The truth about chivalry

[Hero_99]

Most people have a flawed viewpoint of chivalry. Some men think that it is some sort of magicical mind blowing set of social rules designed to get close to a girl or to get into her panties even. Others say that it is the proper way to treat a girl, while others avoid the concept.Some even say that Chivalry is dead. In reality, there really isn't a clear view of what chivalery really means. You can say that there are a few sterotypical viewpoints, historical, societal and cultural, and individualistic for example.

 

From a societal/cultural viewpoint chivalery has varying meanings depending upon what cultural/social strata an individual belongs to. Meanings in one culture can transverse and conflict with other cultures, making something entirely acceptable in one be rude and vulgur in another. For example, in the American culture the appropiate number of flowers in a bouquet normally consist of a dozen. However, in european cultures aquiring anything other than an odd number of flowers in a bouquet would be considered rude and unthoughtful.

 

Individual viewpoints also vary on the basis of perception. Not much to explain here, but I'm sure that you can think of examples yourself if you need to.

 

From a historical viewpoint chivalry would not appeal to most. It origionally began as a creed and warriorscode used by the Christian cburch to train monks and crusaders and had little emphasis on how to treat women.Although, throughout the 13th to 17th century the concept began to change from a means of living to a way of life involving the unquestionable obedience to the wives of nobleman with hidden love affairs and suppressed emotions of men for the women of other men. Unfortunatelly, it has been this concept that has influenced the modern view of chivalry and not the origional concept of chivalry, which started as something entirely different and has evolved to various extreemes, which brings us to the point or writting.

 

It is a very notable and honest fact that men who hold to the concept of chivalry as it stands in modern times normally don't have much success with women. It would be easy to place the blame on chivalry itself, saying that chivalry caused the errors of ways and unsuccesses in the lives of such men. If I said this, it would be entirely untrue. The reason that these men emphasize chivalry is because they are not successful with women anyways regardless. They emphasize respect and decency to women and believe that if they supplicate so much, all their problems will go away and women will like and want to be around them. What these men do not realize is that their own efforts cause their own undueing, and actually turn women off more than they would taking they would not supplicate. In brief, these types of men unintentionally attempt to pay women off in lue of their own self-defeating viewpoints nd often false perceptions of their own selves. The problem is not with the fact that these men are chivalrous, which women often do appreciate; the problem lies within the fact that they overdue their already falsified self-preceived acts of chivalry to the point thatthat is the only thing that girls note from their interactions of them. Instead of radiating charm and charisma, theses desperate men cause these same girls to become scared and often feeling harassed and manipulated. The sad part is that is that if these same men kept their composure and let things flow naturally without the unneeded supplication, they would be that much more successful taking that most of these girls who bother dating or getting to know them even them probably already like them anyhow before they turned into wussy chump pets and supplicants. That only goes to show you the clueless nature of the vast majority of men who don't realize the simplicity of a few issues involving women.

 

It is also a very notable and honest fact that men who do not emphasize or hold to chivalry tend to appear more successful with women than their more timid counterparts. By now the reason for this should be blatently obvious. Men who are already successful with women have no reason to emphasize anything because they do so naturally, calmly, and often without thought or even knowledge of what it is that they do right even! There are varying degress of two types of these men, basically, good and bad. The good guy is really the nice guy that women say that they want, and could basically be described as a nice guy with a backbone.The bad guy is the jerk that men often claim women like so much, but don't and still spend time with anyways, though not for very long or atleast until they have sought out a nice guy to complain and milk sympathy from, then it's back to the jerk; girls who do this are often immature, fake, and just shallow as shallow as the jerk himself. on the other hand, good girls tend to be more mature and will seek out good guys and avoid the jerk and his games once they are spotted.

 

When it comes to mate selection women are often not that perticular. In reality, women will actually have sex and form relationships will all types of men, whether they be nice, good, or bad. The only reason that it appears that the jerks win is because men with nicer qualities tend to fail to persue good opportunities for relationship and sex when they present themself, while the jerk selfishly hoards and actively creates opportunities for himself. Good men tend to have just as much sex as the jerk, but not with as many women if even more than one. Nice guys fail to procure sex and relationships as a result of their own deep seeded shame of themselves and poor self-worth, unless of course a nice guy finds a girl who is willing to do all the work, but whether she has issues herself is another thing altogether.

 

Then there are the guys who actually have some success with girls by not caring about them. The reason that these guys are successful is because they are good men who have some apparent qualities that interest girls or bad men who play games using cocky logic and mystery to attract the shallow and immature girls. Basically, these men are in the driver's seat and can afford not to care because there will always be someone better coming along to accompany or entertain them. Whereas the niceguy sees himself in a world of waste and desolation, the world is a plentiful

paradise to these men. No need to worry when you live in a world of plenty.

 

Despite its evolution chivalry is really neither a good or bad thing. I suppose that if a man was to use chivalry to attempt to makeup for some defencies meanwhile placing a woman onto an undeserved position of authority then that would be a bad thing. On the other hand, showing a girl who likes and appreciates you already herself some deserved appreciation through acts of chivalry is a totally awesome thing that should be encouraged taking that it is not overdone.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ok, I am going to do a sort of question answer and comment session here; because of various reasons which I will now summerize... [this is from another forum response]

 

 

#1. It is impossible not to do some generalization when writting a paper like this; I think everyione should note that I have triedto counter-balance the paper by adding in such phrases as "in varying degrees" or "in various extreemes;" However, I will stick to the fact that there are both men and women that act the way I have described as a part of their nature and there are a whole heck of a lot of them. Some of them I know personally, but I do agree that there are some people that do not act the way that I have described, and I have tried to allow for that in my explanation of things.

 

#2. Some of you do not bother reading what I have written, have skimmed over information, assume I say things that I don't intend, orunderstand and disagree with what I have to say. The very latter reason could be due in part to the factthat I have not throughly explained myself in some sections of my article or you have your own mind-concept that conflicts with what I have written, or maybe you are just inexperienced with women and have bad preconceived notions. Marriage does not disqualify someone from this status as there are many menthat fit into the categories I have described and still manage to marry, which I have tried to allow for in my explanation of things.

 

#3. God made men and women to have sex. If men and women were sexless there would be no reason to marry or seek anyone out. There are some men who have the preconceived notion that you must get married, whereas even the bible states is an option. There is also a non-sexualside to relationship and dating, thyough if you think that is what people should seek specifically than you might as well go spend the rest of your life living in the same living area with someone of the same gender as some non-sexual hermit, that will take care of your non-sexual "I need a relationship to feel complete" problem.

 

#4. In varying degrees there are instances when you can predict what a person is going to do based on an understanding of simple andcomplex psychology. This is also true for gender differences, where it is possible to predict what both men and women will tend to do in certain circumstances. This does not mean or guarantee there will be an appropiate follow-through in action, but the tendency still remains.

 

#5. I have never stated in my article that all women will just sleep or have relationships with just anyone, and several of you have assumed I inferred that. What I inferred is that generally women are not that perticular, meaning that there are women that chase afternice guys, women that chase after good guys, and women that chase after bad boys; they all exist and mingle with one another in abundance, and sometimes it's difficult to discern one group from the other.

 

#6. When a woman says she will not have sex or form a relationship with just anyone; she is telling the truth. What she is not tellingyou is whether she thinks of you specifically as someone she can form a relationship with or have sex with. Ironically, women tend to be just as horny as men if not more, though they have a qualitative outlook that causes them to appear as though they are not so horny with subtle repression of their own tendencies; meaning that they will have a more willing nature when the possiblity does arise.

