Knights without the armor?

Got to pass by Modestly Yours again today which I haven't been able to do lately. Interesting discussions there! Ideas are aplenty and diverse, and the way these are tackled, tossed and turned, and made sense of, is wonderful.

One of those that caught my fancy was this comment that followed the post on Modern Manners:

The elevators in the building I work at interest me. There are 71 stories, so they are used a lot. And invariably, the men wait for the women to enter or exit the elevators before they enter or exit. There is an expectation for that behavior. The young men picked it up from the older men who display [chivalry] more naturally. Once one guy is [chivalrous], the others around have to follow suit or risk being seen as a jerks. The same thing happens if a woman walks into a room and one guy stands up to give his seat--the other guys feel compelled to offer as well. But it takes that first guy to act in a way that, apparently, is appealing to both sexes. I say appealing because if there wasn't something about that behavior that was respected, nobody would want to emulate it.

A couple of paragraphs down was this:

So what is the definition and purpose of [chivalry]? If [chivalry] is about protecting what is uniquely feminine and understanding that a woman chooses her man, and that he has to earn her, then it is desperately needed, and is more than common courtesy. It's a recognition that there is something worth cherishing in a woman.

There are other noteworthy points but I'll leave it there. Come and check out Modern Manners for yourself.

A picture and a poem

I came across this charming photo, and decided to look for a poem written by a child to accompany such a cute image. Found one at The Poetry Zone.

Always There for You by Orit Addous (aged 11)

Tissues are always there for you
There after you use the loo.

There when you shed a tear
For joy, sadness or fear.

There when you have a cold
And feel abandoned, helpless and old.

Just face it - the best friend for you
Is a soft, caring tissue.

Personality peacocks and emotional lingerie

What's Your Diagnosis?

“I’m surprised at you,” he said “ I always thought you were very open-minded.”

It took me a minute to realize what I was being told. A perfectly intellectually stimulating and intriguing conversation between myself and another man, over coffee, suddenly turned into a graphic, detailed account of his sexual experiences and preferences. I didn't know this man very well, so when asked for my input, I politely replied that I had nothing to add to the development of this dialogue and asked to change the topic. Which is when the diagnosis of the broadness of my mind came up.

I was also told that I was not "comfortable with sexuality."

For my refusal to hang my personal and emotional lingerie on the public clothesline for all to view and analyze, and to view that of others, I was labeled closed-minded and uncomfortable.

Why is it, that when we exploit ourselves, and ideas that are by nature sensitive and personal, we are considered 'open-minded' and not just cheap? And when we respect the intimate nature of the topic and preserve our personal integrity, we are considered closed-minded?

Posted by MeravLevy on May 01, 2006 at 09:30 AM

Comments

"Actually," she said, "I have no problem with sexuality at all. _My_ sexuality. However, I have a major problem with _yours_."

"How so?" he wondered.

"Because you feel compelled to shove it into other people's faces. I can't help but wonder just who it is you're trying to impress. It's certainly not working with me."

Posted by: CGHill | May 01, 2006 at 10:17 AM

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

I don't mind if two acquaintances mutually agree to have a detailed conversation about sex, but that guy needs to grow some social skills. "Don't make other people uncomfortable for no good reason" is a basic rule of etiquette.

If I'd been in your shoes, I might have started asking him pointed questions about his health or his finances, and then accused him of close-mindedness when he refused to answer.

Posted by: R.B. | May 01, 2006 at 06:21 PM

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

Very well said CGHill - Why is it that all the brilliant things to say only come to you in retrospect?

It's very true though, maybe by being so open and "exhibitionistic" about their sexuality, they are trying to overcompensate for their own lack of confidence in themselves as sexual beings.

Trying to score back-patting from outside sources, rather then from inner sources or intimate partners.

Maybe this ties into Wendy's earlier blog about asexuality vs. promiscuity and modesty vs. prudery.

By being comfortable with ones sexuality and ones ability or inherent sexual nature, you don't have to make everyone else see what you are, for you know it yourself.
(My friend has a great term for people that like to show off their attributes, rather than be confident in their inherent attraction for others, she calls them personality peacocks) So I think that term can really apply here.

Being aware and guarded about ones sexuality is not prudery, but modesty. You are guarding it, BECAUSE you are aware, not ignorant. So by not putting up your intimate secrets on the public bulletin, you are not being uncomfortable, just guarded and aware of their inherent value.

