>>34422243
i am currently with my first and we plan to get married, so i am le virgin wife.
yes it is indeed better, but just be careful of that language. virgin women (especially if you are one as an adult, which is common unlike what incels like to think lol) tend to be scared away by redpill/manosphere talk like this, and male obsession about virgins. don't be too intense at the start or make her feel awkward by telling her how she's good and all other women are bad, avoid stuff like that and just treat her as a person.
it's not too much to ask op. it's just a preference, it just often comes with this loser-y obsessive hate towards other women sadly.

File: blackpilled doomer pepe.jpg (4.9 KB)

4.9 KB JPG

>>34422314
>it just often comes with this loser-y obsessive hate towards other women sadly.
I understand but when the avg woman is promiscuous as hell and had been in relationship & slept with atleast 1 or 2 other dudes(casual flings excluded from the bodycount list cuz idk modern women logic I guess), it becomes very very difficult to maintain a straight face for a man with bare basic standards encounters them. It's suicidally depressing to say the least as my increasingly viable options now are either having to accept a ran though woman and destroy the honour of my parents, myself and that I shall pass on to my children or die single.

Btw how old are you and your would-be husband?

>>34422243
Fellow east coaster here, I'm planning on moving elsewhere in the country for better chances since the place I've grown up in is very liberal. You might have better luck if you move too, I don't think you're going to find an adult virgin woman on west or east coast states.

>>34422243
Well, first fallacy here: Virgin doesn't guarantee good marriage. Non-virgin doesn't guarantee bad marriage. I grew up in an community where wait until marriage is the norm, and while the divorce rates are probably lower, it's not a foolproof method of preventing divorce, and a number of couples stay together in undesirable marriages just for religious/cultural reasons.

If you're deadset on virgin and serious about it, you will eventually find what you are looking for. Yes, you can find attractive and virgin who is in her early to mid 20s. Most guys aren't serious about it though and only want to whine and complain.

>>34422243
>Is it too much to ask ?
Yes.

>>34422243
then marry a young woman dingus. the stats in your pic are the result of women generally marrying later, nothing more

>>34422243
>is this too much to ask?
depends. are you a virgin? if so, no. if not, yes. go be with someone who is as whoreish as you are.

>>34422963
I expect loyalty till last breath though and I am someone who will punish infidelity or cheating, divorce, etc., by death, even if it gets me hanged or electrocuted in prison. I'm also ready to lose my life if I'm unfaithful.
However I do fear that given the current nature of things, this is what is going to happen anyways where I end up killing my infidel wife, her partner and then myself.

>>34423014
holy based

>>34423014
this isnt expectint loyalty this is expecting perfectionism. you should unironically never get married. be a monk. it will be better for everyone.

>>34423050
>Expecting a wife to not cheat on her hsuband is seeking perfection
Insane narcissistic foid

>>34423050
>expecting something as basic as this, inspite of never having mentioned superficial preferences that the avg man has such as preferences for big tits, ass, 8+/10 pretty face and shiett is expecting perfectionism
hmmmm... I thought women wanted to be judged for their personality and character and not for their superficialities.

>>34422243
>26
>East coast
Good luck with that lol

>>34422243
Just wait until marriage. It's implied that you expect the same, and if you aren't a spastic about it (i.e. you don't rant at women or make it seem like your entire personality/the only thing you care about), some women you date, even if they're not what you're looking for, might be inclined to make an introduction later on if they know of a woman who is also waiting. The more they like you as a person, the likelier it is that they'd want to play matchmaker.

>>34422766
>Virgin doesn't guarantee good marriage.
True.
>Non-virgin doesn't guarantee bad marriage
Not necessarily true. It depends on what a good marriage is defined as. Happiness is just one dimension, not the sole one. Exclusivity is another, and by that measure, a non-virgin is incapable of being truly monogamous (by the original definition: one partner for life).

>>34423798
I actually do want to befriend women of that type, you know, the types eager in trying match up good charactered men & women who wish to be loyal till the end and want the best for them. This will sound crude, but I think it's good for society by and large, and certainly so for the future genepool as I think narcs have been outbreeding these types of people for quite some time and have managed to alter the demographics of society itself and managed to make it more "selfish"(?). Anyways, who am I to judge?

>>34422243
Past a certain age (I'd guess early 20s) a woman or man with no sexual experience would be more psychologically suspect than one who had 2 or 3 loving relationships that included sex.

>>34424163
>hedonist cope

>>34422243
By your own chart, 50% of women have 3 or fewer partners before marriage. Assuming that one is the man they eventually marry, and noting that the average age for first marriage is 30, that means going through their pre-marriage twenties with only 2 or fewer partners.

Would you be happy with having only 2 sex partners before you're 30?

>>34422243
The average little old lady goes to her grave having had 6 sex partners in her 90+ years, at least two of them husbands.

>>34424169
nah. I don't want to be a cuck and dishonour my children. I think the avg man would think in the same way, but is rather too scared to say it out loud for the fear of being called as an incel, a virgin loser or a hypocritical faggot. I could care less what people call me, but I just don't want a ran through woman, get known as a cuckold and ruin my children's future. I'll say this once again: I would be tainting the legacy of my parents, mine and that of the children by marrying a ran through woman & having children with her.
I'm a virgin btw.

>>34423080
thats not what i said and you should really think about why you interpreted me that way

>>34424169
Most of the guys here are virgins or low body count themselves

>>34424187
>I'm a virgin btw.
Things you didn't have to tell us.

>>34424493
I had to as I risk being accused as a hypocrite

>>34424568
You cannot really win in the virgin position. They will either call you a hypocrite or a sad incel.

>>34424583
>They will either call you a hypocrite
How can they when I'm not someone who has had sex
>incel
yeah they will, but doesn't that mean even le tall, handsome gigachad would be a spineless cuckold loser who still has to wife up a ran through stacey and churn out literal bastard children? Think about it from the child's perspective. Heck just think about it from le genetically superior stacey's perspective for that matter as to what she thinks of le genetically superior chad who was ready to be a good little spineless cuckold. I'm beginning to think that being called an incel would be a compliment as I was atleast not a spineless cuckold desperate enough to wife up a ran through slut.

>>34424635
What counts as "ran through" to you? Any woman who's ever had sex outside of marriage? A woman who's only had sex in committed long term relationship? A woman who's had a single one night stand outside of a relationship? Where do you draw the line?

>>34424685
>Where do you draw the line?
A woman who has had sex with another man who was not her mate her for life. That's it. Simple as.

I wish to have only 1 partner for life and I expect the same from her. Why are you trying to complicate it when virginity has been stressed here long enough? I get to take the virginity of my wife and she gets to take mine and both of us remain exclusive to each other till our last breaths i.e. monogamy for life and not some crazy shit like "serial monogamy" which is fancier way of saying polygamy over an extended time frame.

>>34424707>>34424685
A small addendum:
A woman is also ran through when she's exclusive to only 1 man for life, but since she is exclusive to that one man, she ain't a hoe/slut.

>>34424707
So you're going to wait until marriage?

>>34424732
even better:
A non virgin woman is literally a ran through woman. It's only problem if she isn't mate for life with only 1 man. Same goes for men, but I think you could care less about it.

>>34424746
>Same goes for men, but I think you could care less about it.
Why the double standard? Elaborate

>>34424742
yeah and if that means I'm going to die childless as there are no virgin woman, then so be it. Better to die a childless celibate than be a spineless cuckold. I don't know about women but I get a feeling that even ran through women feel a teeny tiny sense of unconscious shame & disgust of men ready to accept them. Like c'mon, how pathetic & hypogonadic do you have to be as a man to ruin your past, present and future honour ffs? Your chldren will always be known as that of a slut mother and cuckoldry loving father

>>34424754
I don't have the double standard though. It's just that women place a high value on a man who is sexually experienced and already vetted by other women. Pre-selection effect. Mathew principle. You get the picture.

>>34424754
Not the op, but the double standard exists because men value chastity in women while vice versa isn’t typically true.

>>34424755
Did your mom sleep around on your dad or something? This kind of hate doesn't come from nowhere.
>but I think you could care less about it.
That is textbook double standard. How is the below statement any different than what you had said?
>It's just that men place a high value on a woman who is sexually experienced and already vetted by other men. Pre-selection effect. Mathew principle. You get the picture.

>>34424774
Nope.
Both of them were exclusive to each other and they were introduced to each other by our relatives, an arranged marriage of sorts if you will. Bot of my parents came from very conservative backgrounds, so it was expected of them to not be degenerates. Both of them have never drunk, smoke, nor have even consumed freaking lindt chocolate of rum flavour. Lol. They may not be ultra orthodox religious, but they're very much socially conservative.
>double standard
I don't have that though, atleast to my knowledge. Women and perhaps other andrew tate types do. Do they call it unidirectional monogamy where the woman is monogamous but the man isn't?

>>34424791>>34424774
and forgive for my typos

>>34424791
I've noticed most people I know in arranged marriages are pretty happy honestly, I'm glad it worked out for them
>Both of them have never drunk, smoke, nor have even consumed freaking lindt chocolate of rum flavour
Rum flavoured stuff is my kryptonite, that's the only thing I can confidently say they're missing out on.
Butterscotch isn't far off though lol
>Do they call it unidirectional monogamy where the woman is monogamous but the man isn't?
Pretty sure that's just cuckoldry, same as the inverse.
Those agreements are usually consensual agreements within an established relationship.

From what I can determine about the above you believe that any man who's been with a woman who isn't a virgin is a cuck, how does that work with female preselection bias selecting experienced men?

>>34422243
god damn i hate women so god damn much

>>34422314
also married with my first and only! i 100% second this. lots of men are too pushy and weird about it, or are only into virgins for their pedo fantasies, and they expect the virgin to fulfill their sexual fantasies as well. it is quite upsetting. be normal and you can have a virgin wife!

File: pepe the frog.jpg (54.3 KB)

54.3 KB JPG

>>34424815
>how does that work with female preselection bias selecting experienced men?
women & men don't think that hard when it comes to casual hookups or situationships, and it was in that context that I'd stated the pre-selection effect. They might think about it even if he was a "Chad", both from a disrespectful sense(how can he accept a ran through woman like me without a spine?) & fearful sense(won't my children inherit the traits associated with promiscuity, infidelity, etc. and be miserable?) if they consider him for marriage, but I don't know to be honest. I don't even know what % of promiscuous people are happily married for more than 50+ years, but I think it's quite low.
>>34424851
>also married with my first and only!
congrats
>pedo fantasies
quite the opposite as those who value virginity value family, honour, stability, loyalty and I guess even altruism in a sense. I wouldn't be suprised if pedos had more in common with promiscuous folks who treat others as pieces of meat to be used, abused and disposed later
>pushy and weird
some just do it to humiliate the avg woman out there and still fuck these very same women for fun(again think of andrew tate) but other folks who may've a similar worldview as myself, but do not express things in a subtle way, do it out of self-respect and dignity that often comes off as comical.
>>34424823
I don't think your grandma or great grandma was like this. Sure there have been a good load of ladies who took their nasty secrets to their graves, but there have also been plenty(more than 60% I would say) who weren't degenerates.

Anyways folks, I don't want to reply to any of your posts for the next 20 hours as I've some serious work to do. If this thread is still up after that, say till Sunday night, then I might chime in. I shall try to bump this thread every couple of hours, but I won't be able to interact with you. thank you for your time, suggestions & lamentations and please do have a happy weekend.

>>34424987
>20 hours
20 or certainly more hours *

>>34424987
>>pedo fantasies
>quite the opposite as those who value virginity value family, honour, stability, loyalty and I guess even altruism in a sense. ...
Your personal beliefs are not the generally held opinion of those men who are obsessive over virgins. Virgin-obsessed men are often looking for a young and subservient target to project abuse (not just physical, I'm talking all kinds) onto. Their idea is that a young woman is easier to manipulate and use to their advantage, commonly as a hybrid maid and sex toy. While I appreciate your wholesome view of the virgin, you are not the average man who boldly and loudly proclaims that "virgins are better".

>>34422243
Same problem here. I don’t want to settle for a wife like that.

Two years ago, I escaped a nearly identical situation. She revealed her past relationships to me—all six of them, and each lasted only one to four weeks.

I knew right then and there that this generation of women is hopeless. I was so happy four months into the relationship. I wish I had never known about it.

That wasn’t the only reason it didn't work. She started talking to some guy all day, and I ended it right then for a week; it was all semi-flirty texts. She begged me to let her hang out with him at a club with his friends late into the night.

Though I don’t feel this specific incident is enough to say, "Once a whore [promiscuous person], always a whore [promiscuous person]," I have to generalize and say that these days the saying is true after seeing how women act now.

Too much freedom has caused this; however, I am not entirely against it. It just really sucks for people like you because, at your age, finding a virgin is like finding gold under your basement floor.

No amount of convincing is going to change my mind about girls not holding tight to the feelings of "first instances," like the first kiss, first time having sex, and everything else that is a first. Knowing this and not finding a virgin is just tough for sensitive guys.

Try being a little more open. Maybe go for girls with one or two solid relationships that didn't work out due to reasons beyond their control—like moving to another country, a partner passing away, or any genuine reason you consider acceptable.

>>34422243
Don't bother asking women about body count, they'll just lie and everyone knows they will lie
Ask them for the dude's names instead, and last names
Their response would be far more telling

bump

>>34425163
Source?

File: big brain time.gif (45.1 KB)

45.1 KB GIF

>>34422243
ah, you're afraid of disappointing a woman sexually so you're going after a woman who hasn't had sex before. Smart.

>>34424169
i only want 1 person for life. men and women who want to sleep around are whores and should not get married or have children imo.

>>34426405
I want a virgin wife. I dont think I have ever really felt what you are describing but if I did it would be completely justified and fair not wanting to compete with someones former lovers.

>>34425239
he can just date younger women.

