Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > Relationships with morals      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 bucsgirl
Joined: 3/2/2005
Msg: 8
Relationships with moralsPage 1 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Maybe I have a different version of the bible, but mine has lead me to believe that God created man and woman AS sexual creatures. A desire for sex, companionship, affection and physical closeness - how is that opposed to how you think God created humankind. Adam and Eve apparently had sex, they had children. Sorry I just don't see any way how being a Godly relationship and totally without human contact have to be mutually exclusive.
 bucsgirl
Joined: 3/2/2005
Msg: 11
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:46:37 PM
And what about your children?? You think my relationship with my four children is NOT based on love and that I wouldn't want to hug them and when they were little, yeah kissed their sweet little faces a LOT!! We're a weird family, we all hugged and kissed on th cheek, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts uncles, our family is extremely affectionate. Maybe you just had a bad experience where you were taken advantage of physically. But a warm hug a friend patting your hand and putting their arm around you when you're upset, why would you NOT want to have all that sweet affection? To me THAT'S not natural.
 bucsgirl
Joined: 3/2/2005
Msg: 13
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:53:02 PM
Sweetie I've got kids older than you and no disrespect intended, but I think after a few years you'll change your way of thinking. I am a live and let live type of person, because every person's morals and values are theirs and theirs only. If you want to save ALL physical contact for marriage, have at it. Just don't talk about YOUR morals like they're the only ones or the correct ones.
 bucsgirl
Joined: 3/2/2005
Msg: 15
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:57:16 PM
Well you started out in the OP talking about men and women, then ended up talking about no physical contact at all. Thanks for clarifying. I never said anything like that just wondering if you had had a bad experience that you wanted absolutely NO physical contact with a MAN until marriage including hugging, or kissing. Just wondering, as that is a bit extreme. Affection is affection, doesn't necessarily have to lead to sex, even between a man and a woman.
 cuter_than_anyone
Joined: 10/28/2005
Msg: 16
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:57:27 PM
i can't live without the physical either. i totally respect people for wanting to wait to have sex, they have their reasons.

but no snuggling.

i think it would kill me
 cuter_than_anyone
Joined: 10/28/2005
Msg: 18
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:59:40 PM
what are they teaching people in sunday school these days?

if you abstain from the physical aspects of love until you get married how can you be sure you'd even be able to do it after you get married.

cold fishies!!
 wildfire1950
Joined: 1/10/2006
Msg: 19
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:59:47 PM
Meg,

I am not hurling a judgment at anyone, but you found out right here that God and religion is a greatly misunderstood subject. You know and I know that God has spoken about things like fornication and adultery. However, those who have a preconceived notion about God have taken their liberty to speak up with their own expressions of opinion. Those opinions are diverse and many of them are mistaken because they are not founded on real truth.

What will be done now? You are in a dilemma. You have opened the door and people are speaking their opinions. Some right and some wrong. All are fuilly convinced.

Meg, I feel sorry for your generation. It must be so difficult to find pure people who have the will to get into a wholesome marriage and tend to it the way it deserves to be tended. I have often told people that I would hate to be out in this world and looking for a soul mate. There's so little to choose from and so much treachery to fall into.

Hold on to what you've got. You are the only one I am responding to and you are the only one who really has the most wholesome view. Don't pay any attention to anyone calling you naive. You are not that at all. You are a well informed and dedicated Christian lady. I hope that you will find a worthy man to be your partner in life.

Ken
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 2:10:16 PM
Meg, I'm but a man with an opinion: The fact you aren't addressing any1real's excellent post begs the question: Are you lokking for dialouge and debate, or are you in the end trying to sure up a pulpit here?

We are not monagomous by nature (Boy I'm getting tired of typing that). Abstinence is as much a creation of man as the Bible is. I'm not going to bore people again with the realities I and others just tried to convey in the "Woman made for Man" thread. The simple fact is that you have to come to your own belief system. The fact you put forth the question confirms you have doubts of your own. I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about the Biblical Institutions you're apparently struggling with. If you wish to "save" yourself for marriage I commend you. But the no touching stuff is quasi-agoraphobic IMHO. If it is a guy's conditions for you then I think you know how much stock any of us would put in that. Remember I often have no idea what I'm talking about like most of us here. So, DO THE RESEARCH yourself, don't trust the word of even family to convey the broadest realities of our world.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 2:23:06 PM
You're being judged by someone in a bubble. Therefore inconsequential however annoying at the moment it might be. The REAL TRUTH is that more than 3 dozen men wrote and rewrote the Bible over centuries more than a thousand years after purported events. THE REAL TRUTH is that knowledge comes from viable syllogisms, not the rhetoric of myopic "Christians" or socialy, not necessarily devinely, inspired institutions.

