# Do men avoid women with stronger morals



## Suemolly

Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best

Suemolly said:


> Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


hmmm, somewhere in the middle?


----------



## Mistys dad

Well seeing as how all men are exactly the same. Really, every one of us. 

And, we all have exactly the same experiences, emotions and motivations.

The answer would be.

43


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best

Mistys dad said:


> Well seeing as how all men are exactly the same. Really, every one of us.
> 
> And, we all have exactly the same experiences, emotions and motivations.
> 
> The answer would be.
> 
> 43


LOL


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I was overly moral in my youth (or tried to be) and too blatently honest about it too, I didn't waste anyone's time..... I let the guys know upfront I was not that type of girl & they would have to put a ring on my finger to get me in bed.... I am sure I was a terrible turn off !! Looking back, If I was a guy, I would have ran from me ! 

A # of guys liked me but they were not willing to stick around & really get to KNOW ME & that is something I needed. My husband was different, it never bothered him at all. In fact, he respected me more for being that way. He knew when I broke up with him a short time to date another -that I would never give that away. If nothng else- during that hard time, that was comforting to him. 

Of course he was not a partier or the drinker type either, he did smoke when I met him & I told him ..."the cigarettes or me". He quit. 

But as I learned ....trying to be the good girl was not so easy with raging hormones once we got to be alone & really opening up to each other, especially at 1st, I remember thinking "OH my God, how are we not going to do it." But we managed. He didn't get to stick it in , I had my boundaries, but we did an awful lot of touching, kept him happy enough and still he had something very special to "wait for" when we married .


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best

SimplyAmorous said:


> he did smoke when I met him & I told him ..."the cigarettes or me". He quit.


i did that for somebody, she ended up leaving for other reasons so it ended up being for myself...
not as satisfying.


----------



## DTO

Suemolly said:


> Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


Hmmm... This is a really loaded question the way this is phrased. What are "higher" morals, and who is the arbiter of good vs. bad?

The answer depends largely on this. You might find that a lot of people think that "very little drinking" is not any more moral than "moderate drinking" if not a little controlling (a less moral attribute to many in itself). A lady might think "I'm a good girl and would never do X, Y, or Z for a man" and other people would say "what a b***h - her man's needs will always be below her need to feel a certain way about herself".

To be practical, everyone can't be wrong. If you take 5 people you've dated and 4 of them have found a problem with some behavior, there's a good chance that the behavior is aberrent or offputting.


----------



## AFEH

Suemolly said:


> Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


Sounds “Holier than though” plus it assumes all men are the same.

I think women who drop their knickers quickly are just plane crazy. I’d assume they have low self-esteem, no self-respect and that they do the same for every man they date and would therefore be put in the slapper category to be left well alone.


----------



## I Know

Suemolly said:


> Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


Most men do not go into a relationship thinking about marriage. That usually comes after a while. I for one was trying to get laid. A good relationship was a nice bonus if it happened, but not required. I tried for sex first and evaluated your personality as we dated more. Been married for 25 years now tho. MY method must have worked. 

There is a tipping point that varies with each man. As a single man, If you withheld sex for longer than I thought appropriate then I lost interest quickly. But I also understood that if you put out on the 1st date w/ me, you were likely doing that w/ many guys. I'm special but not THAT special. These things are usually not part of a strategy for men. it's just something that goes into the unconscious attraction system. 

There's an age factor too. I would expect that an older woman would put out faster than someone in their 20's. Idea being that a 30+ year old has probably been married and/or had more partners and sex just isn't as big of a deal. 

Just be who you are. You are much more likely to attract someone who values your style than if you put up some kind of act. 

One man's opinion.


----------



## I Know

One other thing. Sometimes people hide behind these so called morals. Lot's of the "good girls with morals" were just afraid of sex. 

Men are also not afraid of "strong women". There is a distinct difference between strong and *****y.


----------



## PBear

I Know said:


> One other thing. Sometimes people hide behind these so called morals. Lot's of the "good girls with morals" were just afraid of sex.
> 
> Men are also not afraid of "strong women". There is a distinct difference between strong and *****y.


At 44 years old (and interested in women of an appropriate age range), if a woman demonstrated her "strong morals" through withholding sex, I'd assume that sex isn't that important to her. I have no desire to move from one sexless relationship to another.

Morals are much more than sex. How does that person respond to other situations? If she gets undercharged at a store, does she gloat about getting away with it, or does she ask the cashier about it? How does she treat other people? Does she keep her promises to me and others? Sex, as a measure of moral strength, is HIGHLY overrated, at least in my book.

But in general, yes, I want a woman with equal moral values as mine. Not someone who will be looking down on my behavior, and not someone who I won't be able to respect. But a match. So my guess, if you're finding guys are avoiding you for your moral strength, is that you need to seek men who have stronger morals themselves. Or at least guys who measure moral strength the same way as you.

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Halien

As long as the woman comes across as approachable and non-judging, some guys will not be put off by this at all. My best friend growing up, and girlfriend, was incredibly approachable and kind, but took her own values very seriously about waiting until she was sure of a person's character before proceeding into sex. Interestingly, she became very well known after being a finalist in the state beauty pageants, and then becoming a well known TV personality. 

Didn't consider myself really different than other down to earth guys, but I'll be honest that character was high on my own list when dating - okay , after college, that is. Its pretty obvious that some basic personality traits define a pretty significant subset of men and women who ultimately cheat. Since I grew up in an environment where infidelity was the norm, I was basically looking for character when dating. Not suggesting that those who proceed to sex more quickly are more likely to cheat, but there is a distinction where a person who has a real conviction of right and wrong in her life, one that is not pressured artificially by fear or religion, will tend to guard herself from infidelity.

Recognize that a woman like this must also be selective about who she is looking for, if she doesn't want to deal with regular rejections. These days, it isn't as much about religious values as much as finding men who tend to have a strong sense of their inner core values. Certain fields and careers tend to even be more filled with these types.


----------



## Twofaces

Ive heard this a million times, that men want an angel in the kitchen and a hore in the bedroom.....




Who knows what they want morally really, isnt that an individual thing????
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shaggy

Twofaces said:


> Ive heard this a million times, that men want an angel in the kitchen and a hore in the bedroom.....
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not a hore - those you have to pay. You want an angel in public, a lover in the kitchen, and an insatiable vixen in the bedroom.


----------



## CallaLily

IMO I think sometimes whatever vibe you put off is what you attract to yourself.


----------



## SoWhat

I sometimes find women who have the strong "morals" to not have sex but lack those "morals" when it comes to treating people well in everyday life. 

Which makes me think that *sometimes* the unwillingness to have sex is not so much a matter of morality as it is a fear/disgust/discomfort with sex itself


----------



## Sawney Beane

SoWhat said:


> Which makes me think that *sometimes* the unwillingness to have sex is not so much a matter of morality as it is a fear/disgust/discomfort with sex itself


I suspect you're right. But it's easier to say "My moral position prevents me from doing this" than it is to say "I'm afraid of losing control / doing it wrong / looking stupid / feeling uncomfortable".


----------



## AFEH

Halien said:


> As long as the woman comes across as approachable and non-judging, some guys will not be put off by this at all. My best friend growing up, and girlfriend, was incredibly approachable and kind, *but took her own values very seriously about waiting until she was sure of a person's character before proceeding into sex.* Interestingly, she became very well known after being a finalist in the state beauty pageants, and then becoming a well known TV personality.
> 
> Didn't consider myself really different than other down to earth guys, but I'll be honest that character was high on my own list when dating - okay , after college, that is. Its pretty obvious that some basic personality traits define a pretty significant subset of men and women who ultimately cheat. Since I grew up in an environment where infidelity was the norm, I was basically looking for character when dating. Not suggesting that those who proceed to sex more quickly are more likely to cheat, but there is a distinction where a person who has a real conviction of right and wrong in her life, one that is not pressured artificially by fear or religion, will tend to guard herself from infidelity.
> 
> Recognize that a woman like this must also be selective about who she is looking for, if she doesn't want to deal with regular rejections. These days, it isn't as much about religious values as much as finding men who tend to have a strong sense of their inner core values. Certain fields and careers tend to even be more filled with these types.


