/feels/ - Advice & Venting

We fucked before we started dating and we've lived together for eight years now. I don't think you need to get married to show loyalty or love, we'll be buying a house next year and will probably tie the knot for financial security some time before that

>>62792
I'm German, I made my guy wait for a little while to hit as I was a virgin at the time, we've been together for five years. I don't see the point in waiting for marriage, as it is not a net good for women and perpetuates some retarded purity beliefs, but I don't want to immidiately sleep with a man either.

a good man will wait. it’s possible to find one, but it’s hard

I think it is not worth it to expect a guy to be virgin. Maybe if you're really young, like underage or 19 at most, but if you're +20, in my opinion, it is not worth it at all. Around that age, most virgin guys will be weird and in most cases they won't be virgin because they want to wait, but because they couldn't have sex.

>>62799
Oh fuck, I'm waking up and I read it as you were talking about virgin guys lol.
In that case, it is worth it to wait. If the guy really has romantic interest in you, he will wait until you are comfortable to have sex with him. How much you want to wait depends on you and how much it takes you to trust on him

>>62797
Why does a standard need to be applied by an outside force? You can just tell a guy that you won't have sex until X months of exclusivity and he can take it or leave it.

>>62804
>Why does a standard need to be applied by an outside force? You can just tell a guy that you won't have sex until X months of exclusivity and he can take it or leave it.
Because that would be any given person's arbitrary standard, as opposed to the standard if the fellow miner is going to bring
>I don't see the point in waiting for marriage, as it is not a net good for women and perpetuates some retarded purity beliefs
This into the conversation, she is obviously talking about the general standard as opposed to the case-by-case one. In such an instance, anything reliant on your methods is going to be applied differently across different groups of people, which leads to differing standards, which leads to an erosion to path of least resistance as time goes by, i.e. no standard.

My boyfriend did not wait but he has told me and other people that he regrets not waiting for me, and that he wishes I would have been his only one, like he is for me.
He waited for about 5 months (we did do other stuff in the meantime) but definitely would not have waited for marriage however. That is just silly. It's also true that the relationship got better after we started doing it. I don't see how you can grow a relationship without going through the different stages of kissing, touching, and eventually sex.

>>62797
This isn't about drawing a line based on a contract. It's about truly being comfortable and liking the person you are with. That can take different amount of times.
Waiting for marriage is also a recipe for disaster. Sex is very important and if you don't like it with your partner it will end your marriage.
One of my bf's friends was stuck in a sexless relationship of ~5 years since highschool. He was absolutely miserable. Imagine if he had waited for marriage to see this girl had no interest in sex. Now he has a new gf that has a sex drive as high as his and in less than a year of dating he is dying to marry her.

It's so easy to pick out the moid in these replies. Of course males don't get it. What do I even expect.

>>62795
>We fucked before we started dating and we've lived together for eight years now. I don't think you need to get married to show loyalty or love
It's about the concept of having to give up sex, before getting a relationship. It's nice that it worked out for you, but it doersn't mean that every men is going to be like this. Some relationships don't work out for all kinds of reasons, but the woman is almost always expected to give up sex every time just to try the relationship out.

>>62798
>a good man will wait
Not in this country and not in this culture. I think even among the "good men" it's a minority.

>>62799
I don't require for the guy to be a virgin. I am willing to overlook some things in his past. It's really more about our potential relationship and if he is willing to do that.

Also the point is to just not have any old relationship with a guy, who is willing to wait. It's obviously not the only condition that I have. I bet there's lots of weird guys out there, who have no other option and would be willing to wait, but that's not the point of this.

>>62805
What brand of word salad is this.
>People waiting different amounts of time is bad because then there is no guiding principle or entrenched standard
Am I understanding you correctly? My tiny non-virginal peabrain seemingly cannot understand your chad hymen dialect
>>62810
yeah

