Should I have premarital sex?

>the girl might regret it later in the future
>guys want girls with a low body count including myself so fricking b***hes is hypocritical?
>imagine you had a daughter, would you want her getting fricked by some random guy?
at the same time, I have a strong urge to just hook up with a girl off tinder or something. I've been stopping myself so far for religious reasons but I've slowly been losing faith.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > Should I have premarital sex?
    Not if you want an exclusive, lasting, or happy marriage.
    But if you have irrepressible urges to frick around, you might as well, since at least you're being honest--just don't pressure women into it. It would be far worse to wait until marriage only to cheat on your wife when the inner manprostitute comes out.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >imagine you had a daughter, would you want her getting fricked by some random guy?

    controlling your daughters sex life for your own personal vendetta against bawds is a great way to land yourself in pedo jail. you people are mentally insane

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >caring about your children's dignity and well-being should land you in jail
      And you call OP a lunatic.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        children’s dignity or your 18+ young adults dignity? are we actually talking about minors here i think not. but yes please tell me how you would make sure your kid only has sex with people you approve of. and if she sucks a dick that didn’t meet your criteria you would stop giving her hugs

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Are you ESL or just stupid? Your children. You know, family.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i would honor kill my daughter if she turned out to be a filthy prostitute. she will marry the man i choose for her and go to her marraige bed a virgin having never so much as held hands with another man or spoken to one without a male relative present. once she belongs to him she is his to discipline as he sees fit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You need help

            You'll catch an STI for sure with your "luck". Hold fast to the course, you were right to come this far

            Just wear a condom kek, are you stupid?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Spoken like a crabs infested prostitute.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean you only live once. Yeah there's a risk to everything. Does that mean you should completely avoid it? Do you want to live or just be alive?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How did you connect pedophilia to that? LMAO. you're insane.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    make a list of pros and cons and next to each write a number of how important it is to you on a scale of 1-10.
    then compare the pros and cons and see if you're happy with the outcome
    If you're happy with the outcome feel free to do that thing
    if you're not happy with the outcome, then examine why or don't move forward with prepmarital sex.

    I've had some premarital sex and it can be fun, but honestly it's the best when it's with someone you really care about. I've only had 2 one-night stands and those are not worth it. It's mostly an ego trip.

    Not sure how helpful that is but that's my 2c

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good for you OP not being a sheep and falling into the devils trap, so far...
    You'll get a lot of shit for it, but you shouldn't listen to the crowd, I'm sure most of them are jealous.
    If you can find a nice girl and you both save yourself for marriage then you've achieved the greatest free gift this life has to offer.
    I'm not proud of my bodycount and life decisions and nor is my GF, it add nothing but pain and stress to you and your partners life.
    I sincerely hope you stay strong, as cheesy as it sounds think what would Jesus do, good luck.
    Love & peace.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sort out your religious terror first or it’ll ruin any joy you’ll get, whatever decision you make. Besides, sex is supposed to be fun, and it’s more fun with someone you like. It’s gonna be better with a girlfriend. Hooking up with a random on a whim won’t guarantee you a good time.

    Your struggles with your faith are just the logical conclusion of a reforming and simplifying impulse that pervades monotheism. Every time the prevailing ideology runs up against reality and fails, it sheds some of the old ways and reformulates itself, shedding bits of the old. Maybe you don’t need all these gods becomes maybe you don’t need all these temples everywhere becomes maybe you don’t need a temple at all, becomes maybe this message is for everyone and not just a chosen people becomes maybe we don’t need secular power becomes maybe we don’t need all these traditions becomes maybe we don’t need miracles becomes maybe we don’t need a god at all. You’re just taking the next to last step to its logical conclusion.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sex is cringe and you shouldn care about it enough to interact with somebody just for sex.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >sex without worry
    or
    >sex with worry of unwanted pregnancy, overattachment to someone you don't love, ruining a person's mind, STDs, and rape accusation, while also putting a plastic bag on your dick

    Honestly if you're that fricked up rub it out and confess but believe me the few minutes of "pleasure" fades quick and you will forever attempt to retain it.

    Even outside of a religious preview, all these sex havers aren't happy but keep rotating and run the dopamine high until they die. Stay strong lad. I will pray for you.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You'll catch an STI for sure with your "luck". Hold fast to the course, you were right to come this far

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Should I have premarital sex?
    The question you should be asking is "Do you really want to wait until AFTER you are married to find out that you and your spouse are not sexually compatible?"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >'sexual compatibility' meme again
      Too bad it's complete nonsense.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Too bad it's complete nonsense
        Anyone who has actually been in a sexual relationship knows otherwise.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What they think isn't the same as what actually happens; people citing "sexual compatibility" are typically just rationalizing their impulses to have sex without commitment. The reality is that those who wait, even controlling for religion, not only divorce less but have happier marriages. And they even report higher sexual quality. Whatever the supposed risks of waiting, they are clearly and consistently outweighed by the benefits.

          This is because almost every supposed issue of "incompatibility" is addressed at least as well, and typically better, by communicating well and not having sex outside of marriage. The only exception is for the kind of person who specifically prioritizes getting immediate, no-strings-attached, and maximally gratifying sex. And this kind of person is obviously not the target of the standard.

          Big difference in libidos? People with high libidos are neither willing nor able to wait in the vast majority of cases, and they will move on quickly if faced with the prospect of waiting. Compare this to the cliche of people having sex a ton at the beginning of a relationship, only for the pace to slow, and the higher-libido partner getting frustrated, cheating, and/or leaving anyway.

          Disgusting fetish? Not only is this rare, but it's concentrated far more among hypersexual people, and fetish communities themselves emphasize how important it is to communicate BEFORE foisting a fetish onto a partner. Having sex first and asking questions later adds nothing but risk.

          Literal deformity? Even more rare, and not only would this be apparent at a glance, but anyone with the barest shred of honesty and self-awareness would communicate this before getting sexual.

          tl;dr waiting demonstrably works better than not for producing happy, lasting (and sexually fulfilled) marriages.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, those rates are similar everywhere. I'm sure it sounds good in your head.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There isn't actual evidence that suggests this is significantly true. Yes, divorce rates are slightly lower but that can be correlated with other factors.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            On the contrary, every single piece of evidence out there corroborates what I've said about waiting being beneficial.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you able to share this evidence? If it’s true, it should be a consistent result and therefore easy to replicate in multiple studies, so it should be easy to find.

            On the other hand, if it’s not true, the result won’t be consistent and so the only places you’ll see claiming it is are those with a vested interest in the result or a conservative social agenda. Maybe you’ll have one study by the University of Tehran or sponsored by the Mormon Church that’s only ever cited by conservative think tanks and religious podcasts. Maybe it even appears on Wikipedia, but the article only cites an unsourced claim from the paper’s abstract. And then when you read the study, you drill into the numbers and find cherry picked results or statistical malpractice, like that the survey respondents were all recruited from sexual addict support groups run by Catholic charities.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. Among others:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00996.x/abstract
            >Bivariate results suggested that delaying sexual involvement was associated with higher relationship quality across several dimensions. The multivariate results indicated that the speed of entry into sexual relationships was negatively associated with marital quality, but only among women."