Yes that’s it right there. Without that it’s “sex with strangers”.


With some of the responses it’s very obvious that some just don’t know what a woman of virtue is. But it’s more than that in that they don’t know how to find them. If a woman is virtuous about her sex and has strong principles in that regard, she is also likely to have high standards as far as honesty and integrity, reliability and dependability, self control (impulse control), self denial and many other essential character qualities are concerned. Which are all linked to a person’s levels of self-esteem and self-respect.

If a woman is too easy there’ll be reasons for it.


----------



## FirstYearDown

Women are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

If we put out too fast, we are labelled as loose and never asked out again.

If we do not have sex fast enough, we are too uptight and dumped for this reason.

I found this very frustrating when I was single. I have been on both sides of the sexual spectrum of morals; I went from having a mandatory 3 month minimum to having sex very fast and pretending I didn't care about emotions.

In my experience, men change once they get sex no matter how long the woman waits. It is rarely a change for the better and this makes women afraid of being used.

When my self esteem was lower, I would stay with men who were awful to me once I slept with them. My husband and I took a break when we were dating and I slept with another man while we were broken up. This man said "Just so you know, I don't want to talk about a relationship." :rofl: The idiot was dumb enough to admit that he just wanted to use me. I dumped him _by email_ to get him back for hurting me and went back to my then boyfriend. I am glad the fool was hurt by the way I left him; he deserved it!

My advice? Wait at least ten dates and make sure that the man is courting you, not expecting you to hang out at home with him all the time. Stop dating any guy that pushes for sex right away; he is not interested in a relationship if he is pressuring you. NEVER EVER give a man your timeline, or else he will just be nice to you for the time period and dump you once he gets what he wants.

Be prepared to modify your timeline, because you may feel ready before or after it. I waited a month to sleep with my husband and he told me that most women he dated put out after just a few dates; he knew I was a keeper because I didn't give it up as fast.


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best

FirstYearDown said:


> My advice? make sure that the man is courting you, not expecting you to hang out at home with him all the time. Stop dating any guy that pushes for sex right away; he is not interested in a relationship if he is pressuring you. NEVER EVER give a man your timeline, or else he will just be nice to you for the time period and dump you once he gets what he wants.


good rules


----------



## AFEH

SoWhat said:


> I sometimes find women who have the strong "morals" to not have sex but lack those "morals" when it comes to treating people well in everyday life.
> 
> Which makes me think that *sometimes* the unwillingness to have sex is not so much a matter of morality as it is a fear/disgust/discomfort with sex itself


I think that’s kind of skewed. In that if a woman treats herself well, with respect and dignity, then she’s far more likely to treat others with respect and dignity as well.

Take another view on this. If a woman abuses herself then she is very likely to abuse others.


----------



## AFEH

FirstYearDown said:


> *Women are damned if we do and damned if we don't.*
> 
> If we put out too fast, we are labelled as loose and never asked out again.
> 
> If we do not have sex fast enough, we are too uptight and dumped for this reason.
> 
> I found this very frustrating when I was single. I have been on both sides of the sexual spectrum of morals; I went from having a mandatory 3 month minimum to having sex very fast and pretending I didn't care about emotions.
> 
> In my experience, men change once they get sex no matter how long the woman waits. It is rarely a change for the better and this makes women afraid of being used.
> 
> When my self esteem was lower, I would stay with men who were awful to me once I slept with them. My husband and I took a break when we were dating and I slept with another man while we were broken up. This man said "Just so you know, I don't want to talk about a relationship." :rofl: The idiot was dumb enough to admit that he just wanted to use me. I dumped him _by email_ to get him back for hurting me and went back to my then boyfriend. I am glad the fool was hurt by the way I left him; he deserved it!
> 
> My advice? Wait at least ten dates and make sure that the man is courting you, not expecting you to hang out at home with him all the time. Stop dating any guy that pushes for sex right away; he is not interested in a relationship if he is pressuring you. NEVER EVER give a man your timeline, or else he will just be nice to you for the time period and dump you once he gets what he wants.
> 
> Be prepared to modify your timeline, because you may feel ready before or after it. I waited a month to sleep with my husband and he told me that most women he dated put out after just a few dates; he knew I was a keeper because I didn't give it up as fast.


:rofl: Only if you want to be.


----------



## DTO

Twofaces said:


> Ive heard this a million times, that men want an angel in the kitchen and a hore in the bedroom.....


A lady in the street and a freak in the bed - yes indeed.

Seriously though, why is this aspect even debated? How many men seriously say "you like variety in sex? - disgusting"?


----------



## FirstYearDown

Hey, I had one man call me a hore just because I wanted to have sex in the shower. :rofl:

He was insecure because his penis was the size of my baby finger and he had premature ejaculation issues. Poor guy.  No wonder he did not have much sexual experience.

I stopped seeing him because the sex was so bad. I hope he found a woman with a low sex drive.


----------



## DTO

SoWhat said:


> I sometimes find women who have the strong "morals" to not have sex but lack those "morals" when it comes to treating people well in everyday life.
> 
> Which makes me think that *sometimes* the unwillingness to have sex is not so much a matter of morality as it is a fear/disgust/discomfort with sex itself


Exactly! This just allows a woman to blame the situation or the man and try to remain in an otherwise-favorable situation. As in, "I really like you and think we are good together, but now is not right / what you want is wrong".

Women absolutely know that admitting "I have serious hangups, don't value a sexual relationship, and will not work to fix this" will generally be avoided as partners. We almost all forsee satisfying sex in our relationships, if only after marriage.

What you have instead (IMO) is a large number of marriages where the wives act disgusted with sex but are happy to be in a relationship with their husbands, or grudging tolerate sex, or are hot only when it's time to knock out a couple of kids.


----------



## Sawney Beane

DTO said:


> Exactly! This just allows a woman to blame the situation or the man and try to remain in an otherwise-favorable situation. As in, "I really like you and think we are good together, but now is not right / what you want is wrong".
> 
> Women absolutely know that admitting "I have serious hangups, don't value a sexual relationship, and will not work to fix this" will generally be avoided as partners. We almost all forsee satisfying sex in our relationships, if only after marriage.
> 
> What you have instead (IMO) is a large number of marriages where the wives act disgusted with sex but are happy to be in a relationship with their husbands, or grudging tolerate sex, or are hot only when it's time to knock out a couple of kids.


Reading this site, anyone who believes women have a monopoly on this sort of behaviour is having a laugh. By the look of things, there's plenty of men who do it too.

ANYONE, of *either* sex who uses their supposed moral position to avoid honestly saying "I have hangups, don't value a sexual relationship, and will not work to fix it" is *NOT* demonstrating any real morality or character.


----------



## tacoma

Suemolly said:


> Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


I avoid those type of women but I don't consider your examples subjects of morality.

To me those women don't have strong morals, they have powerful repression and I don't need that type of baggage in my life creating problems.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SockPuppet

Suemolly said:


> Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


I wouldnt consider any of the above to equate to strong morals.

strict upbringing or an unhealthy sexual knowledge base, maybe.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

FirstYearDown said:


> This man said "Just so you know, I don't want to talk about a relationship." :rofl: The idiot was dumb enough to admit that he just wanted to use me. I dumped him _by email_ to get him back for hurting me and went back to my then boyfriend. I am glad the fool was hurt by the way I left him; he deserved it!