>>62818
>Do people not have the ability to be honest with each other about their sexual expectations without actually engaging in sex?
Sure, but that's not enough in my opinion. I hate all these euphemisms of 'test driving a car' or whatever but it is sort of like that; how am I going to know if there is actual chemistry, he knows how to get me off, I actually feel comfortable, our genitals fit into another in a satisfying manner etc. Sex is complex, and it is very important to me. Being several years deep into a relationship with a man I loved and married only to realise the 'vibe' is off would be depressing. Sure, there are ways to work on that but there are limits to what can be done. Also, there is the usual issues of the guy being somewhat sexually satisfied regardless (bc he always gets to cum), so he has no stake/interest in changing/making sex better for you unless he really cares. The way men handle sex and their partner's pleasure is a great way to vet and I am not foreclosing that opportunity for myself.
>Did he attempt to ask his gf of 5 years at any point in those 5 years how she felt about sex?
yeah no respect for the scrote there lol
>If instead the standard is "have sex when you are comfortable" than there is no standard and having sex on the first date is just as valid as any other point in time, with no rebuttal being possible
Yeah, that would the case as I painted it. I guess it just seems to me like you are framing this as a negative, I certainly am not. I don't really care if so-called ""pickmes"" want to peddle their coochie out after the first date.

>>62818
How exactly is
>have sex when you are comfortable
different from
>get married when you are comfortable
in this context?

>>62792
I don't think virginity should be valued (fwiw I was a virgin until my late 20s) but I do think people should be way more selective with who they do PiV with. A child sired by my partner from a woman in his past is my nightmare scenario.

>>62828
You are quite good at this. I was too mad not to reply.
>if sex is important, why isn't it worth waiting until marriage to have
Because that is not the only way to acknowledge it's value. Why does waiting for something make it more valuable? Surely you can't deny that this idea that human self-restraint venerates something is sort of puritanical
> if sex isn't important, then why is marriage important, since the only reason marriage exists as a cultural institution is to regulate sexual activity
You mean it is the only reason to get married, or the only reason cultures invented marriage? Because neither is true.

Can you outline for me what the ideal situation would be for you? Everyone waits for marriage, in order to achieve what sort of status quo?

>>62818
>Cool then there is no general standard, and everyone gets to pick what it is
Yeah? Do you need someone to hold your hand through every important decision in life?
Yes I do not have an issue with any standards existing, I'm not sure what your point is.

>Do people not have the ability to be honest with each other about their sexual expectations without actually engaging in sex?
Well, not precisely. It's a very unique feeling that has a lot to do with your thoughts and feelings. You can't really make decisions about it by comparison. Specially when you are young, most people don't know what to expect.
They had all sorts of discussions and talks, eventually fights as it never worked out. Until one day she admitted she did not enjoy sex with him at all, and only did it to please him. I'm pretty sure it was a compatibility issue and she was not very sexually attracted to him. It's not the she was the sole obstacle. These are the sorts of unexpected problems people can run into, which is why it's important to test out your sexual life together.

>>62825
Cuz it's
>have sex when you are comfortable enough with physical and sexual intimacy
Marriage is about a lot more than being comfortable, because it means a lot more. Being comfortable around your partner would be the minimum requirement.

>>62831
>You mean it is the only reason to get married, or the only reason cultures invented marriage? Because neither is true.
I'm sorry are you asserting that marriage does not exist as an institution to regulate procreation? I suppose there's also some ambiguity because modern westerners have managed to divorce (pun definitely intended) sex from procreation, when I really don't believe there is one. Let me restate as
>marriage as an institution exists to regulate procreation
Would you feel this is an accurate statement? I want this clarified because people tend to see marriage as something important but I've never understood under the modern context why it would be.

>Why does waiting for something make it more valuable?
This immediately implies there should be a long wait time for marriage, which I never posited. Especially in the current societal context with pre-nups and lax divorce laws making it quite easy to break off the engagement. This logic also applies to the lax standards stance, why wait to have sex if it's important to test? You should test it immediately! After all, waiting is puritanical.

>>62832
>Yeah? Do you need someone to hold your hand through every important decision in life? Yes I do not have an issue with any standards existing, I'm not sure what your point is.
Good, just don't complain about the downsides of girls getting pressured by the meta-competition like >>62796 does. You evidently don't care, others do. Whether or not they are right to do so is irrelevant, it exists nonetheless. Obviously some people benefit more from than others and you appear to be doing so.

>You can't really make decisions about it by comparison.
I do this all the time, I don't understand, why would people unable to do this?

>>62833
>Marriage is about a lot more than being comfortable, because it means a lot more. Being comfortable around your partner would be the minimum requirement.
Why though? Why does it mean more? Especially when divorced from sexual regulation.