>>34422243
I don't think you have to worry about any of these things, OP. Honestly, I think you'll be okay. You'd have to be desirable to women for any of these things to be an issue.

>>34426587
>it would be completely justified and fair not wanting to compete with someones former lovers
Ask me how I know you've never touched a woman before

>>34424163
This is just not true. Virginity is completely normal.

>>34425239
>Maybe go for girls with one or two solid relationships that didn't work out due to reasons beyond their control
The only legitimate excuse is a woman who waited until marriage but then justifiably divorced when the guy turned out to be a cheater or abusive.
While it's not a moral stain on a woman if she was widowed, she's still not able to be exclusive with anyone else. The fact that she'd even try to replace the relationship devalues what she had with her late husband.
Everything else is a direct result of her own choices--if she gets intimate without commitment, and then the relationship fizzles out for one reason or another, the fact of her past was the risk she willingly assumed. It's not something anyone should get a free pass on, lest that behavior be encouraged.

Blog post: I am a somewhat selfisolating sperg lanklet. I have declined sex with women around 4 times and a couple more edge cases where it is hard to determine intentions. Dumped gf. Rejecting 2 girls asking me out. All because of my view of intimacy and wanting someone like me. I was even sad I gave away my first kiss to my ex-gf on some level. I don't want to sleep around and I am proud of waiting and would have it no other way.

When I found out that most women don't actually hold that sort of romantic idea of relationships and family to the extent I was crushed.

It isn't really about valuing virginity per se since I am very ok with widows etc. But consensual sex while not married/engaged seems completely retarded to me.

I just do things to fill the void like train and martial arts, mess with computers. But the fact is that deep down I want to kill myself over it. No one will love me like I love them.

Also I am way too well-read on the history the sexual revolution and its intellectual basis which i reject outright so there is 0 chance of me submitting to normie dogma or reddit advice.

https://youtu.be/acdJteG572w?is=HZUbVui6fI85Y9kg

>>34426746
>gave away my first kiss
>I am way too well-read on the history the sexual revolution and its intellectual basis
Holy fucking autistic batman

>>34426679
Have you seen the average divorcee?

>>34425735
Memories of a dude's name?
None at all

>>34426782
He's still based.

>>34426812
Yeah, but I'm not referring to the average. I specifically qualified it by saying ONLY a woman who waited until marriage. That's not your typical divorcee.
Even controlling for religion (and controlling for the small but significant portion of retards who marry within a couple months of meeting so they can have "legitimate" sex), those who wait are both more likely to have a happy marriage and less likely to divorce. So among the few people who wait, they're also less likely to have problems in their relationships. If they're 5% of marriages, they're maybe 2% of divorces, if that.

Yo, I'm back.

>>34425163
Sure sure, the avg man is definitely some inbred pedo retard whose pedo tendencies were selectively bred for. C'mon anon, you know as much as I do the avg male simply wants a young, 20-25ish woman(lookswise) who wasn't ran through and will be loyal to him till death. This is true for all males, from adolescents to grandpas. Of course, older dudes don't expect much from young women as they know that infidelity is just right around the corner and those old dudes who go out of their way to try to trap young women are either super desperate virgin like delulus who want to live their youthful "true love" fantasies or are the most anti-social psychos(think epstein or the like).
I'm personally not so much looks obsessed per se, but I will however have issues with things like... idk... acne (?), only if it's a signal of an underlying health issue(I can help her fix it though after we get married by addressing the underlying health issue such as pcos). Then again bad looks ain't a deal breaker for me either, but bad character & perhaps even personality traits like poor intelligence & low conscientiousness is, as proxied by past behaviour that is. Lookism-autism can only survive in a society for so long until it comes crashing down brutally when shit hits the fan. The only long term essential traits for our species, individually & collectively speaking, are altruism, loyalty, monogamy, high trust, high conscientiousness, high intelligence and good physical & mental health. Our enemy is entropy itself, not other humans who we've to constantly play status gaymes with, only to end up selecting for traits that help us excel in that very same zero-sum gayme leaving us with nothing long term. I'm sure i don't have to get into things like fisherian runaways as you may be already aware of it.

>>34426405
Any sane man with a spine, a functioning brain, an intact self-respect and nads wouldn't wish to be a cuckold by having to wife up someone who was ran through by someone else. Your children will always be known as that of a hoe mommy and a cuckoldry embracing daddy.

>>34427591
>Your children will always be known as that of a hoe mommy and a cuckoldry embracing daddy.
if you actually married a ran through woman & had keeeds that is *

>>34426630
I have had gfs. But try gaslighting to keep your narrowminded cope going forever.

Go move to a Sharia Law shithole if you want a pure virgin wife so fucking badly.

>>34427927
the western world was not a shithole back in the day but then it turned into one and is now rotting.

muh sharia law cope. the sexual revolution has been one of the most destructive things ever pushed unto humanity. I will be so happy when this shitty civilization falls under its own weight. its death can't come quick enough.

ironically, you are the conservative here.

>>34427984
>the western world was not a shithole back in the day but then it turned into one and is now rotting.
That is objectively false, but hey if you're so desperate for a virgin wife that you'd rather live during a time with no sanitation, non-existent basic hygiene, and no modern medicine in exchange for a pure virgin wife, then be my guest.
>the sexual revolution has been one of the most destructive things ever pushed unto humanity.
We live in one of the best times for humanity, whining about how people have sex outside of marriage won't change that.
>ironically, you are the conservative here.
lol, what? I don't profess to be a liberal or a conservative. Was that supposed to offend me? Just go move to Saudi Arabia for your pure virgin wife retard.

File: virgins.png (542.5 KB)

542.5 KB PNG

>>34427591
Nah, it's either you embrace reality or you get nothing. The statistic is that >95% of women already had sex before marriage. You either take what's out there or you stay incel.

>>34427992
>sanitation, non-existent basic hygiene, and no modern medicine
The sexual revolution was only possible thanks to the pill, i.e. from the 50s onward. And it didn't happen overnight, but has instead gotten steadily worse because of the very modern medicine you think is a decent trade. Instead of degenerates reaping what they sow and being disfigured by or dying of STD's like they used to, we stupidly cure the vermin and let them spread their misery.

>>34428194
>Modern medicine was a mistake because STDs can be cured and I'm butthurt about sluts
This is maybe one of the most retarded takes I've ever come across in my life.

>>34428246
I'm not surprised you can't read.
My overall point is that the sexual revolution existed well after sanitation and modern medicine, let alone the concept of bathing. So the premise of the post I quoted was false.

>>34427992
Division of labour and basedence does not make us superior morally or ethically, it just allows for us to believe in grand delusions like all that text you puked out. Stop the whiggish cope.

You are a whore and useful idiot to power. You are a conservative.

>>34428007
Helping adding fire to the demographic crisis is better. We should speed run the collapse to destroy liberalism faster.

>>34428246
You are creating system dependence on technology which means the consequences of its collapse far more extreme. It is foolish to use technology to solve the problems caused by technology. You are creating an unsustainable system.