 I wouldn't exactly call it dumb, I would call it "honest to a fault"- yes, he shot himself in the foot , or you could say his balls, but at least he wasn't wasting your time or playing games, he laid it out there alright - so there would be no misunderstandings, or heartbreak in the morning. 

I accually have a "resepct" for that. Too many will give you all this BS flirting , make you feel like you are the light of their life, woman gives in, then they are done with her the next day or a few weeks later, on to another to flirt, tease & leave, that is way worse than what that dude did, he saved you !! 


I remember sitting down at the computer with my single GF, looking at prospects on Plenty of Fish for her, we came across this one guys profile, I was laughing my butt off, he laid it out so *brutally honest*...... If the woman was within such & such body size, click away, if you are bi-polor, mental issues, a stalker, click away, he laid it out in fine detail what he wanted, what he would reject, what won't be happening ....no time for this, no illisions , I mean it was in an outline form, it was genuinely a "CLASSIC" .... 

I almost wish I would have copied & pasted that thing, cause I said to myself...now that joker is weeding them out from the get go -when you hook up with him, there will be NO misunderstandings to what will be ...it was just sex, it was raw and it was cause you want it. Period. He must have been reeling them in, he seemed busy! 

Sick as it may sound- I had a little respect for "his way" . I Think my GF found it repulsive, but I think the ones who show they are Satan outright are somehow a cut above those who are masquerading as angels only looking for a quick lay while heeping on the deceptive charm, knowing damn well they have no interest in a relationship. 

Sometimes they fall in love anyway- but how often does a Player really Fall hard ... like this song .... Fooled Around and Fell in Love ~ Elvin Bishop - YouTube 

So how do women know..... I would say.... TIME & ACTIONS .... always tells the story, reveals the heart.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Some here will want to blast my sons' head off for this , but I asked him his thoughts on this question.... now mind you, he is a virgin male by choice who has not been burned yet by a sexually repressed female wife yet . I hope he won't have to endure such a thing considering what he is looking for. He gets mad at me for suggesting that could happen. 

He answers......Most men are looking to get laid.... but his thoughs are


> ...."Any man that is not worth having will avoid women with good morals , if we are talking sexual morals.... and ... any guy that is worth having won't mind because he will greatly respect that in a woman."


 He added saying "Generally" because you will find some that are moral and complete retards and some who aren't moral that are really good people" so he doesn't see this all in black or white -obviously. 

And I agree with Sawney, some use morality to "hide behind" - as an excuse for something they may not have any interest in at all, a nice cover. 



> *Sawney Beane *said: ANYONE, of either sex who uses their supposed moral position to avoid honestly saying "I have hangups, don't value a sexual relationship, and will not work to fix it" is NOT demonstrating any real morality or character.


 :iagree:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Since we are talking about Sexual Morality here..... I looked up the definition...

(the Free Dictionary) says this.... 

Noun 1. sexual morality - morality with respect to sexual relations, chastity, virtue morality - concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct pureness, purity, honor, honour - a woman's virtue or chastity


----------



## that_girl

I guess I have no sexual morality.

:rofl:

Well, ok, I do. I keep to my vows. Everything else is ok.


----------



## dubbizle

Thank god I did not use the list or I would not be married or have dated anybody,because I was out to get laid and like another poster wrote,got into relationships.
I would want a woman that into nude picture,wild parties and all kinds of sex why not as long as she is committed. I think I had a four or five date rule and if no sex by then,it was time to start looking.


----------



## SockPuppet

SimplyAmorous said:


> Since we are talking about Sexual Morality here..... I looked up the definition...
> 
> (the Free Dictionary) says this....
> 
> Noun 1. sexual morality - morality with respect to sexual relations, chastity, virtue morality - *concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct pureness, purity, honor, honour - a woman's virtue or chastity*


The bolded part made me laugh, because I just changed my sig.


----------



## Runs like Dog

women don't want men or husbands or lovers. they want employees.


----------



## RandomDude

Suemolly said:


> Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


Is that how "high" morals for women are defined nowadays?!
What happened to Honesty? Integrity? Strength? Loyalty? Selflessness?

Meh, for me that is secondary to what I consider true morality. Besides I always found the really holier-than-thou sexually moral ones are rather prudish and snobbish (and even hypocritical hehe shhhh  ) As for those who don't know how to party, meh, I prefer women who let their hair down and know how to have some fun. So yes I do avoid them... 

But come to think of it, my wife is a bit of both.


----------



## SunnyT

If sex is a body function, and we're not talking about love, then wouldn't sexual morality be more about being clean, disease-free, and honest with sexual partners? And less about frequency or number of partners? 

It's when people deceive themselves, or their partners that morality comes into question....IMO. 

I also think that "waiting for marriage" is a part of your personal integrity and I think that there are men out there who can appreciate that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> Meh, for me that is secondary to what I consider true morality. Besides I always found the really holier-than-thou sexually moral ones are rather prudish and snobbish (and even hypocritical hehe shhhh  ) As for those who don't know how to party, meh, I prefer women who let their hair down and know how to have some fun. So yes I do avoid them...


 Ok, here is the thing Randon Dude for some of us.. as I was more on the Prudish side in my youth due to religous teachings...but strangely....in my conscience I didn't see the big deal once you were committed and felt truly in love ........but never never a snob. I wouldn't call myself a hypocrite either but I did have a tarnished purity-for sure and took alot of guilt for that. 

Although I LOVED Romance & orgasms, so I am not sure what the heck I was.... I was seriously divided -- I do remember looking at many of my girlfriends who were having sex AND PARTYING freely ...feeling "they are having alot of fun" , I remember even feeling a little jealous of that ---but it was in the moment, as I watched the majority of them coming off the clouds of heartbreak for getting emotionally connected then adding the physical. Some cried on my shoulder. 

I can tell you this about myself, that I knew --if I gave that part of myself to a man and he trampled it - I would want to cut his balls off (I am exaggerating of course)- I mean I would one pissed bit** , I know this sounds a little harsh but for me, I don't play games, and sex means MORE to me than a one night stand..... It means forever. 

Considering how strongly I felt about these things - and I knew how they would devestate me , I feel it was WISE for me to protect myself in that way....I also would want to possess that man and if he didn't like it, well again, I'd be one pissed bit**. So some of us are protecting ourselves, hell, maybe even the bad boy who wants a little fun. 

Just another persceptive. I was a good girl with a bad attitude I guess. I loved sex and I still waited , nothing about me makes sense!!


----------



## NextTimeAround

Funny, when I chose to read this thread I had no idea that "stronger moral values" was, by some, equated to mean avoiding sex (for some at least).

Can't we define moral values in other ways that don't involve sex.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NextTimeAround said:


> Funny, when I chose to read this thread I had no idea that "stronger moral values" was, by some, equated to mean avoiding sex (for some at least).
> 
> Can't we define moral values in other ways that don't involve sex.


I wouldn't worry about it, as society is already changing the meaning of most everything in comparison to what it once was. I don't necessarily see this as a good thing, but It appears it is the way of the majority. 

My oldest son calls this "Moral relativism"... (meanng)... "A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them" .


Relativism Explained

1st paragragh gets to the heart of the matter...



> Relativism holds that no opinion is better than any other opinion. Taken to its logical conclusion, it destroys the whole enterprise of rational discussion. If every opinion is as good as any other, then the opinion I come to at the end of a long, informative and rigorous debate is no better than the one I started with—so, what good did the debate do?
> 
> Worse, relativism says that the opinion of a world-renowned expert on some topic is no better than that of the least informed person. Relativism means that any kind of enquiry is pointless, not only scientific and philosophical investigations. If we take relativism seriously, there can be no point listening to the Still, Small Voice Within, consulting the spirits of our ancestors or reading the Holy Book. Relativism denies authority to every kind of expert, the shaman and the priest as well as the scientist and the doctor—and the teacher. According to relativism, the teacher’s professional opinion of a piece of coursework has no more authority than that of the student who wrote it, the older sister who refused to read it or the dog who chewed it.