>>62839
You can't do it by comparison because it's very unique. Not only mentally, but also physically as in the sensation of intercourse. It's so sensitive that even inadequate sizes can make it way too painful and turn sex into something miserable for both sides.
Even the closest thing with two people, mutual masturbating, is still very different. The closest you could get solo would be chosing a random dick size and strapping it to machine that thrusts at random speeds and depths.
And then the emotional part is simply incomparable to anything. You could hate it or love it, change your opinion depending on your daily mood, enjoy it without being emotional, etc.

>Why does it mean more?
Because you are entering a legal contract and making big decisions about your future together. Being ready for sex just means wanting to have sex, being ready for marriage means being ready for the long term commitment between two people and all the advantages and disadvantages that come from sharing your life together.

>>62839
>>62841
>>62839
>After we have clarified why marriage is important will I assert my ideal situation. If we can't agree on what marriage is good for I can't properly assert my ideal position
Anon, you're a fucking trip. pulling the socratic method? Either way, please argue kindly, my edible is coming on.
>marriage as an institution exists to regulate procreation
For me, personally, contemporarily, this is not true. As in, there are plenty of other reasons people get married nowadays, and it wouldn't be the reason I wish to get married. However, that is probably not what you meant. You meant as in, the institution was created to do this. In that case, I would say yes partially, but not exclusively. But even if I personally don't agree I can still follow. I know you're trying to lead us to some objective sort of truth here, which I am not sure will even be possible for us, but at this point I would rather follow in the steps behind you and see where you walk than take your hand, respectfully.
>You should test it immediately! After all, waiting is puritanical
I see what you're doing, and I can tell you've pulled this shit online before. I mean that neutrally or positively. Yes you are right, that is an inconsistency in how I think. But I am full of them, and I could not be without them. Can you? You seem like the type who gets accused of being a man around here. Either way, as >>62832 and others pointed out, taking on the position of "fuck whenever you like" does reveal that there is no underlying logic, every person gets to decide for herself. I personally don't believe in an objective truth.
>just don't complain about the downsides of girls getting pressured by the meta-competition like >>62796 does
That was me, and I don't quite understand your criticism, or rather your framing of complaining. You must be gaining some insight from my post that I had not felt.
>I do this all the time, I don't understand, why would people unable to do this?
Have you considered that others may have a different lived reality than you?

Just tell me your "ideal position". or does that depend on how worthy my input is for the dialogue

>>62847
>Anon, you're a fucking trip. pulling the socratic method? Either way, please argue kindly, my edible is coming on.
This isn't the socratic method, I am not trying to trip you, I need to know if you're the type that thinks marriage is about the two people getting married and not what it is actually about. If you make the rookie mistake of thinking it's about the two people, then the rest of my argument falls flat.
>For me, personally, contemporarily, this is not true. As in, there are plenty of other reasons people get married nowadays, and it wouldn't be the reason I wish to get married. However, that is probably not what you meant. You meant as in, the institution was created to do this. In that case, I would say yes partially, but not exclusively. But even if I personally don't agree I can still follow. I know you're trying to lead us to some objective sort of truth here, which I am not sure will even be possible for us, but at this point I would rather follow in the steps behind you and see where you walk than take your hand, respectfully.
Fine, but the first time you try a counter-argument that relies on this premise not being true I'm assuming you're not acting in good faith and will stop.

My actual position is that sex is important, and casual sex is a misnomer, it doesn't exist. Unless you appeal to some divine entity, as a biological being your purpose in having these urges is for the purpose of procreation by order of your genes. You should not be having sex with someone you are not prepared to have a child with, you are blatantly not prepared to have a child if you are not married, as, and all statistical data shows this, children raised in a household with their two own biological metrics outperform all others, across all marks. It's not even close. If you are pro-human, and want humans to do well, you are pro-child, as children become adult humans, and if you are pro-child, you are pro-marriage. I don't care if you in particular don't want children, because unless you want children to actively suffer you are still pro-marriage.

