultures and races. I mean, as much as we are indepedent, free-thinking and curious beings, we still like to have some sort of guide-lines as to how to behave, and what is a fair sense of justice in the world. It's greatly manipulated today by our politicians and world leaders (and this can be shown by views of Gay Marriages and Abortion).
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:34 pm
madamfluff Hell, for a minute I thought I was reading the Etymology sub forum of a Grammar Nazi Guild blaugh Wait... you mean it's not? ninja blaugh With the "stud"/"slut" comparison, I believe there is a very big difference. (Most!) Men sleep around for their own pleasure, wheras most women (that I've seen) who sleep around do it for the men's pleasure, or because they want the men to like them. Hence why they get called sluts... because... well, they are. Women who only sleep around for their own pleasure, on the other hand, the ones who know what they want & go for it, not just to please men, they are not sluts. They are sexually confident women & deserve to be called so. I don't know too many men who sleep around just because they think the women will like them for it....
But then again, I call all guys who sleep around "sluts", but most of the time only playfully. blaugh
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|