Meg, please throw those rose colored glasses away and embrace knowledge, not manipulative rhetoric and outright falsehoods about a wonderful faith. One person's reality is another's delusion, never forget that. To dismiss dissenting opinion without substance moves you no closer to understanding. LEARN, don't allow yourself to be indoctrinated by institution in the disguise of faith.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 2:55:14 PM
Meg, you need to consider offering substantial rebuttal instead of self serving and quasi hysterical rhetoric once in awhile.

No "comfort and support?" One last little impositionist jab before you run off and cry? Please.

If you want to discuss Christianity STUDY IT first. Come back with some viable syllogisms and you might be surprised by the reception. However much I wish you'd of put this in the religion forum you know I of course wish you well in all your pursuits be they this myopic or otherwise.

Paz contiga,

John
 bucsgirl
Joined: 3/2/2005
Msg: 37
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 2:55:33 PM
megd You took my post and mislabeled it if that comment was directed at me, I assume it was. I never said you were naive, if I did, please post the message no. I was raised to have respect for and learn from people with more life experience than me, and I can say that by being open to that it has enriched my life. It's likely that unless you're an enigma, you will change how you think and live with more life experience. I doubt that all your opinions and thoughts will be exactly the same when you have as many years of life as I have. How you extrapolate that to being naive, I can't see. You are certainly an adult and are entitled to have your own thoughts on how you're going to live your life. You DID, by inference suggest that the way YOU view relationships is the moral way so you set yourself up as the authority on what is moral. Since you did not qualify that as to what is moral for you, it suggests that that is what is moral for everyone. Hopefully it was an error of omission. If not, then you subject yourself to well deserved criticism as the moral consciousness of all humankind. And now you want to make a graceful exit. Could make one wonder how strongly you DO believe what you do, if you don't care to explain or defend it.
 bucsgirl
Joined: 3/2/2005
Msg: 43
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 3:09:02 PM
megd It's fine to believe passionately, as well you should. But to attempt to change the beliefs of others, I think that's where you were wrong. In doing that you invited the argument and mockery. By wanting to change people's basic beliefs and morals you put yourself as knowing what's better for them than what they have come to believe on their own out of their own life experiences. You only have responsibility for you and your life, and you can only change you, not anyone else. You'll have a much more positive influence on others by respecting their beliefs and sharing your own, as different as they may be.
 bucsgirl
Joined: 3/2/2005
Msg: 49
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 3:40:13 PM
There are things that I believe more strongly than others. I'd still like to at least THINK that I am still open minded and can listen to what others think about their how they live their life. As far as relationships with morals, ALL relationships have morals as both people have their own moral code or values whatever you choose to call it. People whose values are more compatible are those whose relationships have a better chance at surviving over the long haul.
 bucsgirl
Joined: 3/2/2005
Msg: 53
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 5:23:09 PM
I'm all for sex education when the child is curious and at an age and at a level they can understand. I think ignorance MORE than education is a greater temptation to explore or find out about it in ways that could be harmful. This is something that pedophiles exploit is kids' curiousity about sex. I'd much rather children be given accurate information in the environment of either school or at home, or both. My kids did, and it's still a subject that I'm open to talking about, but I don't force it either. Seems to have worked well for my family, anyway. I certainly didn't treat it as something taboo or nasty or dirty.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 5:35:36 PM
Great question Stevn, awseome answer bucs. In reality ignorance is very rarely blissfull let alone productive.

I am sorry you felt ridiculed by any of my posts or those of others. IMHO you mispsoke, were confronted by logic and it's contradictory value simply put you on the defensive. If you want rational discussion I suggest you look up what a syllogism is. Don't worry, most of the world has no idea what one is too. Give yourself some time Meg. Cherish and honor your conviction, but don't discount others because they require more substance before contemplating that leap of faith. There are men not driven by sex. Just remember that might prove problematic when the sex actually arrives.

 Frrosty
Joined: 3/21/2004
Msg: 57
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 9:25:31 PM

Do yall think a relationship is possible with no physical attachment at all? And I mean no, kissing, hugging, holding hands, sex, anything...just a pure relationhsip built on the basics:trust, communicatin, and love.


I really dont see it happening.