But let's say modern humans have managed to fully divorce sex from procreation. We haven't, because no robot, as far as I am aware, is capable of producing a human inside it in isolation yet. We have only vaguely and very minimally mastered the prevention of the creation of life, allowing for sex to exist in absence of procreation, but not procreation from sex, but we'll allow it just the same. Sex is far too powerful, and far too important to be given out freely. Yes it feels good, who the fuck doesn't want to feel good? But obviously feeling good isn't always a good thing, there are very obvious times when you shouldn't be. Drug addiction for a very easy extreme version of feeling good being absolute opposite from ideal. I have no obvious reasons to suppose that the freeing up of sexual standards is going to be a positive thing for humans in the long run. It's only been normalized for the last 50 years, not even the adults who were adults at that time have completely died yet, let alone the children that grew up under that paradigm. There simply isn't enough information to suppose this is a good move in the long run. I'm fine with finding out, but I am going to posit that there are very good reasons for how humans used to treat marriage.

Of course, this is the ideal position, the real world, with all it's faults and cracks, can't live up to it. Dumb smelly moids want to have sex, stupid pickmes are too easily persuaded to make mistakes, and sex is just too interesting to give up. Even when marriage was treated as important, and sex sacred, did people have pre-marital affairs and extra-marital affairs. Obviously the standard existing didn't stop them now did it? They made their own standards, they acted on their own standards, and faced the consequences of those standards. We can argue the fine details all day, in the end, my stance is that sex is too important to waste on just anybody, and the only person it is worth treasuring with is someone you trust to bond yourself to death with, and if you trust someone to death why aren't you marrying them?

There, that's my position, do with it as you will.

>>62849
> a biological being your purpose in having these urges is for the purpose of procreation by order of your genes
what do you mean by purpose? as in, procreating is virtuous/a net good for society…?
>all statistical data shows this, children raised in a household with their two own biological metrics outperform all others
correlation v. causation, but sure, let's suppose there is something inherent to explicitly marriage that leads to increased child happiness
>If you are pro-human, and want humans to do well, you are pro-child
I'm an antinatalist, but that is also probably not what you meant
>Sex is far too powerful, and far too important to be given out freely
again you seem to say that restraint is the way to value an object. Is this or is it not part of your position?
>There simply isn't enough information to suppose this is a good move in the long run
Agree
>they acted on their own standards, and faced the consequences of those standards
Can you tell me more about this?

Also, how do you feel about legal partnership? What is it about marriage that appeals to you, beyond the benefit for the potential offspring? Financial security, the promise of the bond?

>>62792
no point in waiting since by the time you're married it's late to find out your partner is into heavy BDSM while you're a vanilla-type. especially if you live in a more conservative country where divorce is worse than staying in a marriage that leaves you battered and bruised over the sexual gratification of your spouse.

but if you truly want to wait, your first time doesn't lead to a kid-locked marriage, and you've discussed what you might be into beforehand, sure, why the fuck not wait? it's your virginity and your body.

(didnt understand post clearly enough. wrote wall of text about waiting to have sex before you're married. am stoned, and not even sorry about it)

>>62922
>no point in waiting since by the time you're married it's late to find out your partner is into heavy BDSM while you're a vanilla-type
Do people in a relationship just lack the power of speech?
>Hey are you a heavy BDSM pervert
<no
>Cool thanks for telling me.
If he lies, then he's a lying scoundrel, and you were fucked from the start so having sex won't fix it, and if he's telling the truth you don't need to verify this via sex?

Why are people so braindead when it comes to just talking to each other?

>>62923
yeah i had a brain fart, that type of relationship probably doesn't exist outside the state of utah.

>>62923
How do you know you're into certains kink and you need certain things to get of if you never have sex?

Btw, if he lies you're now married to some dumb fuck liar, so it's worse than having sex and finding out.

>>62921
I'm pro-human in the sense that I believe limiting human suffering by preventing birth is good for those humans who are around as well as those who will not be born as a result

>>62928
This implies he wouldn't hide his fetish during the sex. Are you implying a man would be capable of lying to your face when asked but would just drop (or I guess in this case) the gimp mask when offered sex? Is piv sex a form of lie detection?

It doesn't make sense, if he's hiding the truth with his words why would he not hide his actions during sex?