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract
            >"I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution."

            http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25811-011
            >"Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length."

            https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12009
            >"The research objective was to test whether the number of sexual partners was associated with sexual quality, communication, relationship satisfaction, and relationship stability, while controlling for relationship length, education, race, income, age, and religiosity, using the two competing theories of sexual compatibility and sexual restraint. The results, with a sample of 2,654 married individuals, indicated that the number of sexual partners was associated with lower levels of sexual quality, communication, and relationship stability, providing support for the sexual restraint theory."

            I challenge you to find something to the contrary. Sociology is hardly known as a bastion of reactionary thought, so if these are just cherry-picked hacks, then surely, you'd be able to find a sensible analysis somewhere in the field.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cool

            First study is restricted to low income couples with kids and is trying to paint the wider hypothesis that moving in together too soon leads to worse relationships. The link being that if you start having sex early into a relationship, it leads to you committing too soon. I mean… yeah? Committing too soon to someone before you got to know them is a bad idea, especially if you don’t have much in the way of resources.

            Second study abstract you linked to goes on to say “ These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages. Indeed, the findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation limited to one's future spouse has become part of the normal courtship process for marriage.” And again, the lowered risk of marriage dissolution for women with more than one intimate partner is an association and not causation. It could easily be explained by other factors like religiosity.

            Third study you linked to is literally Mormon propaganda, but let’s engage with it in good faith. From the study’s discussion: “ The strength of the associations of sexual timing with the other variables in this study are moderate, and in the group analysis are often small. Consequently to state that the results indicate that people who engage in early sexual relations are at great risk for relationship problems would be an error. Clearly there are many other aspects of relationship functioning that are not measured in our study.” This is pretty clear when you look at the results. While there is some association between hooking up early and relationship dissatisfaction, the impact of communication is TEN times greater.

            The final paper is by the same author and looks at the same dataset, but asks a different question. Again, it found a small effect, dwarfed by the impacts of good communication.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ran out of space, but if you actually read the papers, they don’t prove virginity = strong relationships. What they do seem to show is that good, clear communication about what the relationship is, the level of commitment expected from both parties and plans for the future are MUCH more important predictors of relationship success than whether or not someone has had sex before they were married.

            If you’re really worried about it, wait until you’ve been dating for a month before you have sex. That appears to have the most association with bad relationship outcomes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for actually engaging with the sources and being civil. I hope I can return the favor.

            I'll remind you, though, that I wasn't claiming that waiting was a panacea, or that it is the only relevant factor. I said it was beneficial. Each of the sources you saw showed just that--no more, no less. Remember, the context is some other anon claiming that "sexual compatibility" is an important and good reason to have sex before marriage, when all the evidence I've shown, at minimum, refutes the idea that waiting is on balance harmful.
            As you said, it should be a consistent result, which it is; I encourage you to look for studies claiming the opposite, because you'll see for yourself where the evidence falls, despite the overall leanings of sociology. It's all along the same line as the sources I posted, but I'm open to you being the first to show otherwise.

            Also, regarding the second source, the advantage of waiting is that it's repeatable. You capture that "only had sex with spouse" benefit no matter how many people you had to date to find your life partner. I don't think it's surprising that a legal maneuver, in itself, doesn't change the nature of a relationship. But tying that legality to personal behavior, in the form of sexual restraint, does.

            Lastly, I think you are heavily overestimating the impact religiosity has on divorce (caveat: Mormons in particular do have a notably lower divorce rate). In the US, the religious sometimes have higher rates of divorce than the norm, and religiosity--at least measured by prayer/church attendance--doesn't move the needle much at all.
            https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/marital-status/

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s the thing - the papers don’t actually show that only having sex with one person is beneficial. There is an association, a very weak one, and there’s no demonstrated causal link.

            It might be, for instance, that some people are naturally very good at getting into and maintaining relationships. These people will find a compatible match early, and stick with that person until they die. Maybe they’re just open, outgoing, honest, loyal, wealthy, good-looking, lucky people. They make it work with their first love.

            Another cohort might be middling at relationships, and not have the stars align the first few times. Maybe they chose the wrong person at first. Maybe life circumstances got in the way. Maybe they got into relationships and realised the person was wrong for them. For whatever reason, they got into relationships, had sex, but these relationships didn’t work out and they moved on.

            A third group is bad at relationships. They jump from person to person getting into situationships without ever communicating what they want or finding out what the other person wants. Maybe they get bored and cheat. Maybe they dump perfectly good people over petty bullshit. These people’s relationships are shallow, short-lived and unsatisfying. They also end up having had sex with lots of people.

            Imagine one person from each of the three groups finally gets married. On their wedding day, the person from the first group has a body count of one (their fiance), the person from the second group has a body count of three, while the person from the third is up to 8. What would you expect from this group? Person 1 ends up dying holding hands with their spouse in their bed at the age of 90. Person 2 in all probability stays with their spouse until they die, but let’s say there’s a 20% chance they divorced and remarried. Person 3 on the other hand, lived out their days alone after 4 failed marriages and 3 de facto relationships.

            To be continued

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The above example would give you an association between number of sexual partners and marriage dissolution, but that would have nothing to do with any of the participants having had sex.

            You know what else is correlated with marriage breakdown? Relationship length. The longer a cohabitating couple is together, the more likely they are to break up. That sounds alarming, but that’s literally how the passage of time works.

            The papers you cited are the result of looking for a headline researchers can parlay into guest speaker appearances and book sales. In the Busby et al study (third link, only full paper I could find online), the effect of the number of partners on marriage satisfaction is about as strong as relationship length (ie statistically significant, but weak and almost disappears in some groupings), and ten times weaker than the effect of communication within the relationship. The paper even discusses how weak the effect is, but you wouldn’t know it from reading just the abstract. The abstract instead implies a strong effect that happens to align with conservative morality to bait discussion, encourage lazy citations and maybe gin up some guest appearances on Fox News.

            As much fun as it’s been to go down the rabbit hole with you, I’m not gonna dig up a bunch of papers that say water is wet or that premarital sex doesn’t matter. For one it’s not my area, two it’d take days to do properly and three, I’ve wasted enough time already reading misleading moralistic bullshit from Bringham Young University.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The above example would give you an association between number of sexual partners and marriage dissolution, but that would have nothing to do with any of the participants having had sex.

            You know what else is correlated with marriage breakdown? Relationship length. The longer a cohabitating couple is together, the more likely they are to break up. That sounds alarming, but that’s literally how the passage of time works.

            The papers you cited are the result of looking for a headline researchers can parlay into guest speaker appearances and book sales. In the Busby et al study (third link, only full paper I could find online), the effect of the number of partners on marriage satisfaction is about as strong as relationship length (ie statistically significant, but weak and almost disappears in some groupings), and ten times weaker than the effect of communication within the relationship. The paper even discusses how weak the effect is, but you wouldn’t know it from reading just the abstract. The abstract instead implies a strong effect that happens to align with conservative morality to bait discussion, encourage lazy citations and maybe gin up some guest appearances on Fox News.

            As much fun as it’s been to go down the rabbit hole with you, I’m not gonna dig up a bunch of papers that say water is wet or that premarital sex doesn’t matter. For one it’s not my area, two it’d take days to do properly and three, I’ve wasted enough time already reading misleading moralistic bullshit from Bringham Young University.

            Even if (and it's a big if, considering the changes to both sexual behavior and divorce over the decades) the association is purely a correlation, that would still lend credence to the standard's ability to select for people with the first group's mindset.
            I don't see how it's so controversial to point out that people who follow a standard which values commitment over sex...tend to value commitment over sex.

            >I’m not gonna dig up a bunch of papers that say water is wet or that premarital sex doesn’t matter.
            >I'm convinced you're wrong, but no, I won't back it up because I know I don't need to
            Disappointing that you'd spend all this time just to double down and say you won't bother looking for evidence. I hoped you would be different from everyone else, for you to be the one to actually twist the supposed knife I've given you and post a single source to the contrary.
            I can never get further than I've gotten with you. I've seen people spend the better part of a day posting 100 paragraphs to argue about this subject, yet none of them have ever gone through the effort of actually showing what you claim is so obvious as to be beneath you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The onus is no longer on me to prove you wrong. The papers you linked to did that for me. I literally read a few abstracts and one full paper and was able to see that your post was full of selective quoting and misunderstanding the results.

            Also, I’m not a sociologist, (and so, I expect from your sloppy research methods, neither are you) so a full lit review would require me to familiarise myself with the state of the body of knowledge as well as the methods, models and explanatory framework they use. That’s if I engage with the material properly and in good faith.

            Or I could just do what you did and copy and paste some links from a blog so I can sound smart without having read or understood the material.

            Like I said before - your sources don’t say what you think they do because they’ve been presented to you in a misleading way. This happened because your easy-to-digest source has an agenda (and it’s not to do good science).

            Also, while holding out for a virgin will indeed filter out people who aren’t into commitment, this is still bad advice on a practical level and the equivalent of demanding a pet unicorn. Better advice would be learn to communicate your expectations for a relationship clearly, wait a month or so to have sex and to avoid moving in with someone before you’ve been together a year. No need to set unrealistic expectations or subscribe to an onerous set of sexual mores.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You asked for examples in a 2000-character post limit because you claimed it should be easy to find. I posted what is easy to find, something you could have verified for yourself. Don't be disingenuous and expect some kind of doctoral thesis on fricking NSFFW, then strut around like you've "proved" anything when you get exactly the NSFFW post you asked for.

            And no, I didn't get them from a blog. I haven't insulted your intelligence, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult mine.
            You wasted the time writing this post to insult me and dismiss what I said, when you could have spent it enlightening both of us with this obvious knowledge that I missed in my all-encompassing bias. I'm not asking for a thesis. I'm asking you to show me what I've overlooked, if it really is such a glaring omission I must have gone out of my way to avoid. A single source will do. Be as 'sloppy' as you like.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My brother in Christ, you literally claimed “every piece of evidence” supported your notion. I asked to see it and you posted some tangentially related abstracts from dubious sources that didn’t even say what you claimed they say. I pointed this out and now you’re screaming WELL WHAT ABOUT YOUR PROOF HUH?

            I’m also not going to look for “proof” because I know I won’t find any. Serious academics don’t make a study of questions where the causation mechanism is magical thinking and where the result, if you even find one, is likely to be weak and correlated with more explanatory mechanisms. Unless they’re trying to push an agenda and are prepared to use weak results and misleading paper titles / abstracts to make it happen.

            Besides, there’s no incentive in doing hard work to disprove cranks - they can publish BS faster than anyone can look at their work seriously. I might as well try to find papers that demonstrate the effect of nofap on forming relationships.

            I’ve got a job and a family to take care of and I’m arguing with a stranger on a Senegalese macrame forum while I’m waiting for breakfast to cook, or for my train to work. The stakes couldn’t be lower.

            Then it will be very easy for any one of you to post a source completely blowing me the frick out. Yet none of you have ever done this. All of you, down to a man, will b***h and seethe for dozens of posts about how stupid your opponents are, how faked the sources are, and how indisputably right you are, and not a single source has EVER been offered by any of you.
            Really makes you think.

            I'll repeat what I've said before. I'm making this pitifully easy. Post a single source contradicting what I've said, showing that waiting is either a bad thing or completely ineffectual, and I will shut up and admit my incurable stupidity. It is so easy for all of you to do it, you yourselves cope by saying it's so easy to find that you won't spend 5 minutes on it, yet you've never done it, and you are each willing to spend hours of your time dodging the simplest of tasks.

            Why? Because deep down, you're no better than the people you mock for "superstition" or "irrationality". What it boils down to is that you, just like them, have beliefs that you will never accept any challenges to. You have nothing to gain, then, from looking for the facts. At best, it would only confirm what you believe, but you lot never cared about that to begin with.

            [...]
            The thing is that sex is not properly foundational to a relationship (commitment, based on shared goals and values, and compatible personalities, is), and *even if it were*, simply waiting until marriage and having good communication is just as effective, if not outright better, at determining "sexual compatibility".
            Even the guy who is arguing with the sources ITT is, at best, showing no intrinsic effect of waiting. Hardly the "disaster" you're pretending will happen if people don't frick on impulse and rationalize it as 'determining compatibility'.

            There’s only one person seething here right now and it ain’t him.

            Also, you’re misrepresenting what I’m saying “Maybe don’t immediately shack up with the chick you met on Tinder yesterday” =/= “Nothing below the belt until you’re locked in holy matrimony”

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you literally claimed “every piece of evidence” supported your notion.
            Yes. And I stand by that. You, to your credit, looked at the sources I provided, and the most you were able to do was nitpick about applicability (yes, nitpick, because they're relevant in context, although I doubt either of us wants to argue that point at the moment) or strength of the relationship.
            At most, if you completely threw out any pretense of objectivity or reason, you could claim the sources were completely irrelevant. Which doesn't disprove what I said. I wouldn't be making a very strong argument for my case, either, but nonetheless, not a single person who thinks the opposite has even posted a single 'shitty' source. Ever.

            >dubious sources
            Don't give me that. They're all published in peer-reviewed journals. Does that make them sacred? No, but these are real academics.

            >Besides, there’s no incentive in doing hard work to disprove cranks
            Why are you pretending like human sexuality is some kind of arcane knowledge that nobody would ever bother studying?
            Regardless of where your values lie, it's a tremendously influential part of our culture.

            This isn't about "disproving cranks", it's about understanding a core aspect of society. If you are honestly going to hide behind the excuse that "serious academics" have zero interest in publishing anything about the morals surrounding human relationships, ones which until quite recently were not only normative but legally enforced, you must be inconceivably biased.

            tl;dr There are fricking clinical papers on the efficacy of prayer (took me 5 seconds to find, and it would take you just as long to search for null/negative results on sexual restraint--again, you don't need to write a thesis). How is it so hard for you to imagine people studying marriage and morals? I think you know you're just making excuses.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            These aren’t just nitpicks. The papers you cited simply don’t support your thesis but you presented them as though they do. Engaging with this material and trying to refute what they (don’t) say would be to throw objectivity and reason out the window.

