The Ladies TeaStop in and grab a quick cup of tea! All sorts of ladies issues are disscussed here. Both Ladies and Gentlemen are welcome to join in the conversations.
LL, cloning Neil would be a lifetime project. We should not only obtain a lock of hair from him and the necessary equipment, but be sure that his clones grow up in the right environment to reach his same level of refinement... and that's tricky! Also bear in mind that those who would reap the results would be the future generations... but we should work for the improvement of the human race, and not for selfish motives, should we?
Yes, the discussion was sparkling in the beginning... right now I don't feel up to dwelling on the finer points of passionate but civilized love, being entangled in real-life situations that concern everyday survival rather than refinement (my own survival, and that of the counterparts I often feel like disembowelling... oh well).
(poor Neil, with us talking of cloning him behind his back...)
Finally, a little time to ponder. If we were to somehow be able to ascertain a guideline for courtship what would it consist of? Also, what would be the differences suggested by the two sexes at the outset of this discussion and would the guidline composed by males be at odds with the one proposed by females?
Frankly, I am at a loss to discover what the current "rules of courtship" consist of, if there is such a set of rules.
In an age of instant gratification on virtually every level there seems to be little value placed on any process that is gradual. I have always found that period of hopeful discovery that dominates the start of a relationship to be exquisite. Relationships that sustain their passion seem to never completely leave this phase with each partner always hungry for a more complete understanding of the other. This hunger for understanding ideally extends to every facet of the relationship and continually intensifies the trust and partnership as the barriers that people erect for personal security disappear and are replaced by a bonding of spirits. The ideal courtship would be a perpetual one where this physical and emotional curiousity never abates.
Thanks for your comments, Rick. I agree, and I think I'm on to something. If I understand correctly, you picture a situation where the two parts have enough mutual respect to keep being interested in each other. Once again I think that the keyword is "respect", which is something that should be expected from and towards all human beings, and which in a relationship is compounded - but should be not replaced - by physical attraction.
I may be deluded, but I'm convinced that there is no basic difference between men and women - exception made for "la petite difference" and the character differences between all individuals. Basic morals - which for me means striving not to hurt anyone - should be the same; I think it's a requirement for many human alliances, from friendship to politics. Often, instead, a double standard is used, and acts of mutual disrespect are allowed as part of compromise. This hurts the other part, and should not be encouraged or accepted, because it's humanly bad, not because it damages the relationship. Some examples I've witnessed first hand: a man who acts like a pig around the house, or a woman who consistently scorns and avoids her husband's legitimate hobbies (... re-enacting). These are acts of disrespect from an absolute point of view, not just in a marriage.
So, when one gets to courtship, the necessary thing for me is to apply this basic respect just as it should be applied in all other fields, regardless of gender. Being attentive to the other. Understand what the other likes or dislikes. Try to be close to the other in all situations and to share the other's feelings, or, if this is impossible due to personal tastes, at least respect the differences. Do special things for the other, not taking anything for granted. In short, applying to a courtship the best aspects of all human relationships.
Now, to get back to the topic of the discussion, I think that in the past such thing were more codified, and respect was more of an essential requirement. Which doesn't mean that wicked or superficial persons couldn't hurt their partner, quite the contrary, and mostly these people were men, due to the subordinate condition of women; and moreover, this respect could often turn into hypocrisy; but there was a common foundation, a starting point, from which a well-meaning person could flourish and improve, and to which a boor was at least outwardly bound to conform.
This is the impression I get from reading about the period. It's a common foundation we don't have anymore today (though of course I'm speaking only of manners; human behaviour has vastly improved in many other fields, see exactly the condition of women) and which maybe could be rebuilt somehow, offering and defending and spreading examples of kindness and consideration.
And this, once again, is not exclusive domain of men or women. It's true that men have dominated for so long that many may have got used to it, and women sometimes are still all too happy to have someone else take decisions for them. But as I was saying, I think human nature can be improved, just as it has improved from then to now, as long as we don't stop where we are and say "Oh well, it's human nature, there's nothing to be done about it."
I would agree that respect is an integral part of any successful relationship, especially a romantic one. I would suspect that one common denominator in failed relationships would definitely be a percieved lack of respect by one or both partners.
I find it common in business or professional relationships that people tend to categorize their respective relationships in a hierarchal manner. In other words a relationship with someone on a different or lower tier is viewed in different terms than a relationship with a peer. Many people in positions of power or influence display a concerted lack of respect in their dealings with underlings yet demand respect from these same people; sort of a one-way respect that is detrimental to the efficiency of the organization. I wonder what percentage of the lack of respect in personal relationships can be traced to a similar sort of hierarchal view?