----------



## tacoma

SimplyAmorous said:


> 1st paragragh gets to the heart of the matter...


Larvor is absolutely incorrect.

Please notice near the end of his essay he gets away from relativism in the moral sense and into areas of objectivity (Teaching, medicine, science).
This is an intentional fallacy used to strengthen his point when all but the most unobservant of readers can see he`s playing fast and loose with his premises.

Ethical or "moral" relativism is simply a fact evidenced by millennia of different contrasting human cultures.

Math is not relative no matter what Larvor insinuates.


----------



## I Know

NextTimeAround said:


> Funny, when I chose to read this thread I had no idea that "stronger moral values" was, by some, equated to mean avoiding sex (for some at least).
> 
> Can't we define moral values in other ways that don't involve sex.


The OP refernced morals and sex as almost equivelant. Nude pics, partying, sex. 

Moral women of integrety do have sex. They are not mutually exclusive. Moral women are just somewhat more descriminating, so may not have sex as readily. May demand integrety before sleeping with a man. 

I married a moral woman. I slept with anyone I could. So maybe it depends on the kind of man the OP is trying to attract. Be more selective and get a higher quality man.


----------



## sinnister

People (and I mean no disrepect here) particularly Americans have trouble with identifying morality.

What you've described is not morality IMO. It's personality differences. Free spirit vs more reserved. But none of the behaviour you described is immoral.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

tacoma said:


> Larvor is absolutely incorrect.
> 
> Please notice near the end of his essay he gets away from relativism in the moral sense and into areas of objectivity (Teaching, medicine, science).
> This is an intentional fallacy used to strengthen his point when all but the most unobservant of readers can see he`s playing fast and loose with his premises.
> 
> Ethical or "moral" relativism is simply a fact evidenced by millennia of different contrasting human cultures.
> 
> Math is not relative no matter what Larvor insinuates.


Well I absolutely SUCK at math and the article seemed good to me, but I really didn't even read the whole thing, just that the point being... we are all making up our own MORALITY these days, so we might as well screw all the defintions given on the subject as everyone is fighting against them anyway, noone agrees anymore. There is no standards anymore. 

To be matched with someone that believes and LIVES the same brand of morality we personally have......in my opinion ......is KEY and what we all need to go after. 

I personally would never be with a man who could go out and think nothing of sleeping with 20-30 chicks, not remember their name & an emotional connection...who needs that !??? Cold day in hell where I would settle for that. I expect ALOT more from a "MAN". And everyone has the right to go after their own brand of morality, mine is set HIGHER than most. 

Only good thing about me is ...I am pretty forgiving if you screw up, I understand we can all be weak at times, do some dumb things in life, hopefully learn a lesson or two..... but just cause someone is SINGLE & unattached, in my opionion, I don't think it wise to live like a Giggilo or a woman just jumping from bed to bed.... for me, it speaks of his or her character and values in life. Even if they may not get hurt, many of those they slept with DO, breaking hearts all over the planet just for a good lay is not at all honorable ....to me. 

And I see sex as HUGE, it has the power to create LIFE itself, even with the advent of "birth control" (which I am happily thankful for).... it does not change the awesome "RESPONSIBILITY" it carries.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

I think there are two types of men who do not:

1. Wolves in sheep's clothing.
2. Nice guys.

Guys not quite in 1. or 2. hit and circle and hit again and then leave you alone after trying to make you think there's possibly something wrong with you, or more amusingly making complete fools of themselves in the circling around and hitting maneuvers.


----------



## Minncouple

I think you are confused on what the term "morals" means.

I see morals as: Is she honest, does she care about others, does she do to others as she wants done to her, does she try to be a good person.......

Sleeping with someone on the first date, drinking a few too many, and having wild sex are not "moral" issue's.

And yes, I wnat my wife to have morals. or as I call it "code".


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

I think sleeping with someone on the first date is a moral issue. It's wrong to be that involved with someone without knowing much about their emotional health. You could really complicate their life if they're not completely stable. Or you could complicate their family life if they're not completely honest. You could also risk your own life, by making a bad choice while having had those few drinks that are also harmless, and risking your life is not a great thing. It would be better to masturbate and to have more respect for life. It's not about sex, it's about the stuff that comes with sex. Becauase in reality, not everyone thinks that sex is sex. So that does have to be taken into account as a moral decision. It can be disruptive, on many levels.

As for wild sex, no qualms about that, as long as it's not the first date and not drunk 

Honesty is a good thing. But it can be used against you. If you are honest and your spouse isn't, being dishonest in certain ways regarding your own personal safety and future could be the moral thing to do.


----------



## I Know

Minncouple said:


> I think you are confused on what the term "morals" means.
> 
> I see morals as: Is she honest, does she care about others, does she do to others as she wants done to her, does she try to be a good person.......


I agree with you. But the OP was using morals for shorthand for "easy" or uninhibited. 

Still, most men are not going to want to marry a woman who's slept with 40 men (or whatever high number you want to put in) at 30 years of age. Don't care how honest and caring she is. Do I want to be the 41st man? Nope.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Minncouple said:


> I think you are confused on what the term "morals" means.
> 
> I see morals as: Is she honest, does she care about others, does she do to others as she wants done to her, does she try to be a good person.......
> 
> Sleeping with someone on the first date, drinking a few too many, and having wild sex are not "moral" issue's.
> 
> And yes, I wnat my wife to have morals. or as I call it "code".


Drinking a few too many causes some to do assinine things , then wake up in the morning with their head in the toilet & can't even remember what they did ..... anyone who sleeps with that is very foolish, might have even slipped the rubber on his thumb when you think about it ......chances are she would be like minded in the moral sense to find herself in that position. So no harm , no foul.


----------



## NextTimeAround

In our society, the damn has broken and the majority of people will sample sex before they settle down (ie get married.)

It makes sense since sexual compatibility is key to an enduring and healthy relationship. Since I did date a guy who was too wierd for me in bed, I have started to think like and also want to test drive the merchandise before I get formally hitched.

I also see it from a man's point of view. One way for men to ensure that they are not in the Friendzone is to ramp up the physical affection and see how open she is to it. 

I am well aware of the fact that my (future) fiance had an EA whose demise centered on the EA's refusal to have sex with him "we're just friends, remember?" And I think a lot of 20 and 30 something women are quite happy to string men along in date like situations as long as they don't have "to put out." So I see sex as a real decider for both men and women.

I know of two women in real life who claim to follow "waiting until marriage to have sex." IMO, it's such a scam. First of all, they are never married non virgins. Secondly, as long as I have known them, they've never had a date. and of course, they have a ready made reason, "oh all he wants is just sex....."

One woman really annoyed me as she stated that there is some scientific fact that if you make a guy wait until marriage, he will marry you sooner. I just had to mention that I had had sex with my exH before we were officially dating (we were classmates at university.) When he was ready to properly court, we married within 11 months of our first date. We eloped and stayed married for 10 years. How much faster do you want than that? That woman said, "that's why your marriage ONLY lasted for 10 years." I have never had a positive thought of her since then.

OP, as some people have said, don't confuse monogamous sex with immorality. Remember in the early days of Christianity, marriage didn't even exist for the plebs. But the Church still needed people to have sex and procreate. 

and also be cognizant of men's fears, that is, that you really see yourself as this guy's "just a friend" and may also be making it difficult for him to find someone to date.

and of course the other fear that men have is that you could date him for one or two years....never make it to marriage, break up and then he hears that 3 weeks later you're having sex with some new guy...........