            Also, getting published in a peer reviewed journal only says that you managed to convince a peer reviewer that you’re not presenting a fraudulent paper. Andrew Wakefield was peer reviewed (until his paper was retracted by his coauthor). Indeed, in the Busby et al paper I read, the math seems to work out and the authors are honest about the numbers in their discussion of the results (ie they’re weak results).

            But the title and abstract still give you the impression that they’ve proven waiting until marriage has significant effects on marriage stability and satisfaction. Why? Because weaseling like this lets you kill two birds with one stone - you satisfy the academic standards of the journal with your frank discussion while giving yourself just enough wiggle room in the abstract that you can write a self help book based on your ideological bent.

            Finally, studying sexuality, morals and mores is absolutely the work of serious academics. But the groundbreaking, respected work tends to be based on studies of how people actually behave rather than of how they “should” behave.

            How people form couples logically has an impact on the health of their relationships. It’s worth studying how these dynamics play out. Lots of academics are doing just that. Assuming though that the timing of the first instance of a single activity (sex) has profound, measurable impacts on the ongoing health of the relationship, and seeking to test this effect is… odd, especially when you can measure the health of a relationship and see that the most common problems leading to divorce (poor communication, money troubles, inequitable distribution of household labour, parenting disagreements) have little to do with sex.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’ll add that fixating on the timing of sex (and sex during courtship, at that) looks a lot less like somebody following a line of inquiry where the science takes them and more like assuming they know the answer and are trying to find data that confirms their beliefs, or worse, having an opinion of what people ought to be doing and trying to justify it by lending it the credibility of science, no matter how specious the analysis may be.

            A couple doesn’t call it quits after 15 years of marriage because they went at it like rabbits before the wedding. More likely is poor conflict resolution skills, poor communication styles, abusive tendencies, poor family environments, poor sex education and toxic patterns lead people into situations where sex happens earlier than average. And it’s these things that lead to bad relationships.

            In that case, advocating for abstinence does nothing to fix the underlying causes. Waiting until marriage to have sex won’t help a 15yo in a relationship with a 35yo build a happier, healthier life. Not will it fix a man’s drinking, a woman’s pattern of people pleasing and resentment for it, nor will it make your financial situation better or your in laws any less intrusive.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > looks a lot less like somebody following a line of inquiry where the science takes them and more like assuming they know the answer
            First of all, let me clarify: there are two separate but related reasons to wait for me. I am waiting until marriage for moral reasons. I only want to be intimate with my wife; I want our relationship to be unique and lasting. Even if someone showed me waiting had absolutely no practical impact on divorce, I would still do it for moral reasons. It's just the kind of relationship I want. Now, if waiting weren't just ineffective but *harmful* to marriage, I'd have to balance my values against each other. Moral standards deriving from basic values should be practically effective.

            I post the sources to be transparent, and also defend against the people who make far less well-supported (and you have your opinion on my sources) claims than me. Against the people who say that waiting isn't just odd but BAD for marriage.

            I wouldn't overstate my case. If I had a single shred of evidence that waiting came at a practical cost to marriage, or even that it was just completely ineffectual, I wouldn't be babbling about its strengths.
            But the bottom line is, I have yet to see such a source. And I think you have yet to see one, as well. That's why I keep asking for it. I'd like to know, probably much more than you do, if I have such an ideological blind spot that I would somehow ignore the crashingly obvious for supposedly biased and inconclusive studies.

            Lastly, you say that groundbreaking research doesn't tend to be over what people "should" do. But I think that's an impossible standard you're setting when it comes to morals. The subject matter itself is going to polarize people, to make them feel invested. Any study of how people's "oughts" affect them is likely to be thought of as dictating the "best ought", no matter how impartial the research.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are many good reasons to have sex and many reasons not to. You find meaning and beauty in it and I’d never make fun of you for the choices you make with your (future?) wife.

            What I take exception to is your spreading misinformation and bad practical advice to vulnerable, lonely boys. Like homeopathy and astrology, even if they’re harmless on their own, the idea that you’re doing something efficacious can lead to focusing on that instead of addressing the real problem.

            Abstinence before marriage won’t improve your social skills. It won’t help you relate to other people. It won’t help you manage conflict in a healthy way. It won’t make you more empathetic or supportive. It won’t help you manage anger issues or make you better at managing money. At best it may give you some practice of impulse control when you’re being held accountable, but won’t help you manage addiction or other self-destructive behaviour.

            Bottom line - don’t expect science to back up your beliefs or illuminate meaning. That’s not what it’s for. You’ll do better trying to detect a light beam with a hammer. Science is for describing the world around us. For what it means and how you should behave, look to philosophy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What I take exception to is your spreading misinformation and bad practical advice
            I'm doing neither. Have I lied to you? Have I even said something untrue, if in good faith?
            At "worst", from what we have and the arguments you've made (if we accept all of them for the sake of argument), I am giving inconclusive evidence to prove the idea that waiting is intrinsically beneficial, devoid of context.

            >At best it may give you some practice of impulse control when you’re being held accountable, but won’t help you manage addiction or other self-destructive behaviour.
            Nor did I say that it would. I have repeatedly rejected the idea that it's a panacea.

            >Science is for describing the world around us. For what it means and how you should behave, look to philosophy.
            Tell that to the guy who said it wasn't just odd but wrong and stupid to wait, specifically because he thought it ruins relationships.
            Not the one who posted actual sources to counter that. I wasn't making the argument "this study with a sample size of 600 should dictate your life". I was saying " it is wrong to claim waiting is harmful, because the available evidence comes down in favor of, not against, waiting"

            Although I'd push back a little on this. Sure, science is descriptive, but information can always be put to use, starting from a given set of values. If you have a certain guiding principle, then information on how your actions will affect your realization of that principle down the line is perfectly fair game.
            Of course, people should be careful of their biases when DOING the science, but simply referring to scientific data, like to fend off baseless accusations that one's values are destructive? That's perfectly legitimate.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Selective quoting of your sources is dishonest, mendacious behaviour brah. I was being charitable and assuming you hadn’t read or understood what you were quoting and had simply copied your links from some blog. Then you denied having done any such thing. How am I supposed to interpret that?

            And having sex before marriage would absolutely be beneficial in some edge cases. Imagine getting married and finding out your spouse was gay, asexual, psychologically or medically unable to have sex with you.

            I literally went to high school with a guy whose father left his mother because he’d been in the closet through five years of marriage and two kids. These things do happen.

            This is rare, of course, and I don’t expect it to show up in studies conducted exclusively on straight people. Most married couples end up having healthy sex lives, after all. But a guy who’s spent his teenage years trying to pray the gay away might benefit from giving it a go.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Selective quoting of your sources is dishonest, mendacious behaviour
            Good lord, what am I supposed to do within the post limit?
            I posted what I thought were the most succinct and relevant parts of the studies, and I kept it from the abstract (yes, I have access and read the papers, but I have literally been accused of making up lines behind paywalls before) so people could verify it.
            How many times do I have to repeat that I wasn't claiming to produce incontrovertible proof before you believe me? I was asked to post a selection of studies showing the same sort of result, and I did. Question the strength of the association, the broader applicability, or even the motivations of the source all you want. I wasn't setting out to build an ironclad argument for the ages with 4 sources. I was giving you a sample that you yourself requested.