>>34426895
>those who wait are both more likely to have a happy marriage and less likely to divorce
You're wanting the statical failures. A marriage failed after the procedure was performed. Therefore there can't be something wrong with the people involved- they did all the steps right dammit!

>>34428809
those people and those people who don't cohabitate before marriage are better off long term than people who don't. it just has to be better than than all alternatives, which it is. you have no legs to stand on so just give up.

>>34428841
I won't tolerate foids who fail even after performing the ritual with the highest probability of success.

>>34428421
There is no collapse. It will get worse forever.

>>34428421
yes i agree. Need to make the entire population a bunch of whores. Bastard children everywhere. so much so that the governments of the world just put a chastity belts on every one.

>>34428007
or we could make an example of this generation, let their prospects sunset into their 30's with no husband and procreate with the next generation, prime, youthful, and with a newfound appreciation for faithfulness and exclusivity.

>>34429015
Half of millenial women will die childless. Why do you think people are going insane.

>>34426405
I absolutely want to please my girlfriend as best as I can, but I just don't want to marry a woman who had a hoe phase. Nothing against them, but we would have differing opinions about sex and intimacy, and I'd rather be with a woman who didn't feel the need to sleep around and only sex with the men she was in a serious relationship with. People can change their opinions over time, but I don't want to be with someone who needed to have fun with many different men to come to that conclusion.

>>34428007
I'd already made it clear that I'm ready to die single. But I just wish to ensure that I'd done everything right before throwing in the towel.
>Just accept a ran through woman tard
Nah. I don't wish to make this personal, but did your dad accept a ran through woman like a cuckold and then later birth you? What does that make you if you did come from such a family background?

>>34429612
> with the men she was in a serious relationship with
>plural
The absolute state of fornicators

>>34428841
Eh, I don't know about no cohabitation before marriage. You discover things about a person like if you can live with them on a day to day basis that way. If there are a bunch of minor disagreements about household stuff that can lead to resentment between the couple. At the very least there should be a short trial period during the engagement.

>>34430031
Isn't that called "dating", prior to engagement? This of course assumes that the dating doesn't involve sex.

>>34422243
32 virgin here. So far the only good advice I've read seems to be to move to an area where marriage values are still there. This is commonly also associated with church values as well. I've also heard about matchmaker female friends. Where should I go if I don't like religion and I also don't have female friends?

I didn't care about this when I was younger. As a matter of fact virginity (pain/blood/women problems) grossed me out. In my early 20s, based on a high school thought process, I had already told myself I was just going to stay single forever. Around 25, I started thinking that being single forever would suck. Covid happened, other stuff happened, now I'm 32 and have no idea where to go to date.

I think got the idea of a single job and only one partner for life through a combination of old TV and religion. Like I thought life would be like the '50s. Well, I learned about jobs, my parents divorced and never remarried, and my grandparents on my dad's side each had 4 spouses.

Note that spouse doesn't mean sex. Some just do it for taxes.

If you don't go to church, and you don't like bars or apps, where do you go? My other issue is I have a fear of divorce's financial consequences. I never want a divorce anyway, but that's not always controllable. Ideally, I'd do a spiritual marriage without government involvement. Just me and my future wife. However, if you do separate without marriage there is still common law marriage where you can get shafted financially anyway due to cohabitation counting as de facto marriage in some areas.

>>34430036
No. Dating is more, going out places, while getting to know each other. Then there is the mess of non-exclusive dating (like multiple first and 2nd dates) to try to find your fit faster, The old term after dating was "going steady" but now it's just "exclusive" or "boyfriend/girlfriend" I see the ladder as
>Went on a date
>Dating
>Exclusive "labels"
>Engaged
>Married

What was talking about in my last post was not just dating, but specifically cohabitation during the exclusive dating period, and I feel like that should only be done after you're serious enough which would be during the engaged phase.

>>34422243
Only aspies are this obsessed with stats and your kind tends to have a very low breeding rate so I don't think you'll need to worry about having kids

>>34430050
only cuckoldry loving men who were bastard children themselves don't give a damn about all of this. You do you, anon.

>>34430031
Counterintuitive as it might seem, there is actually no real benefit to a "trial period" of cohabitation.
At best, after controlling for selection effects and the usual slate of socioeconomic factors, there's a drop in short-term divorces (i.e. the couple splits a couple months after marrying) but no lasting decrease in overall risk. On the contrary, there is consistent "cohabitation effect" where it's not only not beneficial, but actively harmful to marital stability to cohabit.
Cohabitation around the time of engagement is probably not going to do that much harm compared to the people who move in after a couple of dates, but it's unlikely to help, either--and the downside of encouraging sex outside of marriage more than outweighs the dubious benefit.

>>34430050
Your children will have less than you.

>>34430115
I meant cohabitation without sex during the engagement period. Of course society will make assumptions if you're living together, but also not even full time. Like she'd still have her own place during that period too. That way if the home situation doesn't work out you have still saved yourself for marriage with someone else who you can live with, instead of being one of those two month divorces.

>>34430230
Highly highly unlikely for that to work out. Besides, the woman will be judged anyways for the simple reason that the avg woman has slept with more than 5 dudes 'officially' by the time she is 25.

bump

what i think you should do i start impregnating random prostitutes and get beaten up by their pimps. this will help you get clarity on so many real world problems that you will stop posting your virgin seeking ass here.

>>34432789
You don't need help. You want to ignore the fact that other people are looking for true love and going to breakups. Call them cucks while you can't get what you want despite having every statical advantage.

OP will die a virgin.

For me it's about the emotional experience of going through it for the first time together that leaves the permanent memory imprint of first time connection of that level in each other. If you as a virgin do it with a non-virgin, they already have that imprint from someone else and you are just doing it alone into the void.

But today's women either don't seem to care about that or they got tricked by the cultural infection and screwed everything up. And depending on your view on women's capability of independent decision-making, another interpretation is that men failed to set the standards and protect women from getting collectively swept away by this infection. Sad state of the world.

Maybe it is the final hunt for the rare few women who managed to protect their virginity for their future husband. Well, cock carousel enjoyers aren't breeding so in the long run, this problem will self-regulate itself away.

>>34433180
It doesn't work that way. It's funny how dateless virgins with zero experience such as yourself think they are experts about relationships and sex.

File: it was good.jpg (51.4 KB)

51.4 KB JPG

>>34422243
>Is it too much to ask ?
depends mostly on you
how's your dating life and how often do you manage fresh pussy

>>34433185
Then how does it work?
I'm definitely an expert of what I want, even if that allegedly would change afterwards.
I thought your wants were important in this kind of thing and that you shouldn't get pressured into something you don't want.
Are there any men here who as a virgin had virgin preference but settled on a non-virgin, and how much did you regret it? I mean, a non-virgin could still be good match, but it's not the same.

>>34433185
Then how does it work?
I'm definitely an expert of what I want, even if that allegedly would change after I get the thing I wanted.
I thought your wants were important in this kind of thing and that you shouldn't get pressured into something you don't want.
Are there any men here who as a virgin had virgin preference but settled on a non-virgin, and how much did you regret it? I mean, a non-virgin could still be good match overall especially if your options are few, but it's still used and not new.