Touching, for me, IS a part of communication AND of love.
 carribeanking7
Joined: 4/10/2005
Msg: 58
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 9:27:23 PM
A relationship based solely on sex will never last,
neither will a relationship without sex.........
I have experienced both firsthand......


Trust, affection,communication,respect and honesty are very important.
 carribeanking7
Joined: 4/10/2005
Msg: 59
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/19/2006 9:33:01 PM
Quote :
You left out the sex part....


Nope...it is part of affection..sex,hugs ,touch, backrubs,kisses etc ...etc
 marathonman11x7
Joined: 4/29/2005
Msg: 60
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/20/2006 7:21:31 AM

Do yall think a relationship is possible with no physical attachment at all? And I mean no, kissing, hugging, holding hands, sex, anything...just a pure relationhsip built on the basics:trust, communicatin, and love.


YES!...Its called FRIENDSHIP Friendship is great. Friendship is a TYPE of relationship. Sometimes friendships can lead to a more romantic type of relationship,it is then that it CAN lead to a more sensuous relationship in which hugging,kissing,holding hands is an important expression of nonverbal communication. Its still pure and based upon trust,communication and love. In fact it incorperates a higher expression of nonverbal communication. That type of sensuous romantic relationship may or may not lead to a sexual relationship depending on belief/values. Sometimes people skip most of the above and go striaght to the sexual relationship. My point? They're ALL POSSIBLE and ALL are "relationships" regardless of label. Kind of sad that BOTH the 1st and last relationship types mentioned are EXTREMES.Worse that the sexual relationship in which all else is basically skipped is more frequently championed.
 YamIhere
Joined: 3/17/2005
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/20/2006 12:09:42 PM
Meg,
No to knock the Bible, God or the concepts you have forwarded here, but I can’t see this as being the case. I mean, physical attraction is the most basic level of attraction whether or not you are someone who is Godly. I’ve had nuns tell me they feel physical attraction to men. It’s just being human. Acting on them is also just being human. We're created to make mistakes and sin.
 Melodic Euphoria
Joined: 3/22/2005
Msg: 68
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/20/2006 1:34:44 PM

I think that my basic point is that physical touch should have nothing to do with love...you dont have to be physical to develop love...and I have many friends as well that i share love, trust, and communication with. But, what I am talking about is a realtionhsip that you display the very most of self-control and say no to the desires you have physically.


When two people are in love, they are compelled to express their love for each other, which is the basis for any healthy relationship - communication. Physical contact, such as hugging and kissing and, yes, making love, are just as important in the artful expression of love as the words and promises you whisper in their ears, or the commitments, devotions and sacrifices made in the name of love. Love is what it makes you do for your lover, whether physically, emotionally or spiritually. It's a shame that so many aspects of religion, especially in opressive societies, have taught us to view the natural process of reproduction between two human beings as sinful and immoral.
 Melodic Euphoria
Joined: 3/22/2005
Msg: 69
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/20/2006 1:38:33 PM
I think this post is made of an endorsement for repression. That's anything but healthy or meaningful.
 Melodic Euphoria
Joined: 3/22/2005
Msg: 71
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/20/2006 1:49:22 PM


Meg, I feel sorry for your generation. It must be so difficult to find pure people who have the will to get into a wholesome marriage and tend to it the way it deserves to be tended. I have often told people that I would hate to be out in this world and looking for a soul mate. There's so little to choose from and so much treachery to fall into.


Amen
 Melodic Euphoria
Joined: 3/22/2005
Msg: 72
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/20/2006 1:53:29 PM

That's far from true.

Why does everyone go on pretending that their view on sexuality is the ONLY valid one ?

Chastity vs. promiscuity ... it is a personal decision, right ?

There is no right answer.


Unless I need a new perscription for my eye contacts, I believe this post talks about "discipline" - basically refraining oneself from the expression of one's affection towards a loved ones through physical contact. Unless something went wrong at birth, basically anybody is born with a propensity to show affection in moments of love. I don't mean to assert my opinions in a dogmatic manner, but restraining yourself from showing affection...how is that not opression?

Oh, I apologize. I said repression? Oh well, I think my message still got through.
 Melodic Euphoria
Joined: 3/22/2005
Msg: 73
Relationships with morals
Posted: 1/20/2006 1:57:21 PM
"I have a feeling I'm gonna hear that as the next great pick-up line"

*jog down some notes

**notebook labeled: "top seductive lines of the century"
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > Relationships with morals