Imagine if some guy told you that he was tired of spending money on women since none of the relationships "ended" in marriage. So you agree to split everything 50/50 for two years. The relationship falls apart...... and then weeks later you hear that he is wining and dining some new woman....... Now how would you feel?


----------



## Enginerd

Not always. When I was young I targeted Catholic girls with "high morals". All that repression makes for hot sex.


----------



## Inside_Looking_Out

I haven't read all the responses you have had to the question, so if I am mentioning a point that has already been brought up, I apologize.

I don't know if it's a matter of wanting a person or not wanting a person with strong morals...it might be more of aligning yourself with someone that is willing to take a stand on how they will treat themselves and demand how others treat them, no matter where that limit lies.

Men don't relish ambiguity. Having a woman who is willing to say, "This is how I expect to be treated", upfront and without hesitation, can be a wonderful thing. But, when that comes along with trumped up reasons as to why, then it can become a murky area. 

It's funny, my husband said he fell for me over two different things. He asked me out, and I said no, because I had just started dating someone, and that I didn't know where it was heading. He liked that I was selective and that I wouldn't go behind the other guy's back.

When the guy broke up with me, some months later, he asked me out again. On the second date, I would have had sex with him...but refused because he didn't have a condom. He said that let him know that I knew what was and wasn't acceptable for my own self, that I wasn't afraid to speak up and tell someone what I wanted or expected. 

So, in a sense, he fell in love with me because of my sense of morals...even if my morals allowed me to be okay with sleeping with someone on the second date. lol


----------



## arbitrator

I agree that morals is highly subjective. But I'm in agreement that if there is a certain chemistry between two people who are dating, and sex ultimately happens between them, IMO, it does not necessarily serve to lessen that persons morals.

Morals entails that any sex is exclusive to that couple for as long as they agree to see each other, but if one partner chooses not to engage in that act for whatever reason, it does not make them moral or immoral~ it is just their choice.

An ethics professor that I had in college stressed that morals was what brought honor to you, your family, your community, and to God!


----------



## tacoma

Suemolly said:


> Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


I don't equate these things with morality.

I couldn't live with a woman who wasn't at least on the same page with me morally.


----------



## RandomDude

The Offspring - Want You Bad - YouTube



> If you could only read my mind
> You would know that things between us
> Ain't right
> I know your arms are open wide
> But you're a little on the straight side
> I can't lie
> 
> Your one vice
> Is you're too nice
> Come around now can't you see
> 
> I want you
> All tattooed
> I want you bad
> 
> Complete me
> Mistreat me
> Want you to be bad
> 
> If you could only read my mind
> You would know that I've been waiting
> So long
> For someone almost like you
> But with attitude, I'm waiting so come on
> 
> Get out of clothes time
> Grow out those highlights
> Come around now can't you see
> 
> I want you
> In a vinyl suit
> I want you bad
> 
> Complicated
> X-rated
> I want you bad
> 
> Don't get me wrong
> I know you're only being good
> But that's what's wrong
> I guess I just misunderstood
> 
> I want you
> All tattooed
> I want you bad
> 
> Complicated
> X- rated
> I want you bad
> 
> I mean it
> I need it
> I want you bad


----------



## RandomDude

tacoma said:


> I don't equate these things with morality.
> 
> I couldn't live with a woman who wasn't at least on the same page with me morally.


Me either, the OP described someone who sounds a bit like a prude, not necessarily a woman of integrity or morality.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

As already mentioned, I would look for a woman with morals similar to my own. I don't want a prude, and regard a woman who is prudish in marriage to have lower morals than me. For a woman with higher morals, well, I don't want to walk on eggshells or be judged so that would be a non-starter.


----------



## cantthinkstraight

I would never buy a car without taking it out for a test drive...


----------



## JCD

I think there is a number of distinctions here which need pursuing.

First, most men don't want SANCTIMONIOUS women. That is a woman who decides exactly what is and is not 'moral' and brooks no argument in that regard. So...if I ask my wife (INSIDE the moral boundaries) to put on a Little Bo Peep outfit and stick my p in her mouth...and she tells me that is wrong, disgusting and I am a pervert...yeah, I got a BIG problem.

She can say she doesn't like it and she won't do it, but she really doesn't get to throw her opinion as black and white morality...with her as the final arbitrator of same.

Second, I would have a problem with a woman who uses 'morality' to put men down. Men have a different sexuality than women. We want sex and will try for sex. Making us feel bad for these genetic feelings means you do not value me or accept men as is. That isn't particularly healthy (this is not to say that women should allow men to just 'get it') It means the game has pushy sex obsessed me (which is NATURAL...mostly) and 'moral' women need to understand and love us for who they are...as they gently tell us no.

Third, most men would accept women who have strong sexual boundaries *IF* she as a person shows in many other ways that that she loves, wants, and *desires* the man and that her panties are going to hit the floor about 3 picoseconds after the necessary check marks are made off her check list.

And that raises another point which was brought up by a previous poster. YOU, the moral woman, are asking a man to buy a pig in a poke. We have no idea how much of a drive you have, how much your 'morality' will dictate which acts you will and won't do, and what acts you find disgusting.

I would not marry a woman who won't give blow jobs. I said it! If I'm willing to lick the kitty, she darn well better be willing to reciprocate!

So if you are putting him off for a marriage date, you darn well better have LONG and CANDID conversations about exactly what is and is not on the menu and exactly how much you are willing to engage in sex...and mean it.

I would consider lying on this front to be fraud.

But I'll be honest. I would be CAREFULLY checking that woman for more signs of controlling behavior. 

Strong moral boundaries: Okay

Using God as the arbitrator of all actions in my life...as described by a random woman: No. Sorry. I actually WAS a fundy. Not playing that game anymore.


----------



## JCD

2ntnuf said:


> I'm confused about this wavy line of morality. Why bother having a word that describes 7 billion or so different opinions with no set standard. We might as well do whatever we want. I'm really confused. How can the same thing be moral for one and not another? Isn't there a definition? If not, why use that word? It doesn't describe anything tangible. My thoughts are not settling at all.


Well, moral relativism, is, IMO, crap!

You talk about 7 billion people as if there are 7 billion different opinions. But really, there aren't.

If I go to a ghetto in Sao Paulo, a restaurant in Hong Kong, or a yurt in Upper Mongolia and asked about cheating, I'm willing to bet $500 that everyone would honestly say 'yep, it's wrong.'

Granted, cheaters will say 'yes but...' with whatever reasoning they have for their actions.

Now, on the polygyamy front, the way it breaks down is 'rich men get to break the rules'. So in Arabia, Thailand, or other places, you have legal statues (put in by rich men) to legally justify their actions. This also goes to a certain extent to infidelity.

(One caveat: in a lot of militaristic cultures, where there is a high incidence of warfare and murder, there are probably a surplus of women around as the men get their asses killed...so that might also be a driver)

The women of these cultures have varying degrees of acceptance to something crappy that they can't change...but would prefer monogamy. Because almost always, the rules put THEM in a competition which devalues them.

Doesn't matter if it's Chinese, Middle Eastern, European etc. These are the rules that people have generally settled on as working. There are some hiccups and a few changes, but following the ten commandments will generally keep your head out of hot water in 99% of circumstances everywhere....just like an 'Upright Confuscian' would be the same.


----------



## JCD

2ntnuf said:


> I guess I forgot we have folks from all over the world commenting here in this thread. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought the majority in this thread were of the mindset that we can throw morals out the window because they are so variable and we should all be of the mindset that it's a free for all. Do what you want as long as you can to whomever you can. It's all relative anyway.


I have no idea how you could have taken that from this thread.

