Chivalry-what's that?

When did meeting for the first time at your place or theirs become the ' ok' thing to do? Whatever happened to chivalry? A man courting a woman first before inviting himself to your home before he has gotten to know you? Pondering questions I feel the need to ask the opposite sex.

On any given day most men will beat around the bush about their true intentions, others will get straight to the point. What could be a man's true intentions for wanting to come over and lay up on your sofa? Is it the thought that counts? You think to yourself how sweet, a man who wants to spend quality time with you.

I asked a group of men what they liked to do on a first date after a few conversations over the phone and a few back and forth emails not all but a few recommended that it would be ok to meet a woman at their place or theirs to ' just hangout' I'm not sure about most women but I know for me I question the concept of inviting someone I hardly know to my house HELLO CRAIG LIST KILLER?

I guess we haven't watched enough news reports to think those horror stories we hear about could ever happen to us.

I love the thought of a first date, the first encounter I would hope that experience would be something I could gleam about. If I'm stuck in my place all day the very last place I want to be on a first date is in my home or someone elses.

I really wanted to know what the men thought about when they heard the word Chivalry or Courting. For a few no surprises there, compared the two to having died with the 80's.

Mj63 single black man no kids 34 yrs old answered chivalry doesn't exist anymore because men wised up. What did men wise up about? ' never got a response' Whats so wrong with being courteous and respectful?

Jarrad1976 father of two answered that chivalry hasn't died and that a man wants what he wants at that exact moment. When he meets the right one then he will do whatever to make it work.

When I think about it maybe it's more about us- women and what we allow in our relationships. Are we settling for less than nothing? There is a possibility that women accepted chivalry and the right to be courted by men die. Setting the path of being too independent and aggressive that we lost the respect men has for women as a whole.

I'm still holding onto the belief that I'm a woman who can allow a man to be a man. Chivalry didn't die atleast thats what I expect from a man who truly wants to get to know me.

I'm through with just having a man in my bed...I want a man in my head.

The latest Facebook discussion

I get on social media sites such as Facebook to see what everyones talking about. Most are having great discussions that lead into about over a hundred comments within a few hours. People have a lot to say but I've learned that the majority aren't educated enough on the topics. Just opinions no one speaking the truth, no facts just a bunch of bull $#%+.

One post proved this point 'Gun Control' it was a sarcastic baby talking about how the government wants to make guns illegal and that meth and other drugs are illegal...point to be made is obvious that just because something is illegal it doesn't make it unaccessible. Good point but missing facts. 'Gun Control' means stricter restrictions not neccesarily banning and or making guns illegal?

Just a thought (my opinion) it seems that people are against whats right the majority of the time. We hear a cause of concern but react in offensive mode. What harm would it be to make gun control restrictions stricter? For one a 'Psych' evaluation could definitely put guns out of the wrong persons reach. People argue that like illegal drugs, guns will find there way on the streets. HELLO just like the war on drugs we are aware that guns on the street are a part of a higher organization but humor us for a moment. Registered gun owners can sell their guns minus the hassle of paperwork such as classifieds, message boards, word of mouth etc...so if there was by some chance 'Stricter' restrictions against those owners less guns will make their way on to the streets. What is so wrong with starting from somewhere? Let's stop being a part of the problem and being a part of the solution.

One poster commented that mental health assistance should be available? Last time I checked it was. I did some basic research on medical health insurance coverage most policies offer this as a covered benefit. EAP-employee assistance program another employer provided benefit that is generally covered up until 4 initial visits FREE to the recipient after that out of pocket expenses may occur if not covered under your insurance plan.
My point is this it's one thing to seek assistance and be denied vs never seeking help whereas certain people living within a certain social status are aware of their family member's disturbing mental state. They live in denial avoiding assistance from the outside world because they are afraid of how others will See them.

After the CT shooting family members of the suspect spoke out about how he wasn't in his right mind? After the fact...what did the family do before the fact to ensure this young man sought help? I'm sure his mental state didn't just surface, out of nowhere?

The movie theatre shooting as soon as we were aware of who the suspect was it was all over the media he has mental issues. Of course he does. Is that really an excuse? Who's responsible if we aren't responsible for ourselves? How can assistance be available to someone who may not seek it?

http://m.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws
 
http://blog.timesunion.com/mdtobe/the-colorado-shooting-stigmatizing-mental-illness/2472/

https://www.theeap.com/