>>34422314
Sucking dick counts as having sex

>>34433252
nta
>I thought your wants were important in this kind of thing and that you shouldn't get pressured into something you don't want.
It's important to be realistic about your standards. If you're in your to mid to late 20s, you need to give up on the pure virgin fantasy. And no, most women aren't sluts, most women have low body counts that can be counted on a single hand. If you think a woman having had sex even once before she met you is a dealbreaker, that's your problem, not hers.

>>34429987
>I'd already made it clear that I'm ready to die single. But I just wish to ensure that I'd done everything right before throwing in the towel.
I'm just saying that statistically, the odds are very small. Especially if you are not Chad, you don't exactly have your pick of the litter.
>Nah. I don't wish to make this personal, but did your dad accept a ran through woman like a cuckold and then later birth you?
This is over 95% of mothers.
>What does that make you if you did come from such a family background?
If we were to assume that I fall within the 95%, then it would make me completely normal.

>>34433648
>This is over 95% of mothers.
Yes, and it's sad that virtually every single millenial, zoomer and gen alpha person is a bastard child who had cuckold of a dad and whore of a mother.
>completely normal
Funny how normalcy has changed. What used to abnormal has now become the new normal, that too the kind of normal you wouldn't want to see and cherish. I wonder what you might say to your kids when questions or discussion pertaining to this subject pops up.

>>34433675
I don't think that most children ask about who their mother dated before they got married or consider it a big deal. They're more concerned with her presence in their life.
Your overemphasis on this is quite neurotic. A woman's body count does not predetermine how well she will do as a mother. There are so many other things that can go wrong in life than to have a mother who has had sex.

>>34433686
>Your overemphasis on this is quite neurotic. A woman's body count does not predetermine how well she will do as a mother
Lol. Lmao even. I truly hope you're a troll.
Why do you think virgin women have the lowest divorce rates? Of course, I'm not going to debate you on something self-evident as that, but then again there's the problem of children who I wouldn't want to be tormented by their spineless father's and slut mother's mistake.

>>34433692
>Why do you think virgin women have the lowest divorce rates?
Those statistics are bunk, and you would know that if you knew how to read studies.
Younger women are more likely to have fewer divorces in their life, and older women are more likely to have more divorces in their life. That is the summary of those studies.
Besides, those studies showed a 50% marriage satisfaction rate with virgins, which is not exactly the perfect solution that you're making it out to be.

>>34433694
>marriage satisfaction
yeah and the whole point is building a life & family together cuz just being happy is not the metric to go by.
>young women less likely to divorce, old women more
yeah, but let's see how that plays out when bodycounts are accounted for.
Again. there's the "children" problem and that of my parents as well as my dad didn't marry a ran through slut and my mom didn't marry someone who was indecent either.

>>34433698
nta
>yeah and the whole point is building a life & family together cuz just being happy is not the metric to go by.
>Happiness isn't important to a good functioning marriage and family
Holy shit I hope you die alone.

>>34433694
Look, you don't have to be defensive about your own parents or your future family and try defending this retardation, only to drag me into an endless debate which I feel is only going to end up becoming a turd flinging contest. You do you, but this is a non-negotiable for me.

>>34433698
>yeah and the whole point is building a life & family together cuz just being happy is not the metric to go by.
You don't think watching your parents endure a shitty marriage is going to affect a child? Even a divorce might be better than that.
>yeah, but let's see how that plays out when bodycounts are accounted for.
Younger women tend to have a lower body count, and older women tend to have a higher body count. This is purely a function of having lived longer.
There are no studies which compare women who are at the same age, making them useless.
>Again. there's the "children" problem and that of my parents as well as my dad didn't marry a ran through slut and my mom didn't marry someone who was indecent either.
You don't actually know that your mom was a virgin. There is no way you could ever prove that.
Anyway, that is why you're so neurotic. You are trying to have exactly the same relationship your parents had, in a world where you have less than a 5% chance of finding that.
Consider the possibility that just because your parents are that way, does not mean it's superior or the only way to do things.

>>34433705
Happiness is a momentary feeling and so is "satisfaction". One day you feel satisfied and the other day you don't.
>>34433708
I suppose their satisfaction stemmed from purpose and duty more than whatever retardation modernity has managed to normalize. Sure there were insane fights, but things went back to normal like nothing had happened the very next day.
>You don't actually know that your mom was a virgin. There is no way you could ever prove that.
I do know that as her relatives would've outed her out and my paternal side also did some background checks.
>younger women tend to have lower body count
Lol. Sure 10 is less than 20 or 30, but 10 is still far greater than 0 or even 1 for that matter.
>neurotic
Perhaps it's just me being a sane person in an insane world that has made it a point to churn out bastard children en masse. Anyways, as I'd said before, I'm ready to die single if the alternative is having to marry a ran through slut and ruin the heritage of my parents, of myself and that which I shall pass on to my children. Perhaps having a cuckold daddy wasn't, and becoming one wouldn't, be a big deal to you, so keep churning out tainted minions, oh my sweet bastard child.

>>34433728
>Happiness is a momentary feeling and so is "satisfaction". One day you feel satisfied and the other day you don't.
Do you think emotions just come out of nowhere and that it's not a good idea to want you and your loved ones to be happy? The fuck is wrong with you?

>>34433728
>I suppose their satisfaction stemmed from purpose and duty more than whatever retardation modernity has managed to normalize. Sure there were insane fights, but things went back to normal like nothing had happened the very next day.
Yeah, but they produced a son who browses 4chan and can't fit into society.
>I do know that as her relatives would've outed her out and my paternal side also did some background checks.
Bro, hypothetically speaking, she could've sucked a guy's dick behind a dumpster and told no one. She could've had anal. There is zero chance of proving this.
>Lol. Sure 10 is less than 20 or 30, but 10 is still far greater than 0 or even 1 for that matter.
Again, you're missing the point, which is that these studies do not support the conclusions you are drawing. There is no evidence that virgins produce stronger or longer marriages.
>Anyways, as I'd said before, I'm ready to die single if the alternative is having to marry a ran through slut and ruin the heritage of my parents
The bloodline ends with you anyway. I am sure your parents will love that.

>>34433730
Alright, I'll bite your b8.
Sure it can come from constant negative experiences, but you know as much as I do that modern people, especially women, are primed to hone in on the negatives, that too the most trivial of ones and not even the kind of negatives I'd described b4(assuming of course you consider things like being a hoe and a ready to rehab cuck, are a negative), use it as a justification to end the relationship and move on. It takes emotional regulation and self-control to build a relationship, something which I know that the vast vast majority don't possess or are deliberately not educated in that matter and perhaps actively trained to behave in a non-conducive fashion, via social media.
>The fuck is wrong with you?
The fuck is wrong with you though? Was your daddy a spineless cuckold who had to rehab a ran through whore?

>>34433744
>but you know as much as I do that modern people, especially women, are primed to hone in on the negatives,
Yeah no, that's just redpill bullshit you use to cope about not having a girlfriend. I feel sorry for any woman who ends up unfortunate enough to be in a relationship with you. Thankfully you're so autistic that you won't be able to hide your control freak abuser tendencies well and will die alone as you deserve.
>The fuck is wrong with you though? Was your daddy a spineless cuckold who had to rehab a ran through whore?
Reminder that your definition of "ran through whore" is "woman who had consensual sex outside of marriage once". Something even most trad types would find a bit much.

>>34433740
>Yeah, but they produced a son who browses 4chan and can't fit into society.
I do have a decent paying job, my own house and a butt load of friends of both the genders. It's just that the women who I know, some of whom were interested in me btw, aren't the kinds who're wife material i.e. they are all ran through sluts.
>your mom, HOE
nice projection addendum.
>virgins don't mean longer lasting marriages
they do though and a lot of my relatives are a proof of that. Sure my cousins are struggling with the modern matrimonial situation, but a minority of them chose the easy way out i.e. decided to become cuckolds and chose to rehab non-virgin sluts. I can't even see them eye-to-eye now, as comical as it may sound.

>>34433754
>I do have a decent paying job, my own house and a butt load of friends of both the genders. It's just that the women who I know, some of whom were interested in me btw, aren't the kinds who're wife material i.e. they are all ran through sluts.
That is pretty much useless if you don't have a family.
>they do though and a lot of my relatives are a proof of that. Sure my cousins are struggling with the modern matrimonial situation, but a minority of them chose the easy way out i.e. decided to become cuckolds and chose to rehab non-virgin sluts. I can't even see them eye-to-eye now, as comical as it may sound.
Firstly, you didn't even say that they got divorced. Doesn't that prove me right?
Secondly, the statistics don't back up anything you are saying.

>>34433752
>modern redpill bs
I don't think those guys even cover that though, but whatever.
Look anon, I understand your knee-jerk reaction of having to defend your bastardly origins, but I simply cannot compromise and stoop so low as your own spineless dad did..

>>34433760
I literally told you my relatives were a proof of that, implying they're still together after so many decades, and so are my parents. Is the reading comprehension crisis a consequence of the great bastardization of the population? Brutal if true, bastard anon.
>stats don't back you up chud
lol. sure

>>34433763
>I don't think those guys even cover that though, but whatever.
Oh excuse me, should I have said blackpill instead? All those groups are the same at the end of the day and you're still using "women are evil whores" to justify not having a girlfriend. It still doesn't change the fact that valuing your future wife's virginity over her happiness means you will make for an abusive husband and deserve to die alone.
>Look anon, I understand your knee-jerk reaction of having to defend your bastardly origins, but I simply cannot compromise and stoop so low as your own spineless dad did..
Oh, being disgusted by someone who thinks their future spouse's happiness isn't important is knee jerk reaction on my part? Well please, go tell all your female friends in real life on how having sex outside of marriage even just once has turned them into ran through whores with no value and how their happiness shouldn't matter in a relationship because they're stupid women. Be sure to post a video of their reactions here.

>>34433769
>I literally told you my relatives were a proof of that, implying they're still together after so many decades, and so are my parents.
So what? The fact that they were virgins has nothing to do with that. Non-virgin marriages last the same duration as virgin marriages.
>stats don't back you up chud
>lol. sure
They don't. This is the methodology of those studies:
>Let's assume a woman gets divorced every 5 years.
>A woman who is 20 years old on her first marriage will have a divorce rate of 0%, because she hasn't even reached the age of 25 yet to get her first divorce.
>A woman who is 25 years old and had her first divorce and remarried now has a divorce rate of 50%.
>A woman who is 30 years old on her third marriage now has a divorce rate of 66%.
Your beliefs about virgins are not based on science, they are based on religion.

>>34433770
Look, you're just seething at this point. Close this tab, take a break and meditate if necessary. I've already made myself clear and I've no clue as to why you're dragging this into a turd flinging contest. I'm beginning to suspect you're a woman, a ran through woman that too, and I'm sure this is not going to go anywhere.

>>34433775
>UR A SEETHING WHORE
Looks like I hit the nail on the head about the blackpill shit. Enjoy your miserable life, since happiness isn't important to you after all.

>>34433774
>Virgin marriages are more likely to be lifelong
>marriage duration is far likely to be longer than non-virgin marriages
>etc.
>etc.
There are stoooodies from Univ Of Utah, IFS, etc., that back this up.
>>34433777
>hit the nail
On your head by outing yourself as a whore or a bastard child at the very least.
Anyways, I'm done with you and won't entertain any more discussion with you. I feel sorry for you anon.

>>34433789
>More juvenile insults and seething
So yes, you're a whiny blackpiller, thank you for confirming that. Which podcaster did you get all your opinions from?

>>34433789
>There are stoooodies from Univ Of Utah, IFS, etc., that back this up.
That is an appeal to authority. When you read the methodology of those studies, it is exactly what I wrote. They are not actually saying what you think they're saying, but it appears you are not able to understand them.

>>34433769
Your obsession with bastards, whores, and cuckoldry is very third world coded. Please post a picture of your hands with a timestamp

>>34433626
>It's important to be realistic about your standards.
Only inasmuch as they inform one's actions. OP literally posted his odds of finding a woman.
>If you think a woman having had sex even once before she met you is a dealbreaker, that's your problem, not hers.
What part of a moral standard is so hard to understand for you people? Just because you don't care about it personally doesn't mean the issue magically goes away for people who do.
If sex outside of marriage is held to be wrong by someone, then it doesn't matter whether it was done once or a thousand times. It's wrong regardless, and the first time has by far the most marginal impact of any instance--every subsequent act is just a change of degree, not substance. It's the substance which is at issue.

>>34433694
>Younger women are more likely to have fewer divorces in their life, and older women are more likely to have more divorces in their life.
Not sure which one you're referring to here. There are studies which explicitly control for both age and length of relationship, and the effect holds.

>>34433698
>Yeah and the whole point is building a life & family together cuz just being happy is not the metric to go by.
You're not helping your case, and the idea that they're not happier isn't even true. If someone argues with you, you shouldn't reflexively deny the premise of what they're saying. Otherwise you end up making impulsive or outright crazy remarks. No different from the people who immediately call you an incel for expressing any sort of standard.

>>34433708
>There are no studies which compare women who are at the same age
That's called controlling for age, and they absolutely do that. OP is dying on a crazy hill of pretending happiness doesn't matter, but you're showing a fair amount of motivated reasoning if you make such a blanket statement to dismiss any supposed basis for caring about sexual history.

e.x.
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."

>>34433960
nta
>Study hidden behind a paywall
Into the trash it goes.

>>34433960
No, it's still shit because it is correlation and not causation.
An easy explanation is that people who are bad at relationships break up more often and end up having more sexual partners, while people who are good at relationships have longer relationships and fewer partners. This does not display a causative mechanism where being a virgin = better outcomes.

>>34433969
>>34433983
>moving the goalposts
Anon claimed no study compares women at the same age. I gave a verifiable counterexample.

If you want to argue over the evidence of how much virginity/sexual restraint matters, fine, but don't make patently false arguments.

>while people who are good at relationships have longer relationships and fewer partners.
This would also mean that the people who are best at relationships wait until marriage to have sex, so I'm not sure what you think you're arguing here.

>>34433998
I said "nta", so I don't know what goalposts you think I'm moving, I'm a different person. All I know is that it's a study that's hidden behind a paywall, and is therefore untrustworthy to me.

>>34433998
>Anon claimed no study compares women at the same age. I gave a verifiable counterexample.
>If you want to argue over the evidence of how much virginity/sexual restraint matters, fine, but don't make patently false arguments.
No, that's shit. My original claim was that the studies do not actually prove what OP is saying, and the fact that most of the statistics don't select for age was only a subset of that argument.
>This would also mean that the people who are best at relationships wait until marriage to have sex, so I'm not sure what you think you're arguing here.
No, it doesn't. The majority of people who wait until marriage are too young to have relationship experience. You will not find many 30-year-old women who waited for marriage.
Every whore started off as a virgin, so by marrying a virgin, you might have gotten legally tied to a whore.

>>34434001
>I don't know what goalposts you think I'm moving
I'm used to people rejecting any positive relationship between virginity and marital outcomes out of hand, and then reasoning backwards. The other anon seemed to be doing that, hence the simply false claim that nobody controls for age. As you can see, the other post did proceed to move the goalpost. If I lumped you in with him and you're just objecting to the paywall, I apologize for assuming.

On that topic, though, I don't think a peer-reviewed study would claim they control for age if they didn't control for age.
For rigor's sake, sure, read the whole thing, but is it something worth doubting in a 4chan post, when all I was doing was posting a counterexample based on an abstract?

>>34434031
> the fact that most of the statistics don't select for age was only a subset of that argument.
That was the claim I directly quoted and addressed. I wasn't making an argument more broadly.

>The majority of people who wait until marriage are too young to have relationship experience.
Not really true, certain religious sects excepted. As far back as we have records, the median age of marriage for Western women has almost never gone below 20. It's typically been around 23-25, dipping or rising with economic booms or downturns, respectively. The "trad" pattern, i.e. with the same basic norms around sexual behavior as existed for centuries, isn't to marry right at the age of majority. It's still young by comparison with the overall US rate, sure, but certainly not young enough to have "no experience".
Again, though, studies have controlled for age and gotten the same result, so what is your explanation for these people supposedly being "better at relationships" that has nothing to do with how they actually behave?

>Every whore started off as a virgin
Absolutely. That's a big part of why waiting until marriage specifically is important, rather than myopically demanding a virgin and then just having sex a couple dates in, without any sense of irony. It selects for intent rather than circumstance.

>>34434048
>For rigor's sake, sure, read the whole thing, but is it something worth doubting in a 4chan post, when all I was doing was posting a counterexample based on an abstract?
Yes. You should always doubt studies that you can't read and look over yourself for free. Seriously, why are you simping so hard for a an old study from 2013 that you have to pay money to read and see what it actually says? Did you cough up the money to read it yourself?

>>34434058
>You should always doubt studies that you can't read and look over yourself for free.
OK, be my guest, but good luck communicating anything here.

I still think it's a reasonable response to a sweeping claim with literally no evidence one way or another. I don't expect him to prove a negative, but just giving one example of a study he thinks is shit. I gave him more than that. Would I pretend what I posted is useful for a dissertation? Fuck no, but to make a point in 200 characters, sure.
Is there a chance I'm wrong, and the study just made it up, didn't control for age, and published in a peer-reviewed journal anyway? Sure. Is it high? No.

>>34434079
>I still think it's a reasonable response to a sweeping claim with literally no evidence one way or another.
It's reasonable to just link a random study that no one can look over and analyze for themselves? What? Are you not aware of the replication crisis in science?
> Is it high? No.
Again, are you not aware of the replication crisis in science? That most studies haven't been replicated? Also not to speak for that guy, but you've been continuously ignoring his main point which is that the studies don't actually prove what you claim they're proving. The fact that the study you posted can't be analyzed to see what it actually says further compounds this issue.

>>34434096
>It's reasonable to just link a random study that no one can look over and analyze for themselves?
If all I'm doing is trying to show that studies do in fact control for a factor anon claims they don't, sure.

>Are you not aware of the replication crisis in science?
Sure. I've yet to see a single study on the subject that *doesn't* end up showing the same link between sexual restraint and more stable/happier marriages, though. Seems like a really low-hanging fruit for an extremely left-leaning field if all of these papers are just made up and all happen to break against the mainstream view (not just in academia, but society writ large) that sexual behavior doesn't really matter.
I don't buy the argument that it's a lack of interest in the subject by the irreligious, either. You see as well as I do how animated this topic gets people.

>you've been continuously ignoring his main point which is that the studies don't actually prove what you claim they're proving
I'm ignoring it because I didn't care to get into a protracted argument on the whole subject, and just wanted to make the narrow point I did.

>>34434111
>I'm ignoring it because I didn't care to get into a protracted argument on the whole subject,
So you don't care to discuss that these studies you claim say that virginity is vital towards a good marriage don't actually say that when you can read them? That really doesn't make you look good.

>>34434051
>Again, though, studies have controlled for age and gotten the same result, so what is your explanation for these people supposedly being "better at relationships" that has nothing to do with how they actually behave?
Firstly, the study doesn't do a good job at controlling for age. An obvious flaw is the 18-30 group is too wide to be grouped together. 18-year-olds cannot have been married for longer than one year, while a 30-year-old has had a full 12 years to marry and/or divorce. This creates an obvious problem, since you can't actually measure stability if you've only been married for a year or two. It means that age and relationship length are not truly independent variables.
That is why I suggested having all participants be the same age.
Secondly, read this.
>Additionally, although the results for the number of sexual partners are significant for each of the relationship outcomes, the sizes of the path coefficients are not large in comparison to the sizes of the associations between communication and the two relation-ship outcomes, suggesting that past sexual experience is only one of many variables that is associated with the quality of marriage relationships.
Even if a correlation has been established, the impact of communication is far greater than the impact of sexual partner count.

>>34434111
>>34434116
NTA but I don't think studies holistically capture the complexities of relationships and how they play out in the context of sexual restraint. For example, I think it would highly depend on the culture of the area you live in. If you live in a rural, religious or conservative area where sex before marriage is socially frowned upon, people typically meet and grow up with the person they're going to marry from a young age AND your economic/familial bonds are necessitated by you never getting divorced then it would only make sense that marriages last longer. Your entire socioeconomic livelihood is built around sexual restraint. How "happy" and "stable" a marriage is depends so highly on what purpose marriage serves in a cultural context. In a religious and conservative context, marriage is an economic and familial bond between families. In that sense a marriage is "stable" because it serves the purpose of transitioning a girl to womanhood and fulfilling her role as caretaker and mother.