>>62934
Follow the logic to it's end then.
>there is a moral impetus to prevent suffering
>the act of preventing suffering may cause suffering, but if it is less than the suffering of the prevented act it is morally imperative
>being born guarantees suffering
>thus there is a moral impetus to prevent things from being born
>things that are born can give birth
>those things that are born will suffer
>they can give birth again ad infinitum
>there is a possible infinite amount of suffering by allowing things to reproduce
>there is a finite amount of suffering that could be inflicted by killing all living things
>there is an infinite amount of suffering that could be caused by allowing others to do as they will
>you have a moral imperative to use a finite amount of suffering to prevent an infinite amount of suffering
>it is morally acceptable to kill all other humans regardless of their will if it prevents a greater amount of suffering
>it is imperative that you kill all human life

Anti-natalist are just genociders who don't want to follow their own logic if it gets their hands dirty. Fucking pathetic.

>>62937
>genociders who don't want to follow their own logic
Just say that you have no idea what the philosophy actually advocates for and that you don't care to learn. That's fine, really.

>>62938
Glad to see you acknowledge you can't refute the end result of the logic.

>>62938
I can, if the logic is the reduction of suffering (negative utilitarianism). Killing people would cause more net suffering than whatever strange benefit you seem to construct it to have in your strawman. I also don't believe it my role to sanction others right to cause suffering, e.g. decide whether they are allowed to have kids. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes. It's all for naught anyways, nothing we do can avert the inevitable and awful.

>>62941
>Killing people would cause more net suffering than whatever strange benefit you seem to construct it to have in your strawman.
You can prevent people from being born (and thus suffering) by killing all who are currently alive and capable of giving birth. By definition, if it is morally imperative to prevent the suffering of allowing things to be born, it is morally imperative to actively prevent others from being born.

Anything else is just Anti-natalists empty posturing.

>I also don't believe it my role to sanction others right to cause suffering, e.g. decide whether they are allowed to have kids.
This is what I mean, the espousing of what a moral action should be, without the werewithal to actually perform the action. Hypocrite isn't the right word, this would imply you fully accepted the logic of your arguments and then chose not to act. No, instead, it's intetional prevention of reaching the end conclusion so you never have to be a hypocrite, nor actuate the morality of the situation.

>Maybe that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes.
You're not even good enough to be a hypocrite yet, don't praise yourself.

>It's all for naught anyways, nothing we do can avert the inevitable and awful.
Correct.

>>62944
How have you been acting on your own moral convictions, anon?

>>62946
To the best of my ability I act out my morality, and attempt to articulate the morality I am acting out. Since the first always occurs before the later.

>>62792
I can't wait more than one night because I'm too horny.
Although I wish I would have a bf who forced me to wait for sex, the anticipation and teasing would make it even better.

>>63052
Forgot to add : waiting for mariage is only useful when you don't have access to birth control, which has been the case for thousand years. Being a single mom without ressources suck.
In antique times, marriage was basically a contract to raise children in sane, stable way. If birth control would have been easily available in ancient egypt or rome, you can be sure that in few generations, sex before mariage would have become widely accepted.
But then the semitic death cults came into play… and banned all sex before mariage, and in their sanctity, weren't able to predict that birth control would have happened. Their rules make sense for the technological advancement of their society. They're simply not relevant anymore to our modern times, but of course the ""holy book"" wasn't able to predict our technological advancement.
Being addicted to sex is bad, as passions should be balanced. But forcing everybody to have a life-long, unbrokable engagement in order to make love to someone, is plain delusional in our times.

>>63054
>But forcing everybody to have a life-long, unbrokable engagement in order to make love to someone, is plain delusional in our times.
How are you using force in this context? I'm pretty sure extra-marital sex was quite common even when marriage was stricter.

>>63060
>>63060
Force is probably a poorly chosen word, my bad. Pressure would be more accurate.

i finally moved in with my current bf of 2 and a half years. he’s the most amazing person i’ve ever met, and loves me more than anyone i’ve previously dated by leaps and bounds. we couldn’t keep our hands off each other past the first couple of dates.

it’s 100% up to you, but generally, waiting til marriage to have sex ends poorly for women, as their virgin husbands tend to idealize sex and hope for it to be the greatest pleasure they’ll ever experience, and for their wife to finally fulfill all their repressed sexual desires, only to be disappointed by how hard sex can be to have. virgin women tend to need time to acclimate to sex while men don’t. this breeds resentment.

what’s your main reason you’re interested in waiting til marriage?

He didn't, and it was mostly my fault.

We were both virgins when we met and had very religious families, but he was so cute and I was so horny, that I couldn't handle myself around him.
I teased him a lot in our first months, by sending him lots of nudes, kissing him until our lips hurt, dirty talking on phone and fondling him everytime we got somewhat alone.
But when it came to anything sex related, I just avoided it out of fear. He kept asking me to come over when his parents were away, but I neved had the courage to go.

