Those disillusioned with the current practices of what may humorously be called courtship sometimes claim to yearn for the dating system of 50 years ago. Back then, Miss Manners has heard the young maintain, the two sexes (there were officially only two) treated each other with respect.

Gentlemen gallantly entertained ladies without considering what they could expect in return in the way of bodily demonstrations of affection (or failing that, enthusiasm). Ladies accepted or discouraged their attentions gracefully, without calculating the level of monetary investment at which they could afford to bestow their affections.

Even very young gentlemen sent flowers and sincere Valentines, while the young ladies knitted socks and sent coy Valentines. Romance progressed in an orderly fashion, from telephone calls the day after dates to the exchange of class rings and sorority and fraternity pins to marriage.

And the universality of the practice meant that no one need be lonely on a Saturday night.

The only drawback was extreme sexual repression, which pretty much limited everyone to kisses and perspiration. Anything beyond that led immediately to forced marriage, from which there was no escape, ever.

The elders of those who believe all this should be ashamed of themselves. It is not nice to take advantage of the gullibility of the young and fool them like that.

As Miss Manners recalls, the people who were caught up in this dating system disliked it so intensely that they finally managed to destroy it. But not because they were as repressed as they led their parents (and later their children) to believe.

Dating was universal in theory, but not in practice, leaving plenty of people lonely, if not ashamed, for lack of Saturday-night alternatives. The presumption that a date was the only natural way in which the sexes could mix put a damper on nonromantic relationships that now provide a variety of other social activities.

Far from encouraging respect, dating fostered competition. Those seeking to break hearts were pitted against those striving to overcome inhibitions. The progression from courtship to marriage lacked a stage for the development of friendship.

But at least there was a pattern there, and everyone knew what it was. It is the chaotic situation today, where intimacy is tied to no stage and can disappear as quickly as it strikes, that is responsible for this uninformed nostalgia.

The reformers who tore down the rules of dating wanted outlets that would allow for the development of friendships, which might or might not proceed to courtship. They wanted both sexes to be able to orchestrate occasions from which a romance could develop, not to eliminate invitations and hosting. The idea was to add a stage for the growth of romance, not to do away with courtship.

So if there are any reformers thinking about improving the current social patterns, Miss Manners hopes they will figure out how to combine the orderliness of the past with the easiness and egalitarianism that is supposed to characterize the present.

And she warns them not to rely on anyone who claims to have experienced or discovered any period in history in which ladies and gentlemen always behaved themselves.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Very few people seem to begin a request for directions with any polite acknowledgment of the fact that they are interrupting you and asking for a favor.

Instead of "Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the post office?" most people now say something like "Where's the post office?"

Is there a polite way to point out their omission? If I simply respond to a demand for assistance, I suspect that I will be teaching my daughter that she needn't be polite when she "asks" for directions, which is not the lesson I want to convey.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is in perfect agreement that you should not lead your daughter to believe that it is all right to be rude to strangers on the street. That is why you cannot reprimand lost strangers; there is no polite way to do so.

What you can do is to comment sadly on their ignorance of manners once they are out of earshot.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A few months ago, my partner of some years and I decided to end our relationship. The decision was cordial and mutual and there remains a bond of history and of love between us. The immediate cause of the breakup, however, was a relationship he had developed and concealed over the past year.

I am not 12 years old and I have read novels, so I am aware that this has happened before. Nonetheless, I decided to take the high road (as there was no one else there competing for space) and tell people that our split was cordial and mutual. Only when asked did I mention where X had moved and say, with a practiced poker face, who he was living with. If asked "And are they friends, or ... " I always simply say, "You'll have to ask X about that."

So far, so good. But what about the several times when someone asked directly "And are you sure that they are just friends?" (Believe me, it is the couple's behavior over the last six months that prompted those questions.)

Is "You'll have to ask X about that" still the preferred response, and, if so, was I really awful in saying (again with a poker face), "I think you would get different answers from X and me to that question"?

GENTLE READER: Stop! You're looking in the wrong direction. That way will take you off the high road. And you were marching along it so proudly.

You have not yet fallen into the mud, Miss Manners acknowledges. But watch out. Your proposed statement is a road sign pointing your questioners toward the low road, and hinting that you can be enticed to guide them there.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I'm talking long distance on the phone when the doorbell rings, and when I answer the door, I have someone standing expectantly in front of me, but I'm unable to verbally greet them.

The person on the phone finds it rude that I'm cutting them off and the person at the door is uncomfortable because I'm making funny hand motions and faces. I just don't know how to deal with it in a generous fashion.

Should I answer the door and try to gracefully get off the phone, or should I continue my phone conversation and ignore the doorbell? To compound my problem, what if the person at the door knows perfectly well that I'm home (since they just saw me drive in the garage)? Or what if the person on the phone is my great-grandmother, whom I haven't talked to in three months? Help me!

GENTLE READER: Not if you refuse to make funny faces. Miss Manners considers the ability to look regretful with the eyes, smile with the mouth and shrug with the shoulders, all at once, to be one of etiquette's great skills.

At the table, it says, "I want to answer you, but my mouth is full." In the theater, it says, "I can't hear while you're unwrapping your candy, but I'm making myself believe that you don't realize what a nuisance you are." And at the door, it says, "I'd like to greet you, but I can't until I get off the telephone."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a material girl who appreciates many of the finer things in life. I was raised by wealthy parents who taught me to only have the best. Therefore, I wear designer clothes, attend the theater and symphony regularly, and only travel first-class on airplanes.

When I started dating my boyfriend one year ago, I was informed that he had a very similar childhood. Our families were supposedly very much the same. He made a point of telling me repeatedly that he made a lot of money and liked to have a good time with it. He wanted to spoil me.

My boyfriend and I are very much in love. We have a wonderful time together and have many of the same goals in life.

The problem is that he is what I consider a "cheapskate." I bought him a very lavish Christmas gift. He purchased me a nice watch and a few other nice things. This may sound hideous, but I totaled up the cost of my Christmas gifts. It was less than half of what I spent on him.

I know that feelings cannot be "totaled up" with a monetary value. However, I feel like I may be signing myself away to a lifetime of coupon clipping and two-for-one dinners.

His cheap behavior is something that has been instilled in him from a very young age. For his birthday, his parents took us to dinner. It was him, me, his two brothers and their significant others seated around a bowl of spaghetti and a pizza at a family-style restaurant. I did not dare order a drink or ask for more food -- even though I had to eat dinner when I returned home that night. I thanked his parents for a lovely evening and sent a thank-you card for their generosity a couple of days later.

I would like to know how I should approach the subject of his cheapness. Even if you advise me to wipe away the tears I cry with my Armani dress as I whine.

GENTLE READER: Wipe away, because Miss Manners is sorry to inform you that this would be a most unsuitable marriage. Your backgrounds are far too different.

Love has been known to overcome vast differences of incomes. Even differences of goals may be rendered compatible. But not basic differences in manners. A marriage between someone who was brought up with a major sense of entitlement and someone who was reared on the modest code of simplicity is doomed.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is the proper response when a store employee asks how you're doing? Should you respond and then ask them how they are? Or just respond? Or just get on with the task at hand? Does it make a difference if the employee is a cashier vs. a floor person, or if there's a line?

GENTLE READER: It depends on how you are doing.

If the answer is fine, say so and move on. Such questions are greetings, not conversation openers. However, if the answer is that you are going nuts trying to find where the socks are hidden, Miss Manners suggests that you speak up, although in more polite terms.

: