| | Where are the women with "old fasion"morals?Page 1 of 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) | I've read alot of post,talked to alot of people and so I wonder.....what happened to the people with "old fashion" morals? Those who would see clear lines between principles and current "norms" and believe you are only as good as your actions and principles.Where are those who are tired of hearing married people thinking their situation is "different" because of WHATEVER reason.Where are those who are tired of hearing people justify not being totally open and honest? Where are the people tired of hearing some blast "old fashion" morals as being judgemental.......because that IS a judgement Where are the people tired of seeing and hearing of people who can't seem to like themselves enough to take REAL time off in between intimate relationships?  | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 11:52:43 AM | Hmmm ... I'm not in between real intimate relationships, but I am taking real time off. Times have changed, marathon. "Old fashioned" values and morals aren't always applicable, which is the reason they are "old fashioned." Is it all for the worst? Not necessarily. "Old fashioned" morals made it ok for a husband to discipline his wife if she were not living up to his standards. "Old fashioned" morals and values said it was OK and perfectly acceptable for a married man to have a mistress on the side. "Old fashioned" morals and values relegated women to a subservient role while the man shouldered the financial well-being of the family completely by himself. Now, I’m a fairly conservative fella, but I’m hardly old-fashioned. Theories, philosophies and social norms change because they need to. | |
|
| |
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 12:11:05 PM | New fashioned is okay too, I guess. Both share all roles and all responsibilities and all priviledges...like two people unsure (lol) Its all on the table ... hmm
Women still want to be women and men still want to be men. Mr Mom. Mrs Dad
Old fashioned saying by grandfather and bible..."never let the sun set..angry or fighting." Reconcile with your gal/guy before the sun sets. | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 12:37:48 PM | "Old fashioned" morals made it ok for a husband to discipline his wife if she were not living up to his standards. "Old fashioned" morals and values said it was OK and perfectly acceptable for a married man to have a mistress on the side. "
No that would be old fashioned IMMORALITY,stupidity and selfishness....HUGE difference!
Besides,that is just as "norm" today as it was 80yrs ago if not more.  
"Old fashioned" morals and values relegated women to a subservient role while the man shouldered the financial well-being of the family completely by himself."
Again,that is not and was not a sign of morals rather than ecomomy/social status. Men were primary "bread winners 70yrs ago because wages for men in a sexist society were such that a woman could do little to find a job that paid as well as her male counterpart.That was not a reflection of "old fashion"morals.Now,socially it WAS a reflection of social values for the woman to be the primary care giver of the household including children if appl. That is STILL the prevailing social value norm.Still,its NOT about "old fashion" morals.
Perhaps,I should have been even more specific in the question.......What happened to old fashion morals in interpersonal relationships? | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 12:46:47 PM | Marathon,
Sure it was. In Christian circles a wife was expected to serve and obey her husband. If she did not live up to his standards, it was his duty to punish her. It was also perfectly acceptable, if not almost encouraged, for men, especially of stature, to have mistresses. And I may have put it incorrectly, but old fashioned values (I should have left morals out) set the expectations of women to serve subserviant roles to men and not venture outside the home.
I digress. I do more clearly understand what you mean, now. I didn't mean to seem aggressive in my prior post. Nor do I mean to come off that way now. But, if I'm not mistaken, your asking what happened to common courtesies and people acting a certain humane way, right? To that question ... who knows. | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 12:48:07 PM | ummmmm
I'd like to point put that tose with old fashioned morals
prolly dont go from intimate relationshhip to intimate relationship but maybe
twice in their lives :)
time inbetween can be 30 years... so prolly not gonna see many of them here | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 1:01:47 PM | Morals get defined every year , the world old fashioned also moves up the scale as time goes by .
I am more like 1940's type, most woman I meet think they are old fashion and screw every guy they say are in a relationship with , different guy a week maybe more but always pretend that never happens.
The older the get the more descrete they are , just the same though . | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 1:06:55 PM | Marathon,
Sure it was. In Christian circles a wife was expected to serve and obey her husband. If she did not live up to his standards, it was his duty to punish her. It was also perfectly acceptable, if not almost encouraged, for men, especially of stature, to have mistresses. And I may have put it incorrectly, but old fashioned values (I should have left morals out) set the expectations of women to serve subserviant roles to men and not venture outside the home."
I disagree in THIS sense;if you are talking about prior to the 20th century perhaps.
Your discription of a "norm" is not true in most "Christian circles" and certainly no different than in some non Christian circles today.I think many take aberritions and generalize them far too often.Also,the notion of men to have "mistresses" once again was NEVER considered MORAL.Not even in the 18th century.I really don't think those kinds off generalizations help lead to a balanced discussion of the topics anyway.There has always been overlooked indiscretion/immorality/bad behavior......that is not what this discussion should be about.just because some bad behavior is overlooked/ignored does NOT make it moral regardless of whether it occured in 1005 or 2005,Egypt,England,India or the USA.
Agressive? I didn't take it as being agressive,just off topic
No offense.........I think its great to debate,certainly fine to disagree.....just as long as good points are made and debate/disagreement is civil.Discussion without varying points of view isn't a real discussion but a pep rally
I appreciate any intelligent input.......thanks | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 1:18:25 PM | keeping on topic here
I think the answer to your question is: they are all underground, dead and buried
the following generations were taught as time went on how to better protect themselves from a life of serving and obeying.
Women became more educated, more spohistocated and now the ones who came from old fashioned morals are the ones who make better choices...
they keep their options open and realize God said it was ok not to marry. Many of them have tried to be married to modern man.. and they opted for the other... and now live lives of choice and freedom of choice.
:) | |
|
| |
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 1:56:14 PM | bunnybaby I agree! We are around. I cannot say that I have "old fashioned" morals like my grandparents wanted; no sex before marriage and all that, but I can say that I rather have one partner then many.  | |
|
| |
| |
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 2:32:52 PM | | They're probably the one's that aren't steadily complaining that they've been used by one of the many "players" that are making their rounds on this site. | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 2:40:27 PM | | Thank you bunny baby and Hac30.I think you'll find the healthiness of the relationships you develop will reflect your values.Its actually a sign of intelligent independence to adhere to "morals" considered by some to be "old fashion" Makes you rare commodities....and rare commodities in the end are appreciated and rewarded as such. | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 2:42:52 PM | "well... either he does not like the answers.... or consider the womens
input intelligent....... or he doesnt like our profiles "
What was THAT about? and .....who is "HE"?  | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 2:56:59 PM | nuthinnnnnnnn
was just messing with ya. Seems lots of the women are interested in you
from the responses I see you get in your posts. How come you have not found anyone?
Are there other concerns you are first trying to overcome or what>
cuz it seems many of the ladies are interested. | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 3:03:42 PM | Marathon,
I would say attitudes and values of how to "handle your wife" didn't really change until the late 60s through the 70s with the women's lib movement. I don't meen to suggest it is considered "moral" but was accepted and understood as how a husband and wife interacted prior to the women's lib movement.
And yes, debate/conversation is never as interesting as when points of view collide ... in a civil manner, of course.  | |
|
| Where are the women with old fasionmorals?
Posted: 5/19/2005 3:33:25 PM | We can agree that to some extent,SOME aspects of it were accepted.We agree 100% that it has little/nothing to do with "morals".
I'm thinking moral women are less outspoken and therefore aren't heard from as much particularly on these forums.There seems to be so many threads and post on topics like beening married and looking,being married and not "feeling married" in the heart,separated not being married,4+ sexual partners not a sign of dysfunction but of fun,and complaints about fun,virgin bashing,sexual inexperience bashing,ok to be less than open and honest,ect...just thought I'd take things in a slightly different direction. The anti-Springer direction | |
|
| |
Sylum
| | Joined: 5/12/2005
Msg: 22 | |
| |
| |
HB2
| | Joined: 5/11/2005
Msg: 24 | |
| |
| |
Home
login 