Posted by: Merav | May 01, 2006 at 11:25 PM

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

Hmmn. Ever think that maybe this guy has just been raised in a culture that tells him it's normal to try to find someone sexually "compatible" by discussing this stuff? Many sex educators really really stress "communication is key!" and "talk it over, share your fantasties," etc. He may havebeen told that this is sort of considerate, pro-woman behavior (he cares about what kinds of things you like, he wants to please in bed, etc.) and been rewarded for it in the past.

Now, maybe THIS guy was deliberately trying to provoke, but perhaps instead of "making a point" by asking him questions about his finances or chastising him for "throwing his sexuality in others' faces", a simple statement like "I don't believe in discussing those kinds of things until I'm contemplating marriage with someone" or a variant.

Plenty of guys who have a lot of sexual experience are still hoping to marry a woman who -- as hypocritical as this is on the man's part -- hasn't given in to men like himself in the past. I've seen it a million times, even among, say, urban atheists.

Not that THIS guy is necessarily a prize, but a guy who's being too frank about sex is not necessarily irredeemable. There are guys out there who find today's women too sexually aggressive, but are resigned to this and have adapted. He may simply be starting things up the way he's used to, and if gently told that you have higher standards, he may in fact be DELIGHTED to finally meet such a woman!

P.

Posted by: Penelope | May 02, 2006 at 09:56 AM

There's more. Read what others have to say about "What's Your Diagnosis?" at Modestly Yours

Oh, here's another thought-provoking piece that's not what you'd normally find in mainstream media which I just had to add. It's from the same blog but this time I'm posting a comment to another post. It's by Alexandra Foley:

Paris [Hilton] is known for seductively posing for any camera pointed in her direction and her style is, well, minimalist. But I have a new admiration of Paris for being honest in telling reporters: "I’m sexual in pictures and the way I dress and my whole image. But at home I’m really not like that. All of my ex-boyfriends… would be like, ‘What’s the matter with you? You’re so not sexual."

If you're shocked I don't think you should be. I’d think by now we’d have figured out that the more we make ourselves a sexual object to the whole world the less sexuality we reserve for the one we love. It is no surprise to me that someone who exudes sex to everyone in her path would be all used up by the time she gets alone with her boyfriend. This is the great blessing and irony of modesty. We aren’t modest so as to quell any sexiness but instead we reserve our sexuality for the right time and person.

What we are talking about is the channeling, and hence augmenting, of our sexuality to the right place and the right time. For me, as a married woman, the right time is at home when I am with my husband. But when I was a teenager it meant putting off all that sexiness business for a later date. The more we flaunt our sexuality to the whole world, the less we reserve for the proper person.

It is particularly sad to me when I hear so many people complain about a lack of sexual passion in their marriages. You may think that dressing sexy for the world will make you feel sexy when you get home to your bedroom, but it isn’t the case. When you are courting the whole world with your immodesty, you tend not to be very satisfied by the attention of just one person.

Go here for more musings on the topic

Toys for the golden girls

Canned love

The talking robotic doll tells its owner how much it loves her and welcomes her home when she walks back into the house.

The majority of buyers are retired women who live alone.

"Many elderly people buy these dolls, they think the dolls are actual grandsons and granddaughters," says Yuko Hirakawa from Tomy.

"You can speak to the doll and she will tell you she loves you so much. If you hold the doll, the weight is the same weight as a small infant."

Read "Japan's toys for the elderly" at BBC News

She has a dream

An excerpt from "I have a (pro-life) dream" by Jennifer Roback Morse:

I have a dream that some day, every child will be conceived from an act of true love between parents who love each other, are married to each other, and eagerly welcome him. I have a dream that every child will spend his childhood with those parents who brought him into being. Parents see the value of the small society they have created between themselves and their children, and do everything humanly possible to sustain that society.

I have a dream that children can be children, take joy in their childhood innocence, and not become sexualized before puberty. All of society recognizes parents as the primary educators of their children, instead of regarding parents as impediments to formal sex education. Parents take seriously their responsibility to provide their children with accurate and complete information about sexuality, including the social and moral significance of sex, rather than acquiesce in whatever the school provides.

Read "I have a (pro-life) dream" at Townhall.com