About 6 months of me doing this, he gave me sort of a "ultimatum" and said he could not keep getting "blueballed"(first time I learned about what that meant) like that and that he was not willing about waiting until mariage for sex.

We ended up having sex, it was good, but I resented him for some time, I felt forced to do it.
Now, 8 years later, 3 of them married, I know it was also my fault for teasing so much a unexperienced young boy, filled with hormones.

If you really want to wait, you both need to have restraint and not behave like I did.

>>63121
>If you really want to wait, you both need to have restraint and not behave like I did.

I mean you were both horny teenagers. What were you supposed to do? Trads always say to be trad, but restraining ourselves for years goes against our nature. I am pretty sure back in the olden days we weren't expected to just wait years to have sex, because they would get married early. Being a girlfriend/boyfriend today is basically the equivalent of getting married a few hundred years ago.

Say I slept around a bit in college and meet a cute virgin boy after that. Is it fair to tell him that I want to wait until marriage?

>>63976
In the olden days people porked eachother at 16 and married when the girl accidentally got pregnant. People didn't really care that she gave birth 7 months after marriage, it was normal.

>>63982
Only if you also tell him that you're not a virgin so he can decide if the wait is worth it or not.

>>63983
This is giving me Bridgerton flashbacks.

>>63983
Wrong. Before the Elizabethans, most people would get married through a verbal contract, a simple promise of lifelong companionship, without the need for weddings or bureaucracy. During the English Renaissance, there was a push to have marriage documented, and people only bothered to do that after pregnancy.

>>63982
Give him to me lol

>>63976
This could be used as an argument for lowering the age of consent as well as encouraging marrying earlier.

>>63988
NTA, but I don't think that's necessarily true. In the olden days, teenagers would typically marry each other, not older adults. The modern age of consent laws exist to protect teenagers from being exploited by mature adults. Most places already allow teenagers to have sex with each other, just not adults over 21. Also, allowing teens to marry already is allowed in many places with parent permission, if I'm not mistaken. That said, teens marrying just doesn't make sense with our modern lifestyles because most people separate after high school or college. Back when people would stay living in the same tribe or village, marriages between two teenagers could actually last.

>Is it worth it? Does it work?
Yes, absolutely.
If a guy stays with you for 2-3 years without sex, and then commits to spend the rest of his life with you, all without sex, you're going to be as sure as you can possibly get that he loves you for who you are.
Good men will wait because they will share the values you do: they will only want to give themselves to their life partner, and they will feel that commitment is more important than sex. Be firm about your beliefs, put yourself out there, and you can find a guy eventually. It'll be worth it.

The thing to watch out for are the guys who try to be pushy, who try to convince you that something 'doesn't count' so they can get themselves off. You have to be firm that you're waiting, and let them know there isn't any point for them to stay just for the thrill of chasing a woman who's 'hard to get'.

Good luck finding a guy!

>>63983
Look up "Western European Marriage Pattern". The average age of marriage for women almost never went below 20.

>>63064
> generally, waiting til marriage to have sex ends poorly for women
Not actually true. While any particular style of dating has its own risks, waiting until marriage (even controlling for religion and things like socioeconomics) is associated with both the most stable and the happiest marriages, and the effect is even more pronounced in women than in men.
Virgin men as a whole are probably more likely to idealize sex, but a guy who saves himself for marriage is showing through his actions that he cares more about the ideal of commitment. I don't think it's comparable to men who are only virgins by circumstance, but who would quickly have sex if given the opportunity.
There's no getting around that the first time will likely be awkward, but it's made that much better because the spouses are able to learn and grow together, in a completely exclusive bond.

100% worth waiting for… I am so glad to have given each other our first time.. I would encourage everyone to do the same, I believes it leads to a happier life
marriage doesnt mean to me what it does to most people (a legal binding of two people or w/e) it means consummating your marriage and telling people around you that you are married. it means trust and love.

Waiting for marriage for religious reasons or waiting with sex until you are comfortable is fine and people should do it more.

Keeping your partner from intimacy with you so he can prove how pure he is and how much he loves you is nothing but the usual type of schizoid personality disorder abuse in relationships that either ends you up with a spineless servant or a broken love. Don't waste peoples time with your fucked mental problems.

