thoughts on morality, manwhorishness and the confluence thereof

Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about manwhores. It started when I began writing my second piece for Penthouse, this guide for men who want to be moral manwhores, and then as I was embroiled in avoiding rewriting the piece and then submerged in reluctantly revising it, the subject sort of slogged to the forefront my frontal lobe, crawling slowly as a nocturnal creature out of its dark recesses and into the light. Now that I’ve just cashed the check for the article, it seems like I can’t not talk about it.

Just to set up a base line understanding, I don’t have any problem with manwhores. In my mind, a man is as free to fornicate freely and wantonly as dolphins in the dating pool that is life. I don’t believe that monogamy is the answer for everyone, nor even for any one person his—or her—whole life. I am not the kind of person who would take the time out of her day to castigate a person for rambunctious sexual activity or exuberant sexual desires. If you’re a man who wants to put notches in your belt until it falls apart and fragments into a thousand leathery strips, rock on with your bad self.

Same thing if you’re a chick, by the way.

(I should also take this moment to say that I’m not the kind of person to chastise those chaste people who choose to remain virgins until marriage or forever. I may not understand it, but I’m not going to say that my way is the only way, and people who do opt against having sex have a right to have their decisions respected, even if I can’t fathom doing it, or not doing it, as it were. While I really, truly don’t understand people who are virgins and don’t masturbate—and I know some—I do respect the decisions of those who remain incomprehensibly abstinent.)

I do, however, have an issue with people who don’t fuck morally. I’ve fucked an awful lot of men. More than your average chick admits to, anyway. Some of those sex acts I’d relive again in a heartbeat; some of them I would gladly have eternally erased from my spotty mind; and most fall into the giant crevasse between sublimity and horror, wherein I feel neither the need to lave myself in their reminiscence nor the desire to scourge myself in their memory. But looking back at those various and sundry sex acts, or as many of them as I can recall,  and arrayed before me they form a prodigious and sweaty lot, I have to say that what separates the fucking wheat from the genital chaff often has less to do with the sex than it has to do with the partner, and how ethical that man (or woman) acted.

I myself have cheated. I have also fucked men who were cheating. I can understand why people cheat. Sometimes people, flawed beings that we are, put our feelings into actions, not words, and sometimes those actions include frottage, fellatio, cunnilingus, coitus, and other Latin terms. I also don’t for a moment suggest that cheating—the act of having sex outside a committed relationship without the express understanding of both committed partners—is moral. (I take a more grey area on the person who is the cheated with—to me, if you’re fucking a person who is cheating, you should know what you’re getting yourself into, but you are not responsible for the actions of the person you’re fucking. I think far too much attention gets thrown at the cheated with, when it’s the cheater who has made the choice. But I do understand these are debatable concepts). There is no way, however justifiable, a cheating person is a moral person because he or she choosing not to honor a commitment.

But, really, cheating is the least of it.

For me, a moral manwhore (or its feminine equivalent) is delineated by how upfront he is in a relationship. A moral manwhore is open about his manwhorish ways, and he lets the woman (or man) in question knowingly decide whether she (or he) wants to have sex with a man who is not interested in commitment. Some of us do, some of us don’t. It should be up to us to decide, openly and honestly, and not colored by the shiny Cubic Zirconia  gilt of false romantic promises, or fake identities, or other pointless and potentially hurtful lies. A moral manwhore, in short, puts the “man” in whore, and he isn’t fearful that he may lose out in lays because he’s honest.

A moral manwhore, too, is one who respects the woman he’s fucking. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been stood up when I was supposed to hook up. I can certainly understand how real life can intervene in the best laid plans. I can also understand how men sometimes change their minds. I cannot understand, however, how it is that my time becomes less valuable than his, nor can I understand why in this day of nigh-unto-implantable technological devices, it’s so difficult to make a phone call, write an email or send a text to say you can’t make it. A woman who is ready and willing to have sex with a guy is a woman deserving of common politeness.

