WitchyMcFottykins wrote:RubyRipples wrote:randomlancila wrote:
The word chivalry reeks of doing something for someone who's 'helpless' because they can't do it on their own (i.e. women being the weaker sex so men have to cater to them).
It also reeks of doing something nice for a woman just to have a better 'chance' of being with her.
Not a fan of those connotations, myself.
However, doing nice things just to be nice, (as in, you'd do it for ANYONE and not just a girl you fancy) is 100% a-ok. But I wouldn't call it chivalry.
Reek is such a ... horrible negative word. Chivalry was a code of conduct for Knights in medieval times, not just about "rescuing damsels in distress". T me chivalry is the exact opposite of doing something to get into a woman's knickers, it's doing something for them for the sake of being nice and mennerly, no ulterior motives.
I have to agree, it has the same connotation to me, and it is a code of honor and an attitude of doing the right thing and being helpful and generous and expecting nothing in return for it, it really has nothing to do with riding in on your horse and rescuing a damsel in distress, women can be just as chivalrous its a way of thinking and a mindset of treating others with respect and human dignity
I'd have to agree too, being nice to a girl just to get into her pants isn't chivalrous. That's being a manipulative douche.