If you live in a large metropolitan city and the majority of your peers are going to college, traveling and waiting until much, much later in life to think about marriage then the same exact union would not serve the same purpose as far as stability or happiness. If you don't want children and you make enough money to support yourself then the stability of your marriage is based on an entirely antithetical set of principals than someone whose marriage is informed by cultural norms. A marriage lasting 50 years is not an indication of that relationship being "stable" sexually or romantically if the purpose of that marriage is the economic sustainability of a family/business. Just as a marriage that only lasts 1 year is not an indication that sexual/romantic compatibility was insufficient as the leading cause of a lot of divorces is financial.

I dunno. TL;DR you should really stop reading studies and just go meet people and live your life.

>>34434116
>So you don't care to discuss that these studies you claim say that virginity is vital towards a good marriage don't actually say that when you can read them?
Correct, because that wasn't the point I was making at the moment. I am perfectly capable of discussing it (bottom line of my beliefs: virginity at marriage per se is neutral; sexual restraint up to and including waiting until marriage is a positive, thus virginity is a byproduct of positive behavior and a reasonable expectation to have), but I assumed nobody here actually wanted to spend 2 hours on it.

>>34434130
>Firstly, the study doesn't do a good job at controlling for age.
Better. Thanks for engaging on the subject at hand.
> An obvious flaw is the 18-30 group is too wide to be grouped together
>That is why I suggested having all participants be the same age.
I agree. I'd like to see this.
However, I do think this is still enough to get a rough picture; it isn't a slam dunk, but that wasn't the point.

Iirc, this is in the General Social Survey, but they don't give out the microdata without an actual research purpose. It's probably in the NSFG, as well, with the same restrictions, but neither of those help us here.

> the impact of communication is far greater than the impact of sexual partner count.
Wasn't arguing otherwise.

Of some interest to you might be that other studies (e.x. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25811-011) explicitly control for marriage length, and still don't find different results. Not trying to one-up you, just posting fyi. This one is also easier to get through a uni membership, if you have that.


>>34434133
> I don't think studies holistically capture the complexities of relationships and how they play out in the context of sexual restraint.
That's not the point of posting them. It's to post evidence against the usual accusations of waiting being stupid for some reason or another. There are a lot of misconceptions floating around.

>>34434168
It's me, >>34434168
>Another fucking study hidden behind a paywall
FUCKING CHRIST ALL THE STUDIES YOU POST ARE TRASH.

>>34434116
This I mean, this is me. But yeah you keep posting trash studies that hide behind paywalls. Unless you have the full PDFs of these studies available, no one should take your scientific claims seriously.

>>34434168
>It's to post evidence against the usual accusations of waiting being stupid for some reason or another.
I don't think its evidence one way or another. Depending on what purpose marriage serves in your life it might be stupid. It might not be. I guess I can understand if you're just to refute a sort of universalist mindset about the whole thing but I don't think studies really tell us anything about the quality of people's lives in terms of marriage. The big squeeze happening right now is that marriage doesn't serve the same purpose now that it did 100 or even 50 years ago. Its not really surprising people are finding less and less satisfaction in an institution that was initially created for the purpose of inter-tribal survival and commerce. Sometimes its hard to tell what conclusion we're even supposed to gather about the quality of marriage when in all indication the entire concept of marriage is serving far less of utility today than it has historically. Like how bad is it that a thing is failing that fewer and fewer people even seem to want? Its a complicated thing to think about.

>>34434168
>Of some interest to you might be that other studies (e.x. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25811-011) explicitly control for marriage length, and still don't find different results. Not trying to one-up you, just posting fyi. This one is also easier to get through a uni membership, if you have that.
This study is of zero relevance to OP since it does not include virginity as a parameter. I bet a non-zero number of participants who waited for marriage had sex with prior partners.

File: Capture.png (96.7 KB)

96.7 KB PNG

>>34434172
>Unless you have the full PDFs of these studies available, no one should take your scientific claims seriously.
Kind of an autistic demand when all we're talking about is basic lines of evidence (I'd accept as just as valid anything contrasting). If you went to any decently-sized uni, you should be able to get access that way. I actually have the copy for this one, but I can't post pdfs. Pic related.


>>34434211
>This study is of zero relevance to OP since it does not include virginity as a parameter
They control for number of sexual partners. I.e. including virginity at marriage.

>>34434233
>They control for number of sexual partners. I.e. including virginity at marriage.
OP's argument is that any woman who had sex before marriage is a blown out whore. This study measures the effects of waiting until marriage within the context of one's current relationship only.

>>34433796
>That is an appeal to authority
And? Who says authorities are automatically incorrect?
>>34433969
>paywall = incorrect
How oddly convenient for you. Use scihub, dumbass

File: kvi2uncmsrhg1.png (675.1 KB)

675.1 KB PNG

Howie Thread

>>34422243
I agree. Bastard children from a whore(pre marital sexual partners >=1) are quite disgusting. I hope you find a non whore in this day and age.

>>34433180
Bro, you don't remember that shit. It was 20 years ago.
If you care about that, you'll need to not have any other priorities. Enjoy your virgin retard wife, her fat stupid family, the poverty and consumerism focus. You're looking for ugly dumb poors, quit whining and go find one who'd take your lazy autistic ass.

Or keep making reasons to blame others for the consequences of your laziness and willful ignorance. You've done nothing but sit on your ass and wait for life to bring you answers.

I'm gonna get up early so I can bring coffee to the mother of my child tomorrow. When I walk my kid to school, I'll get to explain the world to her. I'll be hugged because I'm a source of safety, love, and guidance through life.

But I'm sure you actually would rather have a virgin wife. Fucking retard.

File: annoyed pepe.png (12.2 KB)

12.2 KB PNG

>>34436119
>Bro, bro.. just cuckoldmaxx bro.
>It ain't that bad bro.
>Having such standards, which was the norm 70 or 80 years back, is dumb bro.
>You just want to one up against women by having insanely unrealistic standards bro.
>Even if a woman saved herself up for marriage, why would she choose you bro.
>Being a spineless sissy cuckold ain't all that bad as it's made out to be bro. Just accept a ran through hoe and call it a day bro.
>t.proud bastard child of a slut mother and a cuckold father bro

>>34436180
Everything I know about the world outside my basement I learned from the virgin neets of /pol/: the post.

File: cuck jak.jpg (127.6 KB)

127.6 KB JPG

>>34436294
>how dare you call me out for being a faggot loser who loves his cuck ancestry and cuckoldry traditons?

>>34436180
>>34436347
nta
Why do you people never have any real arguments, and just strawman people who disagree with you and then call them cucks and post shitty pepe and wojak pictures?

>>34436703
the proof is in the pudding, cuckson

>>34436758
The "proof" in question being studies where it's questionable if they're actually saying what their proponents claim they're saying, and then the proponents cry "MUH GOALPOST SHIFTING" when their precious studies are dared criticized and not taken at face value.

>>34436776
I was just mocking you for the very act of trying to defend as vile, cheap, gutless, feckless and emasculatory as having to accept a ran through woman i.e. a slut. It's ok anon, you've all the right being a sissy fag. Besides there are many other anons here who'd academically argued as to why virgin marriages are good. It's upto you sissy cuckolds to make a case for the opposite..