Ultimately—and this matter is both the most fundamental and the most ephemeral—a moral manwhore knows why he’s a manwhore. The unexamined sex life is not worth living, as far as I’m concerned, and it’s even less worth fucking a person who has not examined his. A moral manwhore isn’t out to hurt women. He isn’t, like the Vampire I had the distinct displeasure to dally with, out to gather hearts, heartlessly. He doesn’t want to feed his ego on the tender flesh of a chick’s sexual permission. He doesn’t want to fool anyone; he just wants to fuck them. And he has looked at why he’s doing what he’s doing and come to peace with it.

Sure, there are other things. Moral manwhores always wear condoms, bring their own, don’t whinge about donning them, and dispose of them after. They don’t pick on, or pick up, women who are clearly damaged or too young and not currently able to make fully informed decisions. They call or email politely to end their dalliances. They don’t expect their fuckbuddies to do favors for them. They put down the toilet seat. They take no for an answer. And so on.

But really, what being a moral manwhore comes down to is just being a real adult. Treating other people as you yourself would want to be treated. Respecting others. Playing nice, Not running with scissors. And knowing not only what you want, but why you want it.

Comments

[Mouse]

I totally disagree with you about moral responsibility of the "cheated with" person.

Someone who knowingly and willingly assists a murderer in committing a murder is not absolved of responsibility for the crime. The same applies to someone who knowingly and willingly sleeps with a cheater. There is no grey area. It's unethical and a scumbag thing to do. The cheated with is aiding and abetting an activity that causes enormous emotional harm to the cheated on partner. So, they are part of a moral committment--the committment to do no harm and to treat others as they would like to be treated. That's a basic principle of ethics.

I've cheated and been cheated on. The emotional pain that cheating causes the faithful partner if/when he/she finds out is horrific and there is no justification for it. Cheating is nothing more than an act of extreme selfishness and utter cowardice. Cheaters are cowards because they don't have the guts to honestly leave a relationship that they're not happy with. And deep down, there is also a desire, in many cases of cheating, to hurt and humilate the non-cheating partner.

So, yes, moral manwhores (or whores) who are upfront about their intentions and who don't deceive people are to be admired and praised for their honesty and ethical bravery.

[chris kraft]

what you call "being an adult" i call "having character." and having character means taking responsibility for your actions, being straight-forward, polite and HONEST, even if there's bad news to deliver. funny thing is, it's not always age-dependent. sometimes you see kids who have it and too often you see adults who don't.

how are you feeling?

CK

[Rocco Tool]

God, My sentiments exactly. You express it far better than I ever could. Women will always be treated with respect by Me; either in the bedroom or outside it. Of course, that doesn't mean I won't be a little rough with them, if that whips their cream.

[Karl Elvis]

Mouse, I profoundly disagree with you.

The idea of extending an arbitrary agreement between two people out unto infinity is morally and logically insane. It's akin to saying, I practice a particular religion in my own home, thus everyone I come in contact with me is obliged to practice it when we're together.

Relationship terms - monogamy, pluralism, poly, or whatever the hell you want it call it - is a personal agreement between the people involved. It extends not one tiny increment of measure beyond those people.

I may choose - out of respect - to say, no, your rules forbid it, I honor your rules. This is akin to saying, in your church I'll don some ceremonial garb out of respect, not for the religion, but for those who sit by me. It's a social choice, a gesture, made not from moral obligation but out of *earned respect*. Donning the garb isn't the same as practicing the belief.

What you're saying - with a laughable comparison to *the crime of murder* - is that I have a moral obligation to honor your choice to be monogamous if your partner chooses something other than monogamy. But your agreement with said partner has no applicability to me; I do not consent to your arbitrary rule, nor does it bind me in any moral sense.

If your partner chooses to violate an agreement with you, that moral, ethical, karmic debt is between you and your partner. It's not mine, and I reject your attempt to apply your rules to the lives of people around you.

Yes, cheating can be devastating. We all understand that. But cheating, to use the obvious game analogy, does not apply to people who are not in the game.

[Mouse]

Karl,

I wasn't suggesting a moral equivalency between murder and cheating/adultery. An accomplice to murder is an accomplice and they are held reponsible in law. But it doesn't have to be murder; the crime is irrelevant. It can be any crime in which someone knowingly assists the perpertrator. If they're not coerced or forced to be accomplices, then they are guilty of causing harm. Moreover, the cheating partner can't cheat (can't violate the monogamous agreement) without an accomplice.