            >And having sex before marriage would absolutely be beneficial in some edge cases.
            Sure. But the risk one would take on (either directly, or by association with confounding variables), without a priori fears or suspicions, is higher than the expected return. I contend that telling people they *should* have sex before marriage, as a blanket statement, is at least as bad as, and likely worse than, telling them they shouldn't.
            There are situations where paying for volcano insurance makes sense. But the average person on the planet might as well be burning their money.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So find fewer, more relevant, publicly available, widely respected sources and talk about them in an open way. I found the Busby paper on Researchgate.

            My hackles are up because I read the Busby paper, and the discussion section flat out contradicted the abstract and title. It was obvious the authors were trying to paint a picture of a stronger effect than what they actually saw. The fact that this told a wider story that the teachings of the Mormon church are inherently beneficial made it smell to me like part of an ideological project.

            It’s not obvious there IS any risk of engaging in premarital sex, apart from that inherent in all sexual activity. At least not from the sex.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s not obvious there IS any risk of engaging in premarital sex,
            From the second source, it's second-order but logically apparent.
            If more than one partner raises risk of divorce (another consistent result), then clearly, not having your first until they've already committed to being your last is the most effective way of avoiding that.
            The cohabitation effect of increased likelihood of divorce is yet another consistent result, associated for obvious reasons with premarital sex (not saying it's causal, but contextual). I personally think that has to do with both selection effects (why the impact is weaker as cohabitation becomes more normative) and sunk cost. The latter is the same sort of thing you'd get from premarital sex. It prematurely invests you in a relationship and clouds your judgement about staying together--and this is leaving aside the risk of someone just taking advantage of you, of stringing you along for years in a quasi-marriage, living together and having sex, without ever committing.

            That ages at first marriage have gone up to unprecedented levels (with the lost time, reduced fertility, more Down's/autistic kids to accompany it) across the developed world--with the mediating effect of changing morals on marriage rates/age--is completely uncontroversial. Do I think that this can be fully separated from economic changes, from changes in technology and society? No. I think they're all related, but among them is a clear connection of approaches to relationships with people's life trajectories. Duh. People who value marriage more tend to get married; as wider culture moves away from that, so does the average age of marriage rise.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you’re not religious, why should the legal status of your relationship define your level of commitment and why should it be a barrier to intimacy? I seriously doubt your truthfulness in this.

            Why cite the efficacy on prayer on healing, but neglect to mention similar effects from meditation if you’re not religious? Is the appearance of impartiality so important to you? I call you a liar and a hypocrite.

            All the second source’s finding tells me is that someone with a history of failed relationships is more likely to have trouble maintaining future ones. The number of sexual partners is a symptom and not a cause. Without reading the paper, I can’t know if they controlled for the impact of serious but chaste relationships.

            Picture a pretty girl from a religious background. She’s highly desirable but controlling and spiteful. She got engaged three times and all three times drove her fiancé away. She finally got married, had sex, and her husband left her after two years of marriage. No premarital sex was had in this example, but it still resulted in divorce, why?

            (The above is a real example, by the way. This woman was a Karen before the term was popularised)

            Premarital sex is a red herring. Religious people deride it as sinful. Conservatives think having sex makes you icky. But it doesn’t weaken relationships. Not by itself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why cite the efficacy on prayer on healing
            Because you heavily implied that you thought waiting until marriage was too absurd to study, so I gave an example of something being studied which I figured you'd also consider absurd.

            >but neglect to mention similar effects from meditation if you’re not religious
            What? I wasn't saying prayer AIDED healing. I said it was well-studied, because I wanted to give a counterexample to the idea that "serious academics" wouldn't ever study something they considered to be nonsense.

            >The number of sexual partners is a symptom and not a cause
            Largely, yes. I think people train themselves into poor behaviors, too. Either way, I still want to avoid such people, which a standard of waiting is extremely efficient at doing. It's not the sole thing to rely on, nor did I ever say it was.

            >No premarital sex was had in this example, but it still resulted in divorce, why?
            Why do you think that, just because I believe waiting is morally (not practically, even if it's my standard) necessary, I also think it's sufficient? I obviously care about a lot of other things.
            The fact that many people are shitty is one of the strongest reasons to wait, for me. Waiting means you're even less likely to give yourself to such people, as opposed to having sex within a couple weeks--or months--and then the relationship falling apart as people let their masks slip.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You studiously avoid responding to my accusing you of lying about being religiously motivated, while continually using religiously coded language like “giving yourself” to describe having sex. I see you.

            How does it feel? Denying Christ like that?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You studiously avoid responding to my accusing you of lying about being religiously motivated
            Because it's false, and if you think I'm lying, how could I possibly convince you by repeating myself? So I walked you through my motivations instead.

            >continually using religiously coded language like “giving yourself”
            Well, what would you use to describe the concept? If someone values monogamy, how else would you express the idea of "person I chose to be (uniquely) intimate with"?
            I don't know what else to tell you, dude. I'm not religious.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The papers you cited simply don't support your thesis
            You yourself saw that the association is positive. I didn't claim that it had to be the single most important factor. I just mentioned the direction of the relationship. We've yet to see even a null result, let alone the negative one the other anon who prompted all of this claimed. Not being conclusive enough for you to take it as law is different from me saying, truthfully, that the available evidence comes down on one side of it. If the only reason I think this is because I looked in the wrong spot, correct me.

            >Assuming though that the timing of the first instance of a single activity (sex) has profound, measurable impacts on the ongoing health of the relationship, and seeking to test this effect is… odd
            You're overthinking it. People aren't robots, and while in principle you could logically separate each facet of a relationship into independent silos, that's not how it works in practice. Waiting, in essence, is a package deal which clusters with those desirable traits you list, as well as others. People who are likely to date casually or without a clear purpose aren't going to pigeonhole themselves into a marriage-focused behavior like waiting.

            And the second source, which you dismissed, is important because of the implication: sure, premarital sex *by itself* doesn't raise divorce risks. But having multiple partners does. How do you best prevent having multiple partners? By only getting intimate after you've committed to your one and only.

            Another crucial thing that shouldn't be left out is the importance of shared values. Waiting specifically selects for people who believe in it, and that's why the association between it and lower divorce rates has only gotten stronger as fewer people wait (yes, still controlling for religiosity, which as the Pew source shows, is not as strong a predictor as you'd think).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You’ve spent the better part of a few days trying to defend a positive correlation that is on par with the effect of TIME on relationship health. The first Busby paper found that the length of time you’ve been married had the same effect size as having had sex before getting married. That’s a weak-as effect, easily explained by marriage market sorting (ie good marriage material gets snapped up early and they have stronger marriages).

            Nobody who isn’t in the tank for a moral conservative organisation like BYU’s School of Family Life is going to publish on a result that small. As they even admit in the paper: “Despite evidence that couples vary in sexual timing trajectories, very little research has examined how the timing of sexual relations in a couple’s formation history influences the development of other aspects of the relationship, as well as couple out- comes.”

            There’s a reason very little research had been conducted on this “effect” as of the year of our Lord 2010 - there’s no “there” there. Of the hundreds of studies done over the decades about sex and relationships, a consistent correlation between factors like sexual timing and markers of relationship health would have stood out and such a finding and line of enquiry would have been career making back in the 1970s. Why did it take until 2010 for someone to find such an effect?

            Second, you’re constantly mixing correlation and causation. Multiple sex partners being correlated with higher divorce rates doesn’t mean fewer sex partners will lead to lower divorce rates. If you treat all relationships the same, what you see instead is that a higher number of failed relationships in your past is correlated with a higher risk of your current relationship failing. A logical explanation for this is that people who are bad partners have bad relationships. If you took the sex away, this would still be true. Abstinence won’t fix being an butthole.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You’ve spent the better part of a few days trying to defend a positive correlation that is on par with the effect of TIME on relationship health
            I've spent the time trying to explain to you, apparently unsuccessfully, that I posted a selection of sources you yourself asked for. You did not ask for, and I did not give, a magnum opus on marriage and family in modern society.

            We're arguing two clean separate things at this point. You keep assuming a goal of some sort of cosmic proof of waiting, in itself, being a panacea. My argument is in the admissibility and consistency of evidence (not incontrovertible proof of this or that source). For all of your arguments about the former, the latter has NEVER been challenged. Not a single poster has yet to provide a single piece of evidence to the contrary (surely, 'of the hundreds of studies' done, something as culturally influential as mores around marriage would have been measured by people you wouldn't automatically dismiss as hacks). That was my claim, and I stand by it.

            >Of the hundreds of studies done over the decades about sex and relationships
            Then perhaps you could post one which even shows a null result, let alone a negative, because I have yet to find it. Aren't you tired of this endless back and forth?

            >Second, you’re constantly mixing correlation and causation.
            No. I'm saying that (a), any measurable effect is at minimum a net neutral from waiting (but only in isolation, not as a standard, as I said before); and (b), that correlation alone is a sufficient reason for the heuristic, because dating by spreadsheet is an absurdity.

            >A logical explanation for this is that people who are bad partners have bad relationships.
            Yes, and maybe waiting is a good way to filter out such people. Do I think every single person should be forced to wait?
            No. I give this advice fully expecting that the people most willing and able to wait are the ones who would be best served by it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Three things

            1) Academics tend not to publish null results unless they’re really surprising. “Hey, we looked for this thing and we didn’t find anything” isn’t something that’ll get you invited to speak at prestigious conferences and get you continued funding. Look all you want and you won’t find papers disproving the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie.

            2) I literally quoted one of your sources saying that the effect of premarital sex on relationship success was little-studied as of 2010. Busby and his mates at the Bringham Young University School of Family Life couldn’t find academic sources to back up the idea that sex before marriage led to worse relationships, so by golly, they set out to create one.

            3) A correlation isn’t enough to form a heuristic and have that be good advice. By that logic, you should avoid eating ice cream because ice cream sales are highly correlated with getting sunburns. An effect as weak as that of the passage of time is even an even more absurd basis for living your life.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >1) Academics tend not to publish null results unless they’re really surprising
            Point taken. I'd think that, if there are quite a few null results on the efficacy of prayer in healing, sexual mores would get comparable attention, considering how influential a part of society they are. But I agree this is just speculation.

            However, I would again like to point out that I was speaking of the available evidence. For which there are no null results, which may or may not be explainable by lack of publishing interest rather than nonexistence, and more importantly no *negative* results. I.e. balance of evidence consistently on one side.

            > I literally quoted one of your sources saying that the effect of premarital sex on relationship success was little-studied as of 2010.
            I think they were referring to the specific relationship of timing vs. other aspects of a relationship, not just to divorce. But either way, isn't this demonstrating what I claimed about where the available evidence falls? By all means, don't take 4 sources on NSFFW as unassailable fact; but there is an existing trend to date, as I said.

            >A correlation isn’t enough to form a heuristic and have that be good advice. By that logic, you should avoid eating ice cream because ice cream sales are highly correlated with getting sunburn
            ANY correlation? No, not on its own. But this isn't a completely random correlation. Even if there is no causal relationship, but a confounding one, waiting's correlation with the confounding variables--which are far harder to learn about a person--that DO benefit marriage is what makes it a good heuristic. Estimating hard-to-obtain knowledge with more-accessible information.

            This, by the way, is why I specifically DON'T think everyone should wait. If it were mandatory, waiting would no longer be a way for people sort themselves by values, so the heuristic would be worthless.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There isn’t a preponderance of evidence for your case though. One of the papers you cited specifically says this, and even then, on top of admitting to the result being weak.

            Numbers of papers published for a crackpot theory aren’t a good indication of the strength of evidence, as you could simply publish prolifically in obscure journals your academic critics won’t bother with.

            The only reason you believe there must be an intrinsic causal link between premarital sex and long term relationship success is because your faith and upbringing tell you it is. To you, it’s intuitive and obvious. However the numbers don’t back you up - the evidence is weak at best and the causal link unestablished. You talk about useful heuristics, but is it useful? All this will do is add to people’s anxieties about relationships and sex without helping them get at the root of forming and maintaining strong relationships (you know, basic skills like communication, conflict resolution and identifying common goals or lack thereof).

            There doesn’t need to be any health benefit for a Hindu to abstain from beef or a israelite to abstain from pork. Shouldn’t your faith be enough for you? Are you so insecure in it that you feel the need to bolster it with science?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > is because your faith and upbringing tell you it is
            I'm not religious and wasn't raised in it. I just value monogamy. I think it's bizarre how people act like there's no connection between people's behaviors and their outcomes. At worst, you could argue from a fatalist point of view, that anyone who would do X behavior would always have done it. But still, that's where the heuristic comes in, the moral standard. Okay, maybe anyone who would have sex outside of marriage is predisposed to divorce, regardless of whether they wait. So? I'd still want to avoid them. That's why I support both the moral standard and the freedom of people not to follow it.

            > You talk about useful heuristics, but is it useful?
            Yes. How is it even remotely controversial to think that two people who independently believe in following a specific moral standard, which requires discipline, are more likely to be compatible in their values?
            And looking at correlations of waiting on its own (despite controlling, for the sake of that correlation, for many of the things which make it meaningful, such as past behavior, relationship goals, etc.) give a much weaker result than the outcomes of people who wait, as a group--by exactly the same argument you're using about what the correlation doesn't tell you. As you say, there is a strong selection effect of the people who decide to wait in the first place.