 

#7. Both men and women can have poorly preconceived notions of one another; probably the main reason has to do with inexperience, but another fact is their outlook based from their anatomical perspective. It has been proven psychologically that men and women tend tothink differently similarly to the way they are designed and wired anatomically. For example, one preconceived notion girls to to haveis that all men are strong, this stems from the fact that women tend to look at things from a degree of strength and what has ability.On the other hand, men also have the preconceived notion that all women are weak, and needed to be treated with respect because they are the more frail of the sexes. This is incorrect, because there are many women out there that have the ability to overpower mento certain degrees and in certain instances, and will cheat, lie, and steal just like many men. They are not the frail creatures that many men assume. This goes along with other weak preconceived notions, for example a guy might just assume that he can get along with a girl by purposefully renting chick-flicks as an attempt to subtly influence her into liking him. These are the type of preconceived notions that I have attempted to address in my article.

 

#8. Girls do in fact get weirded out by men who appear to be attempting to manipulate them into liking in their own desperation; there are many examples of this. For example, a man might think that he has to bring flowers to every girl that he should date on the first date, and always pull out chair for every girl, and open the door for every girl, etc. Eventually the girls see the desperate insecurity and feel like she is being manipulated [in the extreeme], even though the man probably has rather good intentions even with his weak perception.I am not saying that doing these things are bad, just as long as they arn't overdone and they are done to a girl that likes and appreciates the man in question. Though, wrongly putting a girl up on a pedestole can be just as bad and just as self-defeating in the end, so a carefulperception of what it is you are actually communicating should be maintained at all times.

 

#9. The latter result of chivalry, while the orders of women in authority took a high precedance, could be very individualized like many things. A woman wanting a man to have sex with her, and the man not doing it could be caused from any number of reasons. Thereis a greater liklihood in the example that the knight described [lanvil] that he refused, not because it was a thing of honor, but because that was his social conditioning, to not mess with another man's wife who is of higher social authority because he was under the thumbof the man in authority and there could be veiled consequences. On the other hand, I see a greater liklihood that the lord and master could have more easily had gotten away with sleeping with lanvil's wife if he had one. I don't know because the story does not say either way.

 

#10. In the phrase "are in the driver's seat and can afford not to care because there will always be someone better coming along to accompany or entertain them," I was not necessarily saying that this was any type of man. That was a basis I used as a descriptionand a reason on why these men do not care about the women that seem to like and possibility care about them so much. This of courseis caused from the fact that these girls are persueing the types of men in question more than the men are persueing them. This is another reason why women appear to love jerks, but don't, only specific characterisitics of men who are typically jerks.

 

#11. I never stated that all men who practice chivalry are weak, needy, and manipulative. What I did say is that the men who emphasizechivalry as a way to get women tend to not be very successful with women, whereas men who do not emphasize chivalry tend to be more successful with women whether they are chivalrous or not. If a man is chivalrous and can obtain women it is caused from other varying number of reasons of of which chivalry is only a small factor.

 

#12. Sources -

Maslow [Heirachy of Needs, sexual tendencies of apes as compared to humans]

Freud [Developmental stages]

Me

[Outlaw2747]

I read alot of your post. I haven't had enough time to read it all and I might look at it again but from what I have seen, you have IMPRESSIVE knowledge and writing skills. And I agree with alot of the stuff you have stated. You are very logicl and that is the type of people I get along with and understand the most. Are you a teacher or something?

[Hero_99]

No, I'm not a teacher, but maybe I should be. I understand concepts in a very deep and multilayered way.

[Outlaw2747]

You should. You must get awesome grades in school or college. I am quite deep and open-minded myself but man that is just amazing and your topics are on par with what really goes on out there.

[Hero_99]

You should. You must get awesome grades in school or college. I am quite deep and open-minded myself but man that is just amazing and your topics are on par with what really goes on out there.

 

Thanks, it feels good to be appreciated ...

[Roasted Carrots]

You post made me do a double take. I used to spat "Someone arrange a funeral, because CHIVALRY IS TOTALLY DEAD!" when I was in a male-bashing mood (translation: once a month but now I think I need to do a little more research on my comebacks so I can use my vocab correctly...

 

Thank you for that little tidbit of education! Your writing skills are quite magnificent. I commend you. Keep honing your craft and please pm me with any new articles!

[Mentor]

Um, can I get the executive summary?