Or maybe I'm misreading it. And I'm as Western as they come...but the rules for matrimony and female virtue are pretty darned rigid every culture I even glance at passingly. NO mom or dad wants their little pumpkin to sleep around.

It comes down to this with men. Every man loves the rule "women should be chaste and virtuous" with the added caveat "except for him."

Nothing says "I love you" like making HIM the exception to your otherwise virtuous existence. Yes...I know...if they can be tossed away easily, they aren't principles. But that's the point. HE wants to be that special to his girl with strong moral principles.

Which is why I say that if she is going to wait, the woman better make her man feel like a rock star in other ways.


----------



## MEM2020

JCD,
Thank you for making the point below. 

These threads pop up periodically and I find them to be odd. The way this gets framed is fairly simple: The woman's primary strategy is to 'gate keep' access to her body. 

There is a huge amount of reverse engineering of human behavior (SA) is the exception though I think if her husband had pushed once they knew they were getting married it would have been a coin toss. 

The reverse engineering goes like this: I either don't like sex, or I have decided to marry someone who i am not that attracted to so I am going to claim virtue as my motivational driver and not lack of desire. The most extreme example of this are (my wife is catholic so no offense intended) Catholics who claim that even NFP is not really ok. So basically if you aren't willing to conceive, you don't have sex.

At least in the US many of these same 'traditional' woman seem to have somehow forgotten that there are many ways to show their man that they are really into him. If they don't want to pick up the tab for the occasional date, they can cook. They can give back massages. They can do other acts of service. In short they can make effort and demonstrate skills in other areas. 

End of rant



QUOTE=JCD;1466651]I have no idea how you could have taken that from this thread.

Or maybe I'm misreading it. And I'm as Western as they come...but the rules for matrimony and female virtue are pretty darned rigid every culture I even glance at passingly. NO mom or dad wants their little pumpkin to sleep around.

It comes down to this with men. Every man loves the rule "women should be chaste and virtuous" with the added caveat "except for him."

Nothing says "I love you" like making HIM the exception to your otherwise virtuous existence. Yes...I know...if they can be tossed away easily, they aren't principles. But that's the point. HE wants to be that special to his girl with strong moral principles.

Which is why I say that if she is going to wait, the woman better make her man feel like a rock star in other ways.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> * NO mom or dad wants their little pumpkin to sleep around.*


:iagree:........This is very true in most cases , no matter what type of culture or type of lifestyle the parents lived, they all seem to want better for their daughters.
That is usually the case.
Except on TAM of course.....
The exact opposite always seem to apply.
But that's usually the case on TAM 


Great posts and analysis though!


----------



## chillymorn

Enginerd said:


> Not always. When I was young I targeted Catholic girls with "high morals". All that repression makes for hot sex.


until you marry one . thenall bet are off!


----------



## Love Song

If you keep this up your going to go down a very unhappy path. Don't worry about what guys want. Find out what you want and find a guy who matches you.


----------



## arbitrator

Morality is mostly a subjective view held fast to by either the man or the woman. One's view of what is moral from what the other thinks can be quite similar in nature, or can even be as different as daylight from dark.

Having said that, in addition to being visually attracted to a beautiful, gregarious, self-respecting woman, I am also greatly attracted to those whose moral compass is greatly in sync with mine; one who tends to exhibit the same basic religious and human traits that I have.

I truly think that that is exactly where "morality" resides!


----------



## tacoma

2ntnuf said:


> I guess I forgot we have folks from all over the world commenting here in this thread. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought the majority in this thread were of the mindset that we can throw morals out the window because they are so variable and we should all be of the mindset that it's a free for all. Do what you want as long as you can to whomever you can. It's all relative anyway.


I haven't seen an instance of this here
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## arbitrator

tacoma said:


> I haven't seen an instance of this here.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And with extremely rare exception, neither have I!


----------



## SlowlyGettingWiser

> 2ntnuf
> I just believe that sex is more than just a physical need. I believe, it can satisfy much more than just a physical need.


I agree that sex CAN satisfy more than just a physical need, and sometimes it JUST satisfies a physical need.

Sometimes I eat because I'm hungry. Sometimes I eat because it's a social obligation (visiting at someone's house, out with friends, etc.). Sometimes I eat for emotional reasons (bored, angry, feeling self-indulgent, etc.) The meals don't always take place in the same context or serve the same purpose. The REASON WHY I'm eating is not BETTER THAN or WORSE THAN some other reason why I eat.

Ditto for sex! Sometimes I want sex because I want to satisfy a physical need. Sometimes I want to satisfy an emotional need (to feel closer, to show love, to receive love). Sometimes I want sex to satisfy an intellectual need (heard/read about something different, want to give it a try). The REASON WHY I'm having sex is not BETTER THAN or WORSE THAN some other reason why I have sex.

As long as I am HONEST with both my partner and myself about WHY we're having sex, then there is no harm, no foul. My wants/needs/likes/dislikes are just as valid as anyone else's.



> I don't think I am misinterpreting the messages. I think our understanding of the definition of morality may be different.


 In *MY* view, there is no morality/immorality in sexual acts. It is the MOTIVATION for the sex that is moral/immoral:

am I using sex to manipulate someone's behavior
am I using sex to connect with this person
am I using sex as a weapon
am I being clear about my sexual intent
am I using sex as a commodity
am I honoring the other person's needs in regard to sex
I don't need to agree with OTHER people's views on sexuality, nor they with mine. Only my sexual partners need to be in agreement with my views on sexuality.


----------



## arbitrator

SlowlyGettingWiser said:


> *In *MY* view, there is **no morality/immorality in sexual acts. * It is the MOTIVATION for the sex that is moral/immoral:
> ]
> I don't need to agree with OTHER people's views on sexuality, nor they with mine. Only my sexual partners need to be in agreement with my views on sexuality.




Regarding the spectre of morality, I would have to respectfully disagree with your statement in two respects:
Regardless of relationship status, sleeping with multiple partners and each of them having no knowledge of it.
Emotionally confiding in(EA) or sleeping(PA) with someone else, more often than not by deceptive means, when you're already married or invested in a committed relationship.


----------



## Davelli0331

chillymorn said:


> until you marry one . thenall bet are off!


I laughed at this. My W was raised Catholic and it's been a multi-year process helping her work through her shame and guilt regarding her sexuality.

I was raised strict Southern Baptist and had many of the same issues, too, but your comment made me chuckle.


----------



## MEM2020

Tacoma,
Me either.



QUOTE=tacoma;1470259]I haven't seen an instance of this here
_Posted via Mobile Device_[/QUOTE]


----------



## Davelli0331

Suemolly said:


> Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


Morality is a sliding scale. I don't consider drinking, partying, or nude pictures immoral, but I see how others can.

For me, I care more that the woman's morals are compatible with my own and that she has some reasoning behind her morals.

Saying "I don't drink because it's bad and wrong" does not fly with me, but saying "I don't drink because I had a bad experience" or "I don't drink because my parents had a problem with alcohol" I think are perfectly rational reasons and I wouldn't think anything. However, it is highly unlikely I would pursue a woman with that moral belief simply because I think we would be incompatible from a moral standpoint.

Also, I'm atheist. I grew up christian, and I don't judge. I'm not one of those angry, belittling atheists, and it's not an insult or any kind of put down when I say that I would not be compatible with a believer, nor would they be compatible with me. Nothing wrong with either side, but it just wouldn't work.


----------



## Almostrecovered

without reading the whole thread I basically sought out women who had similar morals


----------



## SlowlyGettingWiser

> arbitrator
> Regarding the spectre of morality, I would have to respectfully disagree with your statement in two respects:
> Regardless of relationship status, sleeping with multiple partners and each of them having no knowledge of it.
> Emotionally confiding in(EA) or sleeping(PA) with someone else, more often than not by deceptive means, when you're already married or invested in a committed relationship.