            >Are you so insecure in it that you feel the need to bolster it with science?
            Have you been reading what I'm writing? I've repeatedly said that I would wait even if there were no effect. I got annoyed at the baseless claim that waiting is "stupid" and "disastrous". That's why I pushed back, because clearly, the kind of person who has that attitude will be unconvinced by a moral argument.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

            The divorce rate goes down at 3+ bodies until you reach high body counts. Also, consider the fact that people with 0 bodies at marriage are more religious and therefore less likely to initiate a divorce.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You literally linked to a conservative think tank. The Institute of Family Studies thinking sex is bad isn’t evidence. Okay, they cite CDC statistics that say people with no sex partners at the time of marriage are the least likely to divorce. That’s what we expect from people in communities that think divorce is life ruining and leads to social ostracism. The relationship disappears until you get to people with relatively high body counts, but these are confounded by the people who have trouble maintaining relationships in general.

            If the effect is as strong as you claim, we should be seeing the same effect everywhere - Europe, India, Japan, Egypt and Kenya. The result should be clear from mainstream sources as well as conservative ones.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You literally linked to a conservative think tank. The Institute of Family Studies thinking sex is bad isn’t evidence.
            Not that guy (I'm the one he replied to), but
            (a) if you wanted to check, you could see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/institute-for-family-studies/
            >Most information on this website is rooted in fact and is well-sourced. There is little use of loaded language; however, story selection favors the conservative view of traditional marriage."
            That's the pertinent part--rooted in fact and well-sourced. But you can also see they are even-handed, and they call out a guy who is unrelated to the source anon posted:
            > While IFS tend to be well-sourced, their senior fellow Mr. Wilcox endorsed a poor scientific study.

            And (b), it would be monumentally stupid for a group with an agenda to just make up data and then refer their opponents to the source they need to expose their fraud.

            >That’s what we expect from people in communities that think divorce is life ruining and leads to social ostracism.
            Except the same sources also show that these people are happier.
            If your assumption about fear of divorce is true, then that would show waiting is even more effective than what I'm claiming, because not only are the divorce rates lower, but the people who supposedly stay in miserable marriages due to social pressure STILL aren't numerous enough to make their marriages measurably less happy (compared to the general population, where you presumably believe the most miserable couples are significantly more likely to just divorce and not be counted in the statistics).

            And in any case, there is solid evidence showing improvements to marital stability and happiness *after* controlling for religiosity. The sources I linked ITT do that.

            Skepticism about an ideological source is fine, but I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss the evidence just because of who is saying it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it would be monumentally stupid for a group with an agenda to just make up data and then refer their opponents to the source they need to expose their fraud.
            Social conservatives *are* monumentally stupid, anon. It would be absolutely in character for them to do this.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then it will be very easy for any one of you to post a source completely blowing me the frick out. Yet none of you have ever done this. All of you, down to a man, will b***h and seethe for dozens of posts about how stupid your opponents are, how faked the sources are, and how indisputably right you are, and not a single source has EVER been offered by any of you.
            Really makes you think.

            I'll repeat what I've said before. I'm making this pitifully easy. Post a single source contradicting what I've said, showing that waiting is either a bad thing or completely ineffectual, and I will shut up and admit my incurable stupidity. It is so easy for all of you to do it, you yourselves cope by saying it's so easy to find that you won't spend 5 minutes on it, yet you've never done it, and you are each willing to spend hours of your time dodging the simplest of tasks.

            Why? Because deep down, you're no better than the people you mock for "superstition" or "irrationality". What it boils down to is that you, just like them, have beliefs that you will never accept any challenges to. You have nothing to gain, then, from looking for the facts. At best, it would only confirm what you believe, but you lot never cared about that to begin with.

            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            This is the kind of naive bullshit that I used to believe in myself when I was a virgin teenager and had no idea what a team relationship was like. Now, 35 years later, I've actually been in romantic relationships, I know how they work in the *real* world, and it is quite painful to remember that I used to think like this. All I can say, guys, is that I hope one day you will join us in the real world.

            In the real world, sex is to a relationship what foundations are to a house. You don't choose to buy a house because the foundations are good; most of the time you don't even think about the foundations; but if the foundations aren't there and aren't doing what they should be doing, eventually the entire building will collapse. A relationship between two people who are not sexually compatible is similarly doomed. And if a relationship is doomed, the sooner you find out, the better.

            The thing is that sex is not properly foundational to a relationship (commitment, based on shared goals and values, and compatible personalities, is), and *even if it were*, simply waiting until marriage and having good communication is just as effective, if not outright better, at determining "sexual compatibility".
            Even the guy who is arguing with the sources ITT is, at best, showing no intrinsic effect of waiting. Hardly the "disaster" you're pretending will happen if people don't frick on impulse and rationalize it as 'determining compatibility'.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's natural to care about body count. A high body count shows a lack of discipline, morals, and integrity.

        What they think isn't the same as what actually happens; people citing "sexual compatibility" are typically just rationalizing their impulses to have sex without commitment. The reality is that those who wait, even controlling for religion, not only divorce less but have happier marriages. And they even report higher sexual quality. Whatever the supposed risks of waiting, they are clearly and consistently outweighed by the benefits.

        This is because almost every supposed issue of "incompatibility" is addressed at least as well, and typically better, by communicating well and not having sex outside of marriage. The only exception is for the kind of person who specifically prioritizes getting immediate, no-strings-attached, and maximally gratifying sex. And this kind of person is obviously not the target of the standard.

        Big difference in libidos? People with high libidos are neither willing nor able to wait in the vast majority of cases, and they will move on quickly if faced with the prospect of waiting. Compare this to the cliche of people having sex a ton at the beginning of a relationship, only for the pace to slow, and the higher-libido partner getting frustrated, cheating, and/or leaving anyway.

        Disgusting fetish? Not only is this rare, but it's concentrated far more among hypersexual people, and fetish communities themselves emphasize how important it is to communicate BEFORE foisting a fetish onto a partner. Having sex first and asking questions later adds nothing but risk.

        Literal deformity? Even more rare, and not only would this be apparent at a glance, but anyone with the barest shred of honesty and self-awareness would communicate this before getting sexual.

        tl;dr waiting demonstrably works better than not for producing happy, lasting (and sexually fulfilled) marriages.

        Why would "sexual compatibility" something to base the establishment of your family on?

        Oh, that's right. You never cared about family, you were just an egotistical hedonist.

        This is the kind of naive bullshit that I used to believe in myself when I was a virgin teenager and had no idea what a team relationship was like. Now, 35 years later, I've actually been in romantic relationships, I know how they work in the *real* world, and it is quite painful to remember that I used to think like this. All I can say, guys, is that I hope one day you will join us in the real world.

        In the real world, sex is to a relationship what foundations are to a house. You don't choose to buy a house because the foundations are good; most of the time you don't even think about the foundations; but if the foundations aren't there and aren't doing what they should be doing, eventually the entire building will collapse. A relationship between two people who are not sexually compatible is similarly doomed. And if a relationship is doomed, the sooner you find out, the better.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what a team relationship was like
          That should, of course, read "what a real relationship was like".

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that's an incredibly vague analogy in which pretty much anything could be used in the place of the "foundation", and the idea that promiscuity should be normalized in the context of "sexual compatibility to guarantee successful relationships" is very obvious subversion when compared to historical marriage statistics, virginity statistics, general male-female gender relations, etc, before and after the judeo-feminist "sexual liberation" of western women.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >that's an incredibly vague analogy in which pretty much anything could be used in the place of the "foundation"
            I'm afraid you don't understand what an analogy is and what it's for, anon. An analogy is not an attempt to prove something; it is a way of explaining or clarifying it.