[Outlaw2747]

I think you should sell your work if that really came from your total observation...LOL!

[ShySoul]

Nice writing skills and interesting topic. There's alot there so if I've misinterpreted something feel free to correct me. But I think you should look at chivalry from another angle. I'm a firm believer in being chivalrious. To me that means just being nice, respectful and a gentleman. The reason I'm doing this is because it's the right thing to do and is treating a woman with respect. From what you wrote it seems like you are saying that men act this way in an attempt to have better luck with women. While I admit that some people do this, that's not the real reason many people practice chivlary. Those who only do it because they are trying to get women don't really understand what chivalry is and will fail because of that misunderstanding. Those who get that chivalry is all about being nice and respectful will have better luck, even when that wasn't there aim.

 

 

 

Not to be rude, but I think that's a bit harsh and mean. I believe the non-sexual side is what people are seeking and that that aspect is what really makes the sexual aspect special and desireable. Still, I don't need a relationship to feel complete, I'm fine on my own. You seem to be making an unfair judgment regarding people who think this way.

[Balthamos]

I must say that I disagree with most of what you said. None of this is personal against you, but after I read it, I have to say that I was a little bit surprised that only one person seemed to disagree with you at all.

 

First off, some of the things you say seem to be rather condradictory. You say in your introduction, amongst a list of misconceptions about chivalry, that many guys think it's just a way to get into a girl's pants. And then, as you start the paragraph about jerks, you say that because they have sucess with women, they don't need to be chivalrous, thus implying that it is just a technique used by desperate men to attract women.

 

As Shysoul said, there are definitely some guys who use it as a means to attract women, but they misunderstand it; this is why they fail at it. Of course chivalry is dependent on the woman's reception of it. When you talk of women being scared or creeped out by chivalry, that's not chivalry, it's unwanted attention (which is akin to stalking). Chivalry is about respecting women beacuse it's right, not out of some kind of pity or misconceptions about feminine weakness, nor a pathetic attempt to attract women.

 

It was an interseting point that the men who believe most strongly in chivalry seem to have less luck with women, and while I disagree with your expalaination, I don't have another one.

 

I did think that it was totally inappropriate and unnesessary to say that men who practice and believe in chivalry are "wussy chump pets and supplicants [which I believe is a misuse of the word, perhaps you meant "sycophant"?]" even if you admit that it is a broad generalization.

 

I am of course not a woman, niether one of is, but your anaylisis of the "fairer sex" seems quite flawed to me. While I absolutely say that this is not a rule that applies to all, maybe not even most, but when taken as a whole, it seems to me, from my experience, that women are not as sexually oriented ("horny") as men.

 

As was said earlier, being a nice guy in no way makes a guy a doormat, just the opposite. A really nice guy is nice to himself as wel and know how to be assertive; to not let other walk all over him without being pompous or hurting the other person. I also think it's important to mention that you are seriously downplaying the importance of the non-sexual part of a relationship. I think, since they are the ground work that is necessary in order to form a healthy sexual relationship they are even more important than sex.

 

If I may say so without being offensive, while I have no phsycological training, it seems to me that you used to be a believer in it and have become jaded by the "nice guys finish last" syndrome. I'm not saying that as an insult or a judgement of any kind, but it's my guess as to why you wrote this article at all and certainly why it turned out the way it did.

 

Agian, none of this is meant as a personal attack, and your article was certianly thought-provoking, despite the fact that I obviously disagreed with it.

 

~~Kevin~

[MetalJoe]

Don't get me wrong, I loved reading the article and I think you have an excellent writing style.

 

However, I kinda agree with ShySoul on the points he picked up on, especially about nice guys.

 

I consider myself "chivalrous", although I tend to see it as being "polite" or "respectful" - that's just the way I was raised and I happen to see that as important, to me. I don't do it to pick up women, I'm the same with most people.

