Gay and social graces/etiquette

What is this 'relationship' you're talking about? :lol:


You're very 'traditional'. I think it is unnecessary; people nowadays struggle to erase already existing social norms for men and women, and you want to re-write them for homosexual couples? What's the point?

 

I think the point of the thread is how to go about dating when gender roles cannot apply, meaning both people are the same gender. Stuff like that. There are roles taken for granted and culturally fixed. When you remove the boy-girl thing, it can become confusing. Our culture demands that somebody pays for the date, leads when dancing, even walks on the traffic side of the sidewalk. With heterosexual couples, it's obvious who is expected to fill which role, and going against those roles is an option. In same-sex couples, there is no option about it; we must give this conscious thought.

Ain't it frustrating?

 

Who walks on the traffic side?

 

It might be worthwhile to explore how these hetero-rules came into existence in the first place. I believe that it just made dating easier when there were these rules in place, it addressed the potentially crass discussions about who pays by settling the matter beforehand.

Truly, these no longer apply to the extent they once did in the hetero world either.

Nevertheless, it means something when one of the pair pays. No getting around it; it's another clue, a form of communication as to intent or interest. The recipient of this "gift" also communicates something by the way they accept it.

My first same-sex relationship, brief as it was, was replete with rules that my BF (for lack of a better term) brought to my attention. He also insisted on walking on the traffic side of the street, but stated that in a marriage proposal, the older of the two should propose with a ring...don't know if any of these apply generally...he could have been pulling my leg. :dry:

Despite all this, I like the idea of rules, because rules imply a "game" of sorts: the game of seduction, which has a language all its own. In seduction-language, "no" may not mean absolutely no, teasing may mean love, etc. If it is seduction you're doing, then having rules makes that adventure much safer, and at the same time, more interesting.

Moreover, if seduction is the game, there are winners and there are losers, but if it is seen and experienced as a game (white lies allowed!) then "losing" does not fundamentally destroy your soul. Too many people put too much of their self-worth on gaining or losing a (potential!) relationship, far too early in the dating game...

So, to the question: are there rules in same-sex dating? Probably not generally agreed-upon ones, so make some up (but stick to them...until they no longer apply )!

 

I don't rewrite social norms because I have to. I do that all the time just for the pure joy of it

 

But a lot of the traditions are really beautiful and now, sexism isn't the point at all. Ugh... This is why I've had to train myself not to always open doors for women is because someone has to to gripe about it; it isn't sexism, it's chivalry!

 

It may just be that I am a hopeless romantic, but when I have a girlfriend I will want to hold the door open for her, get her flowers, make her breakfast in bed, help her out of the car, take her on dates, those sorts of things. I realize that she can obviously do those things herself, getting the door, getting out of the car, and if she asks me not to, then I won't, but I just kinda feel like those are romantic gestures that I would want to do for her. Shoot, when I go to the grocery I like to just walk through the flower aisle and just imagine for the days I will have a girlfriend.

---------- Post added 7th May 2014 at 03:33 PM ----------

I agree, to some extent. I think chivalry is way underrated, and I love being chivalrous to women, but at the same time we should always be careful to make sure our chivalry does not tiptoe over the line to sexism and misogyny, of that makes sense. Like, holding a door open, verses ordering food for her/them/him (in my case, her). I see holding a door open for a woman, shoot anyone really, to be chivalrous, but to order their dinner for them is just ridiculous, and indicates that they cannot speak for themselves. Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

Typically the man, to protect the woman in case something happens. That could be anything from a car splashing at the two, to a car swerving at them.

 

I try to be polite. Tradition can be dispensed with if it's an obstacle. I couldn't care less how gender roles should fit into a same-sex marriage; old marriage is a very unhealthy concept, so I don't feel it needs to be replicated.

 

I don't think that someone in a same-sex relationship should conform to the traditional 'male' role and the other to the traditional 'female' role.

That being said, if I were to ask someone on a date I think I'd be the one to pick them up, pay, and walk them to their front door when the night was over. That's just the way I am, and I'd kinda hope that if someone asked me on a date, they'd be the same way. I think making the other person feel important or special on a date is important, and these little gestures show that.

It doesn't really matter to me who holds open doors or walks on the pavement nearer to the road. I guess whoever reaches the door first would hold it open - that's just a politeness thing - and whoever started walking nearer the road would walk nearer the road. Those things are trivial.

 

I think it really depends on what type of relationship you are in. For instance, if you are in a Daddy/Baby girl or Mommy/baby boy relationship vs. a Butch/Femme or Dom/Sub type of thing. Each relationship has it's own rules as hammered out by the couple involved. In het relationships, when I dated guys that is, they had a certain idea of what the guy was expected to do and what the girl was expected to do. They had all of society to tell them what to expect, like for instance, the woman is the bride and she gets walked down the aisle by her father or other male member of her family. In a same sex union, who gets to walk down the aisle? Who wears the dress? who is considered the bride? the groom? You get what I am saying......

 

Being courteous and traditional is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't become a nuisance. For instance, the idea of ordering for a partner and always paying for a meal isn't the most convenient practice. Even in heterosexual relationships, the idea of the man having a duty to fit the bill is dwindling as women have become more and more financial independent and equal in our economies. Paying for ones own food or switching off with a partner is becoming the new norm for dating.

However, if it is a gesture that doesn't sacrifice efficiency in day-to-day life, opening doors, walking on a certain side of the street, than it shouldn't be a bit deal as long as you aren't with a partner who feels just as obligated to do these things as you. I have known guys, both romantically and platonically, who would rather go out of their way to do certain specific tasks for those they care for. As long as it stays as a "I feel more comfortable doing these things for you" rather than "I am more apt to do these things for you", than it shouldn't be a problem.

 

Ha. That's... such a foreign concept for me.

 

I honestly never knew there was a gender specific way to walk down the street. Really? Men are supposed to walk on the traffic side? I never knew that.

If a guy insisted on walking on the traffic side of the street, I'd probably laugh and tell him something along these lines: "Sure, no problem. I need a buffer between me and any oncoming traffic. Thanks for looking out for me." :lol:

When it comes to ordering dinner, I'd be rather annoyed if a guy did that. I'd probably stop him right in mid-sentence. I'm way too picky about what I eat. Though I'm just imagining a horrifically (though horribly funny) moment where a guy orders another guy his dinner and it's something like: "...and my date will just have the salad and sugar free jello." If something like that happened to me, the date would be over. :lol:

Opening doors for a date can be cute. I'm from the south, and we open doors for each other all the time. It's usually based on who gets there first, and it's always polite to rush ahead and open a door for someone who is elderly or disabled. However, for a date it's cute and polite, and based on who gets there first.

When it comes to paying for dinner, it's like eating out with friends. Based on southern etiquette (at least where I come from) it's always important to offer to pay. However, it's also important for the other side to refuse your offer, and want to pay themselves. Who pays is based on who is more insistent, but it's always considered good etiquette to offer to pay your half. The exception to this is when it's intended as a gift or treat. For example, it would be extremely rude to offer to pay half when someone is treating you out to your birthday - though you should still offer to pay. The exception to that is if you know they're struggling with money. If you encounter a situation like that you should always look for a way to validate them, "No, no - look, don't worry about it. Your company was more than enough. Most people forget my birthday anyway, and spending time with you was more than worth the price of admission."

On the point of someone who is struggling financially, you should also never eat or go to a place that you know they can't afford without it being an explicit treat on your behalf. This way it voids any obligation or anxiety over them having to pay. Nothing would be worse than going to an expensive restaurant, and knowing that you'd struggle to even pay your half of the bill. It's just absolutely rude to put someone in that situation. And even if you are treating them out, it shouldn't be too often, and you should always be open to letting them return the favor.

When it comes to getting flowers, breakfast in bed, and the other things that were mentioned - both sides should look for opportunities to be kind to the other. Everyone enjoys being treated nicely - guy or girl - gay or straight. It shows that they are special and that you care about them. It would absolutely suck to be the one putting in all the effort, always the one to do little kind and romantic things. It requires effort from both sides.

Things get more tricky when it comes to gender roles when it comes to things like marriage, which is so bound up in the gender binary. If I was proposed to first, I'd likely do a second proposal of my own. Just because I'd also want him to have an engagement ring. If I was the one proposing first, I'd likely buy matching engagement rings. If the other guy did that, then I wouldn't feel obligated to do a second proposal.

Straight weddings have become so varied and creative, that some of the more traditional roles aren't problematic anymore. I likely wouldn't want to use a straight up blueprint for a traditional straight wedding anyway.

Outside of that there are some gender specific language in the traditional ceremony, such as "I now pronounce you husband and wife!" What I've seen used at other gay weddings, and something I really enjoyed was: "I now pronounce you husbands for life!" So, I'd likely choose that.

When it comes to the more day-to-day traditional roles, I'd expect to be treated as his equal. If he tried to treat me as anything less, I'd be rather pissed. I wouldn't be able to tolerate being treated as subservient or submissive. I might feel obligated to go with it in the beginning - the 'go along, to get along' approach - but my true feelings would quickly become known. That being said, I doubt that would be a problem with me, as I dislike alpha males or guys that strive to be dominant. I don't even like having them as friends, much less a boyfriend or husband.

 

That was one of the things I was taught when I was younger, along with a lot of the traditional social etiquette. I think in a same sex relationship ,especially a lesbian relationship, you actually get a lot more freedom to choose which ettiquettes you want to practice because there aren't such expectation as there are for same-sex couples to follow the male-female gender roles.

Personally, I am a very protective person of people that I care about, so I almost always position myself on the traffic side. I enjoy opening doors for girls because its a sweet gesture, plus I think often times that little smile afterwards is really cute. That's just me, but if I started dating a girl who was big on opening her own doors then by all means.

 

Are you an aristocratic Christian male in a relatively senior military position with a conferred knighthood within a feudal society? No? Then chivalry cannot apply to you.

We don't need to pretend to continue social customs which have ceased to have any purpose within a modern context.

 

While you're technically correct, I assume Gates was referring to being chivalrous, which in addition to the customs of knights, can also mean being gracious and polite... As long as it's not overbearing and overly conventional, I don't see graciousness and respectfulness going out of style anytime soon...