1.) I would agree IF (and only if) either partner was under the impression it was a monogamous/committed relationship. If it is casual sex, ONS, hook-up, whatever...if BOTH partners see it as such, then I don't believe EITHER partner is acting immorally if there is no expectation of exclusivity. What they do on their OWN time is their OWN business.`

2.) Of course *this* is immoral! But the immorality stems from the DECEIT. The WANTING to be deceitful. All the steps in planning...those are immoral.

The wayward, stray, errant thought that someone is sexually attractive happens...we're human; and to believe differently is dishonest. But, all the steps in between THINKING someone is sexually attractive to the actual PHYSICAL consummation (physical sex, texting, sexting, emails, phone calls)...*THAT* is what is immoral. 

All the steps you took where you COULD have stopped yourself and didn't. Every step you took to DECEIVE your spouse/SO, and didn't stop yourself are the IMMORAL ACTS. The PIV (or whatever) is just the FINAL act, but certainly not any more abhorrent than all the deceit (which people seem to casually dismiss) it took to GET YOU THERE.

Look at an 'open' marriage. Many of us would consider it 'cheating', but if the 2 people involved in that marriage don't see it as 'cheating', who are WE to tell them how to run THEIR marriage?

I stand by my original assertion, that sex acts themselves (either in type or quantity) are NOT immoral; it's the cheating/dishonesty involved that is the TRUE immorality.


----------



## SlowlyGettingWiser

2ntnuf:

I know you & I don't necessarily view things the same (which is okay with me, it's what makes talking with you interesting! differing viewpoints and all that...)

Would it make it easier for you to understand *my* position if I tell you that *I* don't view sex as 'holy', 'sacred', 'god-ordained'? I know you don't see it the same as I do; does that make my position more understandable? less understandable?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Good Morning SGW ,
All I wanted to say id that I like your avatar!


----------



## arbitrator

SlowlyGettingWiser said:


> 1.) I would agree IF (and only if) either partner was under the impression it was a monogamous/committed relationship. *If it is casual sex, ONS, hook-up, whatever...if BOTH partners see it as such, then I don't believe EITHER partner is acting immorally if there is no expectation of exclusivity. What they do on their OWN time is their OWN business.*


*

But in such a case, do they not have a moral duty to inform all partners involved regarding the multiplicity of relationships, much less the quite high probability of the spread of STD's so inherent from these types of social situations?

*


> 2.) Of course *this* is immoral! But the immorality stems from the DECEIT. The WANTING to be deceitful. All the steps in planning...those are immoral.
> 
> The wayward, stray, errant thought that someone is sexually attractive happens...we're human; and to believe differently is dishonest. But, all the steps in between THINKING someone is sexually attractive to the actual PHYSICAL consummation (physical sex, texting, sexting, emails, phone calls)...*THAT* is what is immoral.
> 
> All the steps you took where you COULD have stopped yourself and didn't. Every step you took to DECEIVE your spouse/SO, and didn't stop yourself are the IMMORAL ACTS. The PIV (or whatever) is just the FINAL act, but certainly not any more abhorrent than all the deceit (which people seem to casually dismiss) it took to GET YOU THERE.
> 
> Look at an 'open' marriage. Many of us would consider it 'cheating', but if the 2 people involved in that marriage don't see it as 'cheating', who are WE to tell them how to run THEIR marriage?
> 
> *I stand by my original assertion, that sex acts themselves (either in type or quantity) are NOT immoral; it's the cheating/dishonesty involved that is the TRUE immorality.*


*I can wholeheartedly, unequivocably agree with the highlighted statement posted just above!*


----------



## SlowlyGettingWiser

Thanks, CaribbeanMan!

It's a joke since I had a 'coffee date' with a man 11 years younger than me!

BTW: J'étudie français avec mes amis de meetup.com!


----------



## SlowlyGettingWiser

2ntnuf:
*Have you voted to legalize prostitution? No, it's not been on the ballot here. If it were, I would vote to legalize it. Have you supported making it safe and available to everyone and for everyone involved? Not sure 'how' you're suggesting it be made "safe and available" for everyone. I'm pro-contraception, pro-abortion, pro-development of male contraceptives, pro-sex education, pro-porn (only in a manner both partners can agree on; perhaps better to say I'm not anti-porn) Why or why not? Why? Sex is natural! Just like eating, sleeping, loving, feeling, laughing, crying, urinating, speaking. It is part of the human condition. Everyone should enjoy it; it's a shame that is an unattainable goal in the real world.

Edit: Type or quantity wouldn't be an issue. Would you have an issue if the prostitute, male or female wanted paid in cash for their services. Nope. I think I can find several instances on this forum where love is given in return for something. What then makes the difference? Some would argue there isn't any; some HAVE argued (haven't necessarily seen it on TAM) that marriage is LEGALIZED prostitution: women give up the sex in exchange for financial security. Do you understand what I am trying to say? If you decide you want to have sex with whomever, however, whenever, that' your business. We all get something in return for it. My price is some loyalty, integrity, respect and love. I don't think that is too much to ask. Do you? No, *I* don't think that's too much to ask! SOMETIMES, that's what I want, too. Other times, I just want to share a great time and an orgasm with somebody!*


----------



## SlowlyGettingWiser

> arbitrator
> But in such a case, do they not have a moral duty to inform all partners involved regarding the multiplicity of relationships, much less the quite high probability of the spread of STD's so inherent from these types of social situations?


*I don't think you and I fundamentally disagree! *

I am 56yo., so I am speaking in terms of mature, adult, consensual relationships; not 20-somethings 'wilding' on hormones trying to 'prove' they're adults, or 'hot' or whatever games they're trying to play. Perhaps THAT was not clear.

So I speak in terms of ADULTS who are CONSENTING, SOBER, COGNIZANT of whether this is an exclusive/committed relationship, RESPONSIBLE in using birth control and reducing the chances of spreading STDs, FULLY-INFORMED, etc.

If YOU'RE speaking of children and barely-adults who are having unprotected sex with everyone they meet in an effort to 'find love' or 'prove their manhood' or 'show I'm a woman' or have a baby who'll 'just LOVE ME', thus fulfilling their part in the 50%-70% single-parent birth rate current in our society, then YEAH, I'd agree with you!

Me, I'm talking about grown-ups!


----------



## Caribbean Man

SlowlyGettingWiser said:


> Thanks, CaribbeanMan!
> 
> It's a joke since I had a 'coffee date' with a man 11 years younger than me!
> 
> BTW: J'étudie français avec mes amis de meetup.com!


Fille intelligente!:smthumbup:
Vos meilleurs amis sont françaises!

_Enjoy the croissants and the wine!_


----------



## mildlyperplexed

2ntnuf said:


> That's the difference in value you and I place on ourselves.


Please expand


----------



## sandc

Suemolly said:


> Do men prefer the women they date and intent to marry to have strong moral values? Which means, he has to wait longer for sex to happen. No nude pictures from her despite his begging. Very little drinking and no wild parties etc. Or are women with higher morals just plain boring and men avoid them?


To answer your question. That is the woman I married. I *wanted *a woman with strong moral values. Strong morals doesn't necessarily mean she not a freak in the bedroom right? My wife is very careful in how she treats other men, but when she gets in the bedroom she can be the biggest ****. This is what I love about her. She was so worth the wait.

But then, I'm no catch so consider the source.


----------



## Caribbean Man

sandc said:


> But then, I'm no catch so consider the source.


Sandc,
Surely you jest!
A guy with a private jet, flying all over the world?
She must have been really glad when you proposed!