[ShySoul]

Balthamos, I have a possible explanation for why the men who believe most strongly in chivalry seem to have less luck with women, I have a possible explanation for why the men who believe most strongly in chivalry seem to have less luck with women. It's because such a strong belief in chivalry is rare these days. Most people don't understand or appreciate as much as these guys do. So when faced with it, women are surprised and don't know how to react. They are much more used to guys who are rude. In fact, I think society in general doesn't mind there manners very well nowadays. Plus, there is alot more push now for "girl power" so a guy who is really chivalrous may be misuderstood. They will either be seen as whimpy or someone who fews women as weak, delicate flowers who can't take care of themselves. It's a double edged sword and a hard trap for nice guys to get out of.

[SkyFire]

Chivalry and respect are two different things. Opening a door for a chick is nice. Going out, buying her lunch and bringing it over to her place when she is depressed or some doo-doo is disrespectful to yourself.

 

 

Anyways, great post man. I agree with everything. Finally someone who understands

[ShySoul]

Going out and buying lunch for someone who is depressed is being thoughtful and doing something to cheer her up. It's called being a friend and being there for her when she's feeling down. The only way it would be disrespectful to myself is if I was doing that instead of taking care of something else that I absolutely needed to get done. But if I had the time then I think its a sweet thing to do.

[Outlaw2747]

The only time that would be disrespectful is if yu are doing it just to get into her pants. But if you are doing it for other reasons, it shows sympathy and that you care. But not all situations can apply.

[Derek]

Hrm,

 

Sounds like an interesting topic, but I don't think the writing style is all that.

I've seen Hero's posts before and I like to read them, but I like to think that

good writing gets the points accross clearly in as little space as possible.

 

Let me summarize some ideas in a few short points:

 

- chivalry means different things to different cultures.

- chivalry is basically being polite, "nice", doing things like opening doors,

giving roses, being romantic, saying poems, etc. (he didn't really define what his assumption was about it.)

- this kind of chivalry is not as effective as people think

- now he compares nice guys, bad boys and good guys (which is a bit different topic than chivalry itself)

- nice guys lose out by being doormats and "supplicating" to women for no return on investment, one of their tools they tend to use is chivalry

- bad boys (jerks) get their selfish desires by being an artificial challenge, they tend to not care about the results thus girls like their "above the fray" attitude, they aren't typically chivalrous.

- good guys fly in between these two extremes and get the more fulfilling result.

- In conclusion, guys should try to be "good guys". ( He kinda didn't conclude about chivalry really)

 

So the entire post can be summed up perhaps like this:

Guys, to get and keep girls interested, you should be nice to them, but not all the time. =)

 

 

 

I might differ on the base assumption about chilvary being an act of weakness.

I might include things like not breaking up with a girl after she's had a disfiguring

car accident as chilvarous. Things like marrying a girl even though she has cancer and

may die in a year as chilvarous. He didn't even mention taking things that far.

Chilvary doesn't have to be about being weak or a doormat.

Perhaps it is about honouring a person by showing some self sacrifice, even if the

person didn't deserve it. It can come from a place of strength.

 

Them's my thoughts,

 

 

[Hero_99]

Out of all of you I think Derek has the best understanding of what it was I was communicating ...

 

One thing I want to clear up is that I was not saying that chivaery is a bad thing taking that you arn't doing it for the wrong reasons ... In fact, I think

most men act that way for entirely the wrong reasons or because they are utterly clueless and are trying to compensate for the fact that they have other unattractive tendencies, and instead of addressing the problem THEY EMPHASIZE chivalry ... Note that I capitalized "EMPHASIZE" and not chivalry; this is essentially putting women up to an artificial level where they don't belong ...

 

One thing that should also be noted is that when women say they like this or that trait in a guy, she is already assuming that that shadow of a guy has already demonstrated a good amount of strength ... Doing things like opening the door and pushing in chairs is something I think a man should be doing naturally, and not emphasizing ... Basically, they are going backwards by subjugating themselves to an end goal externally and not changing themselves internally ...

 

This is even biblical - If you know your bible history the Israelites fell under the same trap and also backslid and had to subjugate themselves more to compensate, which never works ...