If we start with respect as a basic and neccessary component of romance, I would suggest that there are several other keys neccessary as well. What is it that draws us romantically into relationships? Admiration? Chemistry? Physical attraction? Surely, all of these play a part yet some are constant and others are forever in a state of flux. It seems to me that the most successful romantic relationships continually renew the enthusiasm with a constant peeling away of complexities; each layer exposing both a deeper understanding and another layer beckoning to be removed.
Back to the original premise, I don't believe this formula for romance has changed very much with time. You are probably correct that a more codified system existed in the past which would, at least initially, call for more respect. As far as that thought goes, I believe that there is still in existence today a difference in this area; north and south. What passes for directness in the north could only be construed as a hopelessly rude observations in the south in many instances.
Your words are so soothing and sweet to my passionate soul..."hopeful discovery"..."hungry for a more complete understanding"..."another layer beckoning to be removed"...(smelling salts, please).
[Redeye, this one must be cloned, too!]
Dear blackirish, you are aware that not another man on this thread, save another southerner, would know how to speak this way - not even Neil, who is really an exception to the Yankee rule.
What you say about regional difference is deeper than you may know or admit. The difference is not only in manners in general, but very pronounced in matters of romance. My experience with men of the South is that they are, romantically, very direct and have little care that she knows he has designs upon her.
I have been shocked by the way a southern man comes on, thought maybe I was repulsed, thought I might have to slap the fellow, only to discover that I thoroughly enjoyed the pursuit and that I might even be in love. I could not believe how I would end up having to question myself. Did I or did I not? Would I or would I not? I am still amazed.
I do not mean to say that the southern men were ever rude. Of course, not, never. It was just the strength of their conviction that I was the one they were going to have. Like it was all just a matter of time. Made me so nervous. And it was delicious and I was thrilled, deeply thrilled.
Men of the North behave nothing like this. Whereas southern men are always aware of women, northern men are not. They are too pragmatic and rationalistic. So there is a feeling of estrangement between men and women in the north. Many northern men must be seduced, and sometimes the entire relationship goes on this way, very tiring. There are women, I suppose, who enjoy that role; but I do not.
Southern men know women. (Maybe akin to the way they know horses.) They always seem comfortable and at ease around women, and this combined with good manners makes for a very handsome man. Liking women is very healthy: I believe it makes a man confident and gives him a good disposition.
Interesting comments concerning the differences in men north and south. I wonder if it can be expected that similar differences (at least in general terms) exist in women? If so, how are these differences manifested in relationships?
The eternal mystery that is a woman's heart is a subject of considerable interest to most men that I know. I would consider myself an interested student of the mystery rather than a learned expert. I freely admit that I enjoy the search for answers fully as much as the knowledge gained. I believe that journey's are infinitely more enjoyable than destinations, and we would always be remiss to forego the journey in any attempt to reach the destination.
As for liking women and how it affects a man's dispostion...........hmmm..........I'll have to respond to that in more detail later after more careful consideration.
I have no intention of embarrassing you: I know you are a quiet, maybe shy, man. Nonetheless, I would appreciate your comments in detail on my observations on southern men.
On southern women, I must say I have lived all over the country and have never run into one southern gal anywhere, not even in interesting places, like California (until just recently). I suppose if all the good men are in the South, why leave home?
I did grow up in a border area where there were families of southern origin, so I did know southern girls. None too bright, fond of make-up and hair-dos, cliquish, and, if any went to college, they went south. I graduated first in my class, so I was not in the club.
However, I was schooled in the north and northeast, and I did meet southern men there. I can only say that there must be a type of southern man who enjoys making a Yankee girl's cold blood run hot. Maybe some southern men like Yankee girls because we can be surprised and know not what to expect (unlike the southern girls)? I can only speculate here.
Please, tell us your experience of women north and south.
"The eternal mystery that is a woman's heart..."? I never thought my heart held any mystery at all. I wonder why you say this.
Maybe you confuse our heart with the nature of our sexuality? We keep a lot of degrees of separation between a man and our...totally necessary, too much to risk, too vulnerable, because we cannot separate love and sex. (It can be learned, but it is not natural to women.) So we are not really teasing or running from you forever, we just want to make sure...before we give everything.
It is so kind of you, blackirish, to take the time to discuss these matters of the heart with us. I am glad you are enjoying your stay in the parlor.
There is an infinity of difference between men and women! You are, poor thing, deluded on this point.
The cyclical nature of the female body alone creates a certain psychology. We are non-linear in our thinking, which looks chaotic and irrational to men. We are possessed of a higher logic, an indirect reasoning, or intuition, which, of course, cannot be scientifically proven. We are cyclical, round, roundabout, flexible, even in physical appearance, by comparison to men.
Our capacity to love is often times much greater than that of men because we can create children and carry them inside us for nine months. That is an incredible conditioning for love and nurturance that men just do not get.