            I have spent more time in romantic relationships than many of you zoomers have spent on this planet; I have experienced successful and unsuccessful relationships; I have observed many other people in them; and I am giving you the benefit of practical experience that I have and that you lack. I recognise some of the ideas being promoted in this thread as being the kind of thing I used to believe before I had any actual experience of what relationships are really like; and I am giving you the benefit of my experience.

            I am trying to find ways to describe and explain what I know to be true, in terms that I hope will be easy for you to understand.

            So yes, I could have chosen a different analogy, but if I had, it would no longer have been a valid analogy. The analogy I gave *is* a completely valid one, based on my own experience.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would "sexual compatibility" something to base the establishment of your family on?

      Oh, that's right. You never cared about family, you were just an egotistical hedonist.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Gay people marrying hetero people in order to have families is a good thing by that logic.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well that's how you make families, don't know why you imply it's a "bad thing".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s a bad thing because it leads to a lack of intimacy. That leads to conflict and bad marriages. Bad marriages are bad environments to raise children in, which lead to bad outcomes for everyone.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ok, don't have families then.

            I don't care about gays, they shouldn't be here in the first place.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Literally my point. Imagine a couple marrying and settling down, but then the husband comes to realise he can only get hard when he’s thinking about his best friend Trent. Or maybe it’s the other way around and the wife realises she doesn’t like anything with a penis. Without having tried before, maybe they just assumed sex would be something they’d figure out as time went on.

            It used to happen all the time. The other spouse would just suffer through an unsatisfying marriage, unable to ever escape or find someone who’d love them back. The kids would see their parents fight until one just couldn’t take it anymore and they cheated or left.

            Your prescription for relationships is simple, but people aren’t.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >magine you had a daughter, would you want her getting fricked by some random guy?
    So long as it's someone she actually wants to have sex with, yes, of course I would. However, I would not want her to marry a man who cares what her BC is - that's a massive red flag.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's natural to care about body count. A high body count shows a lack of discipline, morals, and integrity.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When I was 19, I had this girl I found really attractive basically throwing herself at me. Like you, I wasn't sure how I felt about premarital sex. Unlike you, I was raised in a secular, liberal household where there was never any stigma against premarital sex. However, I felt the need to question everything. I thought there had to be something to such a widespread belief in it's immortal. I also worried that the girl might regret it later. Years passed on and I regretted it, ultimately coming to the conclusion that the reason it was considered immoral by Christianity in historical times is very simple: it wasn't worth the risk before condoms and birth control. It now is. The whole thing comes down completely and entirely to cultural lag. At age 27 I lost my virginity in a hookup turned fbw that seems to have sort of petered out. I don't regret it one bit. It was fun, it boosted my self esteem, it made me understand women more, and made me feel calm and at peace. I would recommend you do it, but only once you have resolved this tension.

    I don't really care about a low body count though, and never had. I'm also not really bothered by the idea of my hypothetical daughter owning her own sexuality, so I cannot relate with or help you out on those concerns.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've been having a bit of premarital lately. Honestly, if you're not a coomer or some other form of degenerate, just stay away. Quite frankly, it's an ugly world to get into.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm facing this dilemma too. I'm fine waiting till marriage with a girl as horny as me, but even if we have an honest talk about compatible sex drive and she clearly desires me physically, what's to say she completely dries up a few years into the marriage? Maybe that fear is unwarranted, especially for a girl who's younger than you, healthy, and leads a low-stress life, but you never know. Also sucks not being a virgin as it makes abstinence seem pointless.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You need to embrace the virgin prostitute complex. If you can get sex from a girl who isn't a virgin she's probably already ran through.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Listen, annon, sex is not nearly as big of a deal as people on here make it out to be. I have been with virgins and I have been with girls who have slept around and I’ve never married, I still felt fulfilment with all of them and sex didn’t feel especially different.

    Do what you want, just do it genuinely and sincerely. Don’t get caught up in your own head and don’t force yourself to do something you don’t want to.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >i'm a bawd
      >i've never been married
      you don't say. why not, anon? were your fellow bawds not good enough for you?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1. There's consequences to casual sex. Be prepared to eat consequences you can't imagine.
    2. Never do crazy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >1.
      Something comes to mind, but I curiously ask you to clarify
      >2.
      B-b-but... anon!

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    even in societies that frowned on fornication, there were still prostitutes that certain unmarried (or long-married and sexless) men would satisfy their urges with. the actual problem today is that nearly all modern women are akin to historical prostitutes in terms of promiscuity thus unmarriageable at all in the first place. obviously if you're "ruining" virgins and have no intent to marry them and start a family that's a dick move, but if the girl is already a ho there's no problem fricking her because nobody but a cuck would marry her anyway, so "tinder hookups" are fair game.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, that's haram

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It increases your risk of divorce dramatically

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you don't do it, someone else will. It is not your duty to keep the woman chastized, it is her duty, but if you frick a woman, ideally, you should stick with her

    Why don't you try find a girlfriend instead?

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I met a girl I really like, we currently live a few states apart but planning to meet up. I think we both agreed on the fact that we shouldn't have premarital sex, but I've been reading a lot about how sexual incompatibility leads to divorce, and I am struggling with this. What to do here bros???

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >should I have premarital sex?
    No. You absolutely should not have premarital sex and here’s why

    1.if you don’t genuinely love the person you’re having sex with then it will mean absolutely nothing.

    2.once you find the person you genuinely love after having had premarital sex, you will feel disgusted and wonder why you didn’t just choose to wait for this person.

    3.when you are committed and in a loving relationship with the person you truly love you will hopefully want to procreate which will make the sex 100x more amazing than sex with someone who you don’t love and who doesn’t love you.

    4.i know what the frick I’m talking about so don’t question it.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll put to you this way OP , if you were meant to be some pussy slayer it would have happened in your early twenties. That's one of those paths where if you are gonna go down it - you're going all the way.

    The middle ground is , only sex with a girlfriend you intend to marry. Even if you break up , its fair because you were shooting for the bigger goal.

    I think pure chastity only makes sense if your family has the hookups to make it all work or you are actively involved religiously in groups etc etc. If you are just moping in secular household about le virgin wife - that's probably not good for you either.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes OP, you've realized the other side of the equation. Every number in a woman's body count happened because a man was also happy to have non committed sex.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you aren't in an actual relationship, then wrap up or have plan b ready.
    If you both want a kid, the blast away and creampie her.
    Everybody gets horny and everybody wants to get laid.
    Your religious beliefs don't matter.
    You will either get laid or wait for a unicorn.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do it today. You might get rekt by a chinese rotating mashine tomorrow, you never know. Getting exp in sex is not the same for men and women. But in general it will help you more than it will harm you if you use condoms, dont risk an std. Women are very complicated, learning to deal with them is very important before you meet your unicorn or else you will screw this up eventually. No one can teach you this, you need the exp.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *