‘I would cry': Dating clip sparks etiquette debate
A London local, who goes by the username MissingDevon, posted a video of a group of people recently dining out at a restaurant.
The dining layout was a classic booth arrangement, where one person sat on a comfortable, lounge-like chair and the other sat on an ordinary dining chair.
If you're the person who gets the regular dining chair, you're also the one who has their back to the comings and goings of a restaurant. So waiters and people are constantly strolling past you.
The clip showed a group of couples sitting down to eat, and while two of the men sat in the normal dining chairs, giving the women the more comfortable booths, one woman was sitting in a dining chair with her back to the ongoing bustle of a busy restaurant.
MissingDevon posted the video with the caption, 'only a girl could tell you what is wrong in this video', and she seems to have been right.
The clip amassed 5 million views and the comment section was filled with young women arguing that the woman should be sitting in a comfortable booth.
'Why is she sitting on the chair?' One asked.
'The princess should be on the couch,' someone else argued.
'I would cry if he made me sit on the chair and he took the booth,' another confessed.
'He has taken the comfy cushion seat, making her sit on the wooden chair, and all the other guys are on chairs,' someone else observed.
'Wrong seat, fella,' another criticised.
Interestingly, though, it wasn't unanimous, with others arguing men should sit themselves facing the exits.
'It's common etiquette for the man to always be facing the door,' one argued.
'I think that's correct, so the man can see any danger entering the building first,' one argued.
While someone else argued the man in the booth was in the right position because he could observe the entire restaurant and 'protect' his date.
'A man wants to see the entry. It's to see potential danger,' another man argued, but a woman replied and said 'there's no danger' in a cocktail bar.
'Why can't a man be comfy?' Another asked.
Others argued it isn't 'that deep' and that no one knows their situation and perhaps the woman prefers the wooden chair.
Relationship expert Elizabeth Jane told news.com.au said that there's actually no wrong or right move in terms of who gets what seat in dating etiquette.
'I think that Gen Z men tend to be more emotionally expressive and are more comfortable with fluidity in gender roles, so taking the booth may not be viewed as ill-mannered, as both may view themselves as equals, and who takes the booth becomes quite irrelevant to them,' she said.
'It may come down to more practical considerations as to who takes the booth. The larger person may feel more comfortable in the booth, which may be larger or more sturdy.'
Ms Jane argued that Millennial men may still be 'emotionally evolving,' so they are more keen to stick to traditional gender roles.
The relationship expert argued that etiquette norms are still a big part of dating for Gen Z but the standards are shifting.
'I wouldn't say that etiquette norms are dying but rather they are transforming or at least adjusting to more relaxed rules on how a man and a woman should behave, gender roles are beginning to merge,' she said.
'They tend not to get lost in gender roles where they are seeking approval from older generations as to how they should act and what they should say'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
4 days ago
- News.com.au
Villagers win race to save UK pub, as thousands close
A nearly 200-year-old pub, the Radnor Arms in rural Wales stood abandoned a few years ago. Water ran down the walls, ivy crept around broken windows and rats' skeletons littered the floor. Fast forward to 2025 and laughter rings out of the newly reopened watering hole after locals clubbed together to save it. The pub, which first opened in the 1830s, is one of tens of thousands across the UK forced to call last orders over recent years. Once the heart of the village, the Radnor Arms -- which had become uneconomic due to rising costs -- was shut by the landlord in 2016 and quickly fell into ruin. For locals in the picturesque south Wales village of New Radnor, population 438, the demise of their only remaining hostelry was devastating. Over the years, there were around six or more pubs or ale houses in the village. By 2012, all except the Radnor Arms had shut down. "It was the heart of the village," said David Pyle, a 57-year-old retired psychiatrist who has lived next door to the pub for the past 18 years. "Sometimes you could hear a bit of hubbub, sometimes you'd hear a roar go up when Wales scored, or a male voice choir singing in the back bar," he told AFP. "It was just lovely," he said. "And then it closed." - British tradition - UK pubs, a quintessential cornerstone of community life, are increasingly under threat. Faced with changing drinking habits and spiralling bills, more than a quarter of the 60,800 in existence in 2000 have closed their doors in the past 25 years. Of the 45,000 still operating at the end of last year, 378 -- at least one a day -- are expected to close this year, according to the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA). The loss of Radnor Arms in 2016 left the village without a focal point, hitting everyone from hobby groups to local hill farmers who would meet there after work for a pint of beer and a chat. "It was the heart of the community. It was a place where anybody could come in," said Sue Norton, one of a team of locals who banded together to save it. "We celebrated births, deaths and marriages here. So for us, it was very emotional when it closed," she said. Vowing to rescue it, Norton and other villagers applied to a government scheme aimed at giving people the financial firepower to take ownership of pubs or shops at risk of being lost. A major fundraising effort last year drummed up £200,000 ($271,000), which was matched by the community ownership fund and boosted by an additional £40,000 government grant. With £440,000 in the kitty, the villagers were able to buy, refurbish and re-open the pub, relying on a rota of volunteers to work behind the bar rather than paid staff. Ukrainian refugee Eugene Marchenko, a 44-year-old lawyer who is one of the volunteers, says the pub helped him meet practically everyone within days of arriving. Marchenko, from the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro, is being hosted by a villager along with his wife and teenage son. He said he quickly came to understand the importance of having a place in the village for "drinking and having fun together". "I read in books that the pub was a famous British tradition, but I can feel it myself... It's not just about the drinking alcohol, it's about the sharing and everybody knows each other," he said. - Lifeline axed - The previous Conservative government launched the community ownership fund in 2021. Under the scheme locals have successfully saved around 55 pubs, according to the community ownership charity Plunkett UK. The pubs are run democratically on a one-member, one-vote basis by those who contributed to the fundraiser. But the new Labour government, which took power a year ago, dropped the scheme in December as they sought to meet competing funding demands. Villagers in New Radnor are relieved to have got their application in under the wire but saddened that other communities will not benefit. For now they are planning to make the most of their new community hub. There are plans to host a range of activities -- from mother-and-baby mornings to a dementia group that aims to trigger memories through familiar sights and sounds. Sufferers and their carers could come and have a "drink or a bag of crisps -- or a pickled onion, if people like those," Norton said. har/jkb/js/tc
ABC News
23-07-2025
- ABC News
British lawyer says families received wrong remains of Air India crash victims
Relatives of a British victim killed in last month's Air India crash received a casket that contained mixed remains, a lawyer representing several families says. The family of a separate victim received the remains of another person, according to James Healy-Pratt, who is representing 20 British families who lost loved ones in the disaster. A total of 241 people on board the London-bound Boeing 787 Dreamliner died when the plane crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad in western India on June 12. The toll included 169 Indian passengers and 52 British nationals. Several people on the ground also died while only one passenger, British citizen Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, survived the crash. Mr Healy-Pratt told the Press Association news agency that the return of victims' remains had been marred by serious errors, which had been identified following a probe by a British coroner. "In the first two caskets that were repatriated, in one of the caskets, there was co-mingling of DNA which did not relate to the deceased in that casket or the casket that accompanied it," he said. The lawyer added the coroner was then "able to determine that one particular loved one was not at all who the family thought they were". Miten Patel, whose mother, Shobhana Patel, died along with her husband in the disaster, told the BBC that "other remains" were found in her casket after her body was returned to Britain. "People were tired and there was a lot of pressure. But there has to be a level of responsibility that you're sending the right bodies to the UK," he told the BBC. The Daily Mail newspaper first reported two cases in which the wrong remains were apparently returned to families in Britain. India's foreign ministry said all remains "were handled with utmost professionalism and with due regard for the dignity of the deceased". "We are continuing to work with the UK authorities on addressing any concerns related to this issue," the statement added. AFP
News.com.au
22-07-2025
- News.com.au
‘Have a problem?': Gen Z are freaking people out with their staring habit
Have you ever walked into a store and asked a young worker a question only to be met with a blank look? Or maybe you have been in a meeting and felt like you were being silently judged by a younger colleague? You may have experienced the infamous Gen Z stare. The viral phenomenon is categorised by a prolonged, unwavering gaze that can look like disinterest, or even disapproval, and is usually given in response to a question or request. The expression has taken social media by storm, sparking a much wider conversation about its implications and how it is perceived between the different generations. Older generations have been sharing their own encounters with the 'stare', branding it bizarre and, in many cases, downright rude. However, Gen Zers have been quick to defend themselves, claiming the blank look some in their generation choose to wear is simply the result of people asking ridiculous questions that don't deserve a response. There are many situations where one might be met with the Gen Z stare, but one setting where young people should be wary of applying this pointed tactic is the workplace. Rebecca Houghton, middle management expert and author of Impact: 10 Ways to Level Up Your Leadership, warned this is one tactic young workers should be avoiding at all costs. 'Every generation shakes things up at work and pushes boundaries. Gen Z is no different. But if your go-to move is the Gen Z stare, you might want to find a better strategy,' she told 'Young people usually don't have authority at work, so they need to work out how to influence without it. Silence and staring aren't the answer.' Ms Houghton has experienced the Gen Z stare at work first-hand, so she understands the different ways in which is can be interpreted by the receiver – none of them very positive. 'As a manager, a few thoughts escalate through your mind pretty quickly. Are they listening? Do they understand? Do they care? Do they have a problem?' she said. Being perceived as authentic and real is something many Gen Zers value, which may be one explanation for why so many people in the younger generation have adopted the stare in response to situations or questions they deem unreasonable. However, Ms Houghton noted there is a 'big difference' between being authentic and being absent. For young employees who want to be taken seriously, particularly by those in leadership positions, the workplace expert said it's important to show you are 'in the conversation', even if you are challenging what is being said. 'Instead of the Gen Z stare, stay engaged. Ask a clarifying question. Use neutral language to challenge a decision, set a boundary or buy time,' she said. 'If Gen Z wants to shift workplace norms, and I believe it's inevitable they will), they'll have more impact by learning to navigate the system strategically, not just rejecting it outright. 'You don't need to people-please, but you do need to participate.'