>>66552
>Waiting for marriage for religious reasons
>Keeping your partner from intimacy with you so he can prove how pure he is and how much he loves you
anon, I…

>>66555
Waiting for religious reasons means that you do it both because your religion tells you to do so.

Waiting to test your partner means you do it to abuse him/her for your own pleasure.

You have to take a lot of max dose retard-o-pills to not see the difference between lawfully keeping up the code of conduct of whatever movement you belong to and causing someone you allegedly love mental distress for personal gain.
Hurting others to make sure they never hurt you is also stupid as fuck because while doing so abusers contradict their own sentiment of being a valuable partner who isnt causing harm to their SO.

>>62798
A Good man doesn't try to force a woman or pressure her into doing something she's not comfortable with.
If a Good man feels he is being disrespected with worse treatment than past romantic partners he will walk away. Good men know to walk away when they're being disrespectful or disrespected.
It's an shameful proposition for a man to wait for marriage when his bride hasn't.

Nah. I personally think a couple should wait until both are comfortable enough to have that kind of intimacy.
In my case, we started having spicy conversations around the first week, but didn't have sex until two months into the relationship.
I don't think it's healthy to wait for marriage, nor to force your partner to wait as some kind of test, nor forcing yourself to do something to please them.

>>96351
who fucking cares about being honest to men when they never are lmao. all they ever do is take from women anyway

>>96372
This. Normalize lying to men, because nothing is ever good enough for them anyway. They want virgins who fuck like pornstars. Some Chinese man tried to sue his wife for having plastic surgery to get rid of her "ugliness" that he would have hated anyway. They are idiots. Women need to start withholding information that'll only get them in boiling water.

>>62792
I have no advice but I wish so bad my bf was a virgin when we met. The "teehee experienced men are best because they know what they are doing" is such bullshit, I wish we both had our firsts together and that we both learned this at the same pace and I wouldn't have to cope with the jealousy I feel for women who dated him before me. Its so disgusting.

1/3 of the reason I picked him was because he gives orgasms on request. I don't know if it would be worthwhile if it turned out he was bad at sex.

>>96383
Which is the disgusting part? That you feel jealous? Or that he's not a virgin?

>>63054
Technically the Bible strictly forbids “sexual immorality” and “adultery” and is kind of vague overall. In ancient Greece it was common amongst elite circles for adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys to have sexual relationships, known as pederasty. Early Christians were against this. In general, the church as an institution was against sex before marriage in the time you listed but the holy book itself just says “don’t cheat or be sexual immoral”. Idk I just think there’s more flexibility/growth in Christ than a lot of Christian’s think.

>>63054
Sex and society is a very interesting subject, it's my area of specialisation for my degree. Is sex before marriage an outdated concept because of contraceptives? The reality of it is much more complicated. Overall since contraceptives were created, out of wedlock/unwanted births have risen enormously. Something like 40-50% of births in the US, Denmark, France etc are out of wedlock.
>condom companies spread idea that condoms are 99% effective based on "studies"
>they were cherry picked results for perfect use under very controlled conditions
>actual effectiveness is about 70% chance of not getting pregnant in a year of protected sex
>that means in practice even with condoms, over 5 years your chances of getting pregnant are 80+%

But in East Asian countries like China, Korea and Japan, out of wedlock kids are almost nonexistent at 2-3%. They also have much higher rates of virginity before marriage and lower body counts.

>>96852
but it isn't vague nona,saint paul even "invented" (borrowed from hebrew) a greek word, asenokoitai, which literally translates to "men who lay (conjugally) with men". Its as explicit as one can be, Jesus also said that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that adultery is forbidden, then it also condemns that too

>>62804
Then you would be pressured to after that time was up.
If you said I want to wait a few months and a year passes, what then?
If you say marriage, then you can put it off indefinitely unless you're ready to commit.
Agreeing to marry limits his choices to you only, which also pressures you to fulfill your relationship responsibilities, which is to be that outlet for your partner because you agreed to for the rest of your life.
So don't get married unless you're comfortable with agreeing to carry that.
Marriage is also a great filter for guys who just want one thing.
Men who won't wait till marriage can just leave when they get what they wanted, with nothing to hold them accountable.