We have a greater capacity to endure physical pain over a longer period of time because of our experience with menstruation and child-bearing. We can endure emotional suffering more easily, as well.
Men are angular, linear, more straight-forward, tend to rigidity, are less intuitive, less flexible. But, they are a perfect fit for someone round, soft, and more flexible.
Men have much better ability to focus on one thing than women do. Their focus gives them the capacity to go to the top of any field in less time than it would take a woman (in general, of course). They become very expert and competent.
Women electrically run at a much higher energy level than men (and this has been scientifically proven). Women actually need to eat differently than men do - lighter food and taken in smaller amounts more frequently. Sort of like the difference between a turkey vulture and a hummingbird.
This is just a cursory introduction to Men/Women 101, dear Redeye. I know you wish, as I do, that things were simpler. Perhaps, soul to soul, they are. I believe that when a man and woman are in love, there is a chance to connect as equals; but otherwise, we are really not.
Blackirish, indeed I always take into consideration the irrational component, the attraction, as a basic part of romantic relationships. What I wonder about is, given this powerful force, why has it always been often difficult for men and women to get along? Sometimes it seems that this force brings together people who otherwise would despise each other and tear each other apart, and often they do, as soon as the attraction relents. At the most pessimistic, it seems this force, which should be most natural, acts against nature by forcing natural enemies to a temporary truce. It cannot be really so. My theory is, it would be less difficult if we insisted more on the similarities than on the differences, which is basically what you're saying, I think. Unfortunately, too often it's easier to exploit the differences for one's own purpose, attributing misconducts to inevitable, immutable biological traits, and thus reducing individual responsibility. Which brings me to the second part of my answer...
Alas, dear LongstreetLass, according to your poignant and accurate descriptions, I'm a man! I'm about as soft, nurturing and intuitive as a block of marble. That's why I don't trust categories and prefer dealing with individuals. It feels less lonely, and it provides fewer excuses.
Trying to understand the CW period without using categories is hard, and I must necessarily make generalizations. But I still think that the best thing is to read as many personal narratives as possible, to try and understand the persons of the age and how they lived. ("Try" because we often can't understand our closest relatives, let alone someone who's been dead for a hundred years or more.) And of course one has to be able to read between the lines, to apply a discriminating eye to what is written, and guess what is not written. A fascinating endeavour and one that I'm just beginning to tackle. To get back to my original motives for these musings, these researches mainly help me with the characters in my stories. I feel more comfortable with a character acting like one single person acted back then, according to diaries and letters, for example, than with a character acting like people of the time are traditionally supposed to act. (Of course, this too must be done carefully, not to end up with a cast of oddballs.)
How to apply all of this to the agony and ecstasy of modern relationships? I'm getting to the conclusion that it just doesn't apply, if not with the practical view of creating a more courteous environment by drawing on the best aspects of an age long past. For the rest, I guess, one has to bite the bullet and hope for the best, and fall back on dreaming about charming Rebels when all else fails...
And by the way, your comments on modern Southern men are intriguing. I wonder whether Southern men in the CW acted the same, or whether it would be considered rude to approach a woman like that, or they had subtler ways to convey that same meaning? Hmmmm.
"Nothing happened to me, Agent Starling. I happened." Hannibal Lecter
So many points to ponder and such little time to give them due consideration; let me start with your observations on southern men. Bearing in mind that we are discussing broad generalities, I would agree with your assessment. Southerners tend to be internally suited to operating at a slower pace in many areas, romantic entanglements included.Could it be that an appreciation for the subtle nuances of sensual communication and a fuller enjoyment of the delights of anticipatory conjecture are the natural bounty of this slower pace? Maybe this same sense of slower timing more naturally meshes with a woman's natural reticence that springs from the tendency to combine the love/sex emotions.
My experiences with women, north as opposed to south are somewhat limited as I have always preferred the south as a habitat. I have noticed the same sort of directness vs. careful manners in general terms but I believe that all people long for the caring comfort in which the free exchange of physical and emotional secrets of our soul can be shared. I had a discussion one time with a female friend who had spent much of her adult life in the north in which she jokingly proposed that northerners talk faster simply because it is often just to ****ed cold outside to spend more than a minimal amount of time discussing anything; hence the premium on directness and impatience with a southerners slower conversations prefaced with social amenities. Maybe this same philsophy has over a period of time insinuated itself into other areas as well. <grins>
I enjoyed your comparisons of form and function between men and women very much....will try to add something a little later.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
We should not only obtain a lock of hair from him and the necessary equipment, but be sure that his clones grow up in the right environment to reach his same level of refinement... and that's tricky! Also bear in mind that those who would reap the results would be the future generations... but we should work for the improvement of the human race, and not for selfish motives, should we? 
Linear Mode