The ethical principle of "do no harm" trumps any agreement between two people. The cheater is guilty of cheating and breaking the agreement. The cheated with is not part of the monogamous contract. But, the cheated with is guilty of causing harm and encouraging another person to cause harm by cheating and breaking the monogamous contract.

In the past and in some states (e.g., North Carolina), the faithful partner can sue for damages against the unfaithful partner and the cheated with. There are two possible civil actions: "alienation of affection" and "criminal conversation."

1) "The tort of alienation of affections seeks damages against a third party who “alienates” the affections of one spouse from the other spouse. The lawsuit is usually brought by the innocent spouse against the guilty spouse’s lover."
.....
"This tort is based on the wrongful, malicious acts of a third party which are intended to destroy a marriage or alienate one spouse’s affections from the other spouse. Wrongful, malicious acts will, of course, include sexual intercourse with the unfaithful spouse. To be liable for damages, the third party’s wrongful acts must also be proven to have caused one spouse to lose affections for the other spouse."

2) "The tort of criminal conversation seeks damages for the act of sexual intercourse between the spouse and a third party. Each act of adultery can give rise to a separate claim for criminal conversation."

You can read a little more about it here:

http://www.divorcesource.com/NC/ARTICLES/gilpin11.html

http://www.montylaw.com/04_01_08_alienation.php

[Karl Elvis]

You're quoting torts? Wow, is that ever a sign of a failed moral argument, mouse. Shall we trot out the laws that including stoning women to death for adultery, or the ones against oral sex between consenting partners? Why don't we discuss how it's illegal in some places to marry someone you love if they're the wrong gender or race, yet in other places, a man can legally have as many wives as he wants. And why don't we move on to the lady who sued a major fast food chain because - guess what - hot coffee is hot! (yes, she won)

My point? Stupid laws don't get less stupid just because they're posted on the internet, and they don't support your position simply by existing.

So let's stick with what is entirely a philosophical argument rather that whacking each other over the head with moronic laws.

I understand you feel there's a grand moral imperative in the universe such that I have an over-riding obligation to do no harm; swell. That's just as sound as having to wear a little hat in your church or having to eat fish on fridays. And just as arbitrary a part of your belief system. Yes, I understand you buy into it, as you buy into a strict idea of monogamy. Swell; enjoy. But you're extending your moral feelings outside your moral realm. That's an excellent guideline for you to live by; cheers. But your choice to invest great moral weight where you do doesn't extend beyond yourself any more than your agreements of monogamy extends beyond you and your partner(s). It's still your own personal notion of rightness.

You're standing on the presumption that your moral conviction represents a higher law; it doesn't. A soap box does not constitute high moral ground.

The agreement in question is broken by those in it. Those outside said agreement have no responsibility to abide by it; that's entirely voluntary.

[O]

Karl,

You rock. You just freaking rock.

I don't have much to add to that breathtaking smackdown, but here's a little tomato I'll throw:

Mouse, let's pretend there is a moral law that says "First, do no harm". Let's even pretend we all accept that there is such a law and that we all want to abide by it. (We have entered the realm of fantasy, but let's have a little thought experiment to show why your position fails even if I grant you your premises.)

Ok, how shall we apply that law? How do we put it into practice?
First we'd all have to agree on the class of things we call "harm".

And we don't. We don't agree. And we're not going to.

By the way, in this fantasy realm where there are meta-laws that we all endorse,like "First do no harm", there would certainly be one that says something like "Don't impose your personal standards on those that reject them."

[dido]

i am glad that somebody has answered to mouse. especially as they did it far better that i could have (what with my linguistic limitations etc) however, i would like to point out that being a moral manwhore seems to have its own innate dangers...as in: "oh he sleeps with me, he is treating me nicely, he must be in love. he is clearly stating that he is not? oh, men do not know what they are talking about anyway..." obviously, that probe of human stupidity is not an argument against being a mm. it's more of a thought triggered by this (very nice) text and some things in my life.

but while i am at it, i'd like to add that i do chastise people who choose not to fuck. "unfucked" is one of th every few swear words that i use.

[Ethical Slut]

Ok, so monogamy is a stupid pact, and ethics are impossible to define, so let's all bash each others heads in? I don't think so.