He cheats and she wants to talk. She cheats and he wants to walk. The adage spotlights the sex difference that answers Her Highness Girl at post 1689.
Girl asks for these definitions. Think of chastity as the state of being chaste or pure and abstinence as the process of self-denial. Example: She’s chaste because she abstains.
Girl asks, “How does one make it very clear that her reasons are moral so that the man will not take it as a personal rejection?” Live a moral life. Often mention how morality benefits women (reduces fear, etc.). Go to church regularly. Demonstrate that she lives up to something bigger than humanity, such as God, gospel, and moral principles. Don’t claim she’s saving herself for her husband but that she’s saving for herself and the man that qualifies as her husband.
A woman can also frequently cite differences between the commitment so easy to generate in courtship and the devotion so essential to sustain in marriage. However, she should never say things like this: If you’ll do so and so, I’ll really love you. Proclaiming that her love is so conditional means that his attraction will be conditional, which means that fidelity will not likely enter his mind.
Her Highness Girl also asks about an unmarried man undergoing six months of faithfulness to his girlfriend, if a married man can’t go six weeks. She cites the example of a wife six weeks after giving birth who fell asleep during sex. Apples and oranges. First, a married man is entitled, but a bachelor isn’t. Second, wife fell asleep and figuratively kicked him in the groin with his apparent incompetence. She effectively destroyed his sense of sexual significance. You may recall: A man’s greatest fear is insignificance, and he fears it most from his wife. Sexual insignificance makes her immediately expendable in the mind of most men, although I don’t know how the couple ended up. Third, bachelors can hold off as long as they have to, if the promise they see in a woman (as opposed to her promises) makes waiting worthwhile.
Girl also asks, “Is it then realistic to expect a man will be servicing himself elsewhere whilst simultaneously proving his worth to me?” Is it realistic to think that way? Of course, Nature pressures men very effectively. Men word their commitments to leave some independence, some maneuvering room. It’s not her but masculine nature. For a man to remain faithful voluntarily, he has to see great promise in a girlfriend and greatly fear losing her. It doesn’t mean every boyfriend will cheat, but it’s likely if opportunity arises. Consequently, when women expect monogamy out of a man’s words of commitment, girlfriends usually lose.
When men marry, or demonstrate devotion to a woman sufficient to marry, they voluntarily remain loyal to the extent their character supports it. Their wives or girlfriends may win or lose. A man’s character determines his ability to withstand the pressures of Nature, pass up opportunities to cheat, and remain loyal to a woman or vows.
Women are blessed with less inclination to cheat and superb ability to recover. It exists in this primal sex difference. To a man, his woman’s physical fidelity is paramount. If she strays, she pays and usually with abandonment. To a woman, emotional rather than physical fidelity reigns as most important. She can tolerate his unfaithfulness, if his emotional dedication to her remains. His physical unfaithfulness doesn’t threaten her hopes and dreams unless he has become emotionally detached from her or attaches to someone else.
God designs, Nature endows, and hormones energize the sexes for balance. Men get the easy way. They are more inclined to cheat and more easily escape for having done wrong. Women are less inclined to cheat and more loyal to children. They are also blessedly endowed to recover, preserve their future even if it dims in the process, and fulfill whatever remains of their hopes and dreams. Thus, women are idealized to fulfill their sole natural mission, that of making life good for their family.