----------



## mildlyperplexed

2ntnuf said:


> Go back and read what I said I required. I don't think those are there when all we want is to "get off". At least, I didn't see that as one of the requirements in her statement. The way she wrote it led me to believe they are separate and distinct concepts for her.


Sorry I thought you said that people who have sex outside of a relationship put no value on themselves. I was really hoping I had misinterpreted as that would be a pretty insulting statement.


----------



## sandc

Caribbean Man said:


> Sandc,
> Surely you jest!
> A guy with a private jet, flying all over the world?
> She must have been really glad when you proposed!


The flying thing didn't happen until after we married. 

The day we got married is a story in and of itself. Maybe I'll start a thread on that some day.


----------



## sandc

mildlyperplexed said:


> Sorry I thought you said that people who have sex outside of a relationship put no value on themselves. I was really hoping I had misinterpreted as that would be a pretty insulting statement.


Depends on how you view sex. If you view it as a purely physical act then you shouldn't feel devalued. If you view it as a sacred act that is only supposed to take place within a loving marriage, then you would be devaluing yourself.

Despite my reputation here on TAM I am a member of the latter group.


----------



## Goldmember357

Id argue that most men today avoid them just as argue that most women avoid men with high morals. Look at the society!!! It does not personally bother me, but as religious as this country is supposed to be i hardly see the general population exhibiting moral behavior. 

With that said.

Many men DO NOT avoid women with strong morals. Many men WANT and PREFER women with strong morals.


----------



## Caribbean Man

sandc said:


> The flying thing didn't happen until after we married.
> 
> *The day we got married is a story in and of itself. Maybe I'll start a thread on that some day.*


Please ,
Dom start that thread!
The last one you started in the " Long term success in marriage "
section entitled" Things we do to make our marriage better " was a really nice thread.

Looking forward to seeing you tell us that story!


----------



## illwill

Not if they have morals.


----------



## arbitrator

SlowlyGettingWiser said:


> *I don't think you and I fundamentally disagree! *
> 
> I am 56yo., so I am speaking in terms of mature, adult, consensual relationships; not 20-somethings 'wilding' on hormones trying to 'prove' they're adults, or 'hot' or whatever games they're trying to play. Perhaps THAT was not clear.
> 
> So I speak in terms of ADULTS who are CONSENTING, SOBER, COGNIZANT of whether this is an exclusive/committed relationship, RESPONSIBLE in using birth control and reducing the chances of spreading STDs, FULLY-INFORMED, etc.
> 
> If YOU'RE speaking of children and barely-adults who are having unprotected sex with everyone they meet in an effort to 'find love' or 'prove their manhood' or 'show I'm a woman' or have a baby who'll 'just LOVE ME', thus fulfilling their part in the 50%-70% single-parent birth rate current in our society, then YEAH, I'd agree with you!
> 
> Me, I'm talking about grown-ups!


SGW: You and I are of the same basic genre. Heck, I think that I may actually have you beat by a couple of years!

I regret to say that I know a handful of single guys, even in my own archaic age frame, that seem to take delight in bragging about their sexual conquests to the point it inately makes me a little sick. There they are~ acting enviously like those youthful alpha paramours except for their frequent ingestion of those "little blue pills" to help keep up(unintended pun) with the pace of those youngsters.

"My morality" tells me, and always has, whether I'm married or not, to be sexually faithful to one partner and to one partner only. Now if that person chooses to dump me for someone else, then until such time that I can morally reestablish a heart-felt, social/sexual connection, then I'm celibate. Much like now while I've been waiting for the gavel to fall on my divorce proceedings for some 20+ months.

Now that's just me! But while I refuse to make value judgments of those who are acting contrary to my personal beliefs, I would greatly hope that at the same time, that they would not make light of my own self-imposed value judgments.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MEM11363 said:


> JCD,
> Thank you for making the point below.
> 
> These threads pop up periodically and I find them to be odd. The way this gets framed is fairly simple: The woman's primary strategy is to 'gate keep' access to her body.
> 
> *There is a huge amount of reverse engineering of human behavior (SA) is the exception though I think if her husband had pushed once they knew they were getting married it would have been a coin toss.*
> 
> The reverse engineering goes like this: I either don't like sex, or I have decided to marry someone who i am not that attracted to so I am going to claim virtue as my motivational driver and not lack of desire. The most extreme example of this are (my wife is catholic so no offense intended) Catholics who claim that even NFP is not really ok. So basically if you aren't willing to conceive, you don't have sex.
> 
> At least in the US many of these same 'traditional' woman seem to have somehow forgotten that there are many ways to show their man that they are really into him. If they don't want to pick up the tab for the occasional date, they can cook. They can give back massages. They can do other acts of service. In short they can make effort and demonstrate skills in other areas.
> 
> End of rant


 Yes, MEM ...I DO believe in a woman "Gate Keeping" *to guard her own *







...if she wants to save herself for ONE MAN that is.....she must be very careful with men..... this was MY belief as a young girl - to stay true to myself and give 1 special man EVERYTHING.... my heart, my soul, my body...

For me to have given that to someone who didn't treasure it -would have been very very very hurtful to me.....It would have been a horrible regret, I would have been angry with myself.....would have cried a river.... 

I DO look upon SEX in a *sacred* light. This has less to do with religious beliefs though, and more to do with how high I hold "Romance"...I believed for that "Fairy Tale".....I was very blessed to find my white Knight at such a young age. 

I gave him plenty back while we were dating.... he knew I was highly into him... He loved how much time I wanted to be with him... he never questioned my sex drive...we talked endlessly about our future, he KNEW I lusted after him ...we were very "hands on"... 

If My husband pushed me for







BEFORE we got married.... one thing I knew was this...He was the REAL DEAL...I never doubted his feelings for a moment, He went above & beyond in amazing.... I was pretty stubborn about waiting but by this time..it had everything to do with my "beliefs" ...over questioning his







& commitment to me. We could have easily had







for years before we married. 

Still happy we waited though! Our story is highly unique.. and I wouldn't trade it for anything.... I did a post on that just today HERE...

Our sons would prefer women with higher morals - but not "stuffy" if that makes sense, people need to be able to discuss anything & everything with room for full honesty without judgement.....of course they will want the Freak in the bedroom too ...they know at her Bridal shower, MOM will have the sex books & the hottest Lingerie to get her started....


----------



## SlowlyGettingWiser

> SGW
> No, *I* don't think that's too much to ask! SOMETIMES, that's what I want, too. Other times, I just want to share a great time and an orgasm with somebody!





> 2ntnuf
> That's the difference in value you and I place on ourselves.





> arbitrator
> But while I refuse to make value judgments of those who are acting contrary to my personal beliefs, I would greatly hope that at the same time, that they would not make light of my own self-imposed value judgments.


*I have no argument with your POV.*

I am a 'live and let live' person PROVIDED people are being HONEST about their relationships (or lack thereof) with the people in their life. As long as EVERYBODY has the same info, they're welcome to make whatever choices they feel are right for them. It's not my job to tell THEM how to feel/act and it's not theirs to tell me. (Now TAM is a whole 'nother kettle of fish because people DO ask for our opinions).

Growing up my dad always told us, "You just mind your OWN business....that'll keep you PLENTY busy!" And he was SO right!

Thanks for the civil discussion, gentlemen! I'll see you around on the boards!


----------



## arbitrator

SlowlyGettingWiser said:


> Thanks for the civil discussion, gentlemen! I'll see you around on the boards!


If only the Republicans and the Democrats up on Capitol Hill could interact and work with each other as civilly! 

But on second thought, maybe they could just take a few lessons from us!


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Men are attracted to my morals, I believe and I am only attracted to men with great morals, who know themselves very well.

I have had a few relationship die out because the man was weak in his stance. It's just not attractive to me.


----------