>>62795
Good for you, Anon

>>96855
given that the rates of divorce in western countries are so much higher, though, what value or significance is there in having kids in wedlock?

>>96855
It's because with birth control people were under the impression that can have bare sex with no risk, so the number of people who are having bare sex increased drastically. As long as birth control doesn't have a 100% chance of working, as more people have sex the number of unintended pregencies will increase.

>>96351
will i ever find a man willing to wait if I had oral sex with a previous boyfriend. I'm still a PIV virgin and before I get bullied right now just know I want to kill myself daily so yes I know I was a retard. i'm waiting for religious reasons after converting back to christianity. i may never be able to date let alone marry because of one mistake. fuck this world.

>>101589
I hate to be a debbie downer, but it's not likely. Any man who waits for marriage probably does so because he believes sex outside marriage is something very bad. Therefore, he would avoid women who did not wait.

>>101589
There's so much wrong with your way of thinking nona. Why would you lament about something so, simply put, stupid.

Are you implying losing your virginity is something material that will be noticed? Because the hymen doesn't get torn during intercourse unless you're very young and it hasn't had the time to stretch out through physical activity yet. That's why some women in highly patriarchal societies trim their nails on the sides to create a sharp point to cut into their thigh to draw blood. Since blood doesn't always leak during your first time (in fact, it's not a good sign when it does). Virginity holds only spiritual/moral meaning, and only as much as you personally give it. Oral sex doesn't even cut it to constitute losing your virginity. Virginity was primarily valued because there was no contraception, and having sex meant the risk of getting impregnated. Such an outdated concept, it makes exactly 0 sense to drag it into the modern world.

You can just say you're a virgin and still get your Christian moid, you do know that, right? You think his moid senses will start tingling and he will sniff out whether or not you've laid eyes on a dick before? Pft.

I genuinely worry for Christian women. I wonder what must've happened in your life to make you subscribe to an oppressive religion in 2023, instead of opting in for a more secularized spirituality. If you grew up sheltered, please be careful with men in general - they do not have thoughts about sex as pure as yours.

>>101589
do you know the story of travis alexander and jodi arias?
he was very religious, and slept before marriage with a woman.
religious men aren't as "pure" as they seem. given the chance, they will and do sleep before marriage with someone. besides, defining purity on the basis of someone's sexual history is very, very wrong and misleading.
your future religious boyfriend might or might not be a virgin (he might lie about it too).
but, i think that you should be honest about having had sexual contact before marriage to a guy who thinks that's important, because i believe honesty is important and lying is unfair. clearly, you should also demand and expect honesty in return.

i fully believe this will not block marriage prospects. men are beggars in relationships and beggars can't be choosers.
many men don't care about someone's sexual history. others do, but they are not worth your time. that's a giant red flag.
you also don't necessarily have to marry a christian (or a virgin). in fact, i'd advise you to not marry religious men. in fact, i'd advise you to reconsider your own religiousness. is it making you happy or is it making you miserable? is it genuine or does it feel forced? based on this, draw your conclusions and make your own choices.
please forgive yourself, you did nothing wrong. you are worth regardless of your virginity or sex life. stop obsessing over this and live life.

>>101589
It feels like the other responses are putting you down even if it might not be their intention
It's your way of thinking and if you believe it then you should have the right to care about those things
Be religious if it feels right to you, and be honest too
If you get ahead by tricking someone is it really worth it? Some people say yes but on the inside you'll know it's wrong
Find someone who will understand you and forgive you
If you're sincere he should agree that you repented since repentance is an important aspect of Christianity
I hope you succeed

>>62792
I never convinced him to wait. He comes from a religious and conservative family so I wasn't surprised he's a virgin but we also started dating when he was 18 and I was 20. I was a virgin too, so that helps.

>>101615
"other replies are putting her down" and you encourage her to continue unhealthy self hating behavior that is making her suffer? lol
i agree with part of what you said, but there's a time and place to encourage free thinking and pseudo moralism, and when someone is having warped world views and seems extremely distressed about them, it's not the time

>>101636
Well I don't think the solution is to change her entire worldview and instead it would be better to do a very small modification which will allow her peace of mind
I mean essentially the other replies boil down to "it's over" "just lie to men" and "just become atheist" which I don't think are good ideas in the long run

>>101589
Yes as long as you are sincere