Sex before marriage?

Lots of Christians do condemn people who don't believe in God, suggesting they are morally corrupt and destroying the fabric of society and such things. Thank you for not being one of those. You seem to be a much more reasonable Christian, to the extent that you even acknowledge that you believe in God "because you were taught".

This is where it just becomes impossible to have a conversation. There is nowhere to go from here. Your "morals" come from what society, in this case religious people taught you. You don't believe them because you have vetted them to see if they make logical sense: e.g. You haven't gone through all your moral beliefs and said "Hmm should murdering be wrong? Why? Well, it doesn't seem just that someone should be allowed to take away one's existence without there own consent. And on, and on, until eventually you come to a decision". That's an obvious example but the case holds. Your beliefs are not a result of vetted logical thoughts, evidence, and a degree of philosophy, it's based on a "I believe in this because someone told me to".

I do somewhat dislike those of you with religious views posting in this thread. It's not that it's "wrong" to have an emotional based belief (I mean, that's what you have when you fall in love with someone!), but it's that you can't have a discussion around the items. If someone comes up to me and says "I believe murder is acceptable" and they have philosophical, logical reasoning as to why. I can discuss with them point by point, and we can come away from the conversation both more informed and having deepened or reasoning.

With religious people such as yourself, you throw out your comment about why it's bad. I might read it and say I disagree with something, i.e. that sex outside of marriage is perfectly moral. I could then throw down some logical arguments about why it is a moral activity. At some point, you would give me an argument from the bible, or that "it just is", if I pressed further, you'll give me the answer "because God/God's law says so". Conversational dead end. Like loving someone, belief in God is emotional. You have no "evidence" in the rational sense of the word, that a god exists, let alone your own God you believe in, and of course I don't really have any evidence that your God doesn't exist. Thus, there is nothing I can say to you or you to me.

When emotions, not rationality and logic, and the cause of a belief, having a discussion about such belief is both pointless and non-existent.

This is one of the most obnoxious things religious people do. You know damn well that people don't "think they know better than the creator of us all", and that they flat out don't believe their is a "creator of us all".

Also, you defined Adultery as having sex with someone who is not your spouse. Having sex with your spouse is not a sin, I'm about 90% confident in my religious knowledge that at least that is true.

Which means that anything else is Adultery, including pre-marital sex (she isn't your spouse). I think what you meant to say is that cheating, if you're married, as adultery. Which by the way I totally agree with, don't fvcking cheat. That's dirtbag behavior. Of course, my answer to avoiding that is much different than yours, and that's to never promise monogamy to any one person.

I would definite it this way: 'Cute' are either more or less average girls where something stands out to you personally that makes them attractive, or they are a little above average.

Attractive is a solid good looking good.

Hot is your at least 1 in 10, but I'd be inclined to say maybe 1 in 25. When I think of high school or college we usually had 1-3 truly hot girls in each class. The one's you know every guy in there was dying to sleep with.

This is relatively true. If you're good looking or successful (and not letting yourself go) OR very charismatic/masculine/confident (and not ugly) you can get laid often and easy with very attractive women. If you're a 'hot guy', or even a 'good looking guy' with online dating you can clean up. Same with successful if you market your profile right. If you're the charismatic guy, then you have to rely more on in person to pick up women but can still clean up.

If you're average looks, not anti-social but not super confident, and not especially successful, that's where it gets harder. You can definitely still get women, but it will be hard to get particularly attractive ones. Most guys in this category I find don't really have the right attitudes with women either.

If you're really hurting in those categories with no major offsets in another...you NEED to improve yourself, if you want success with women.

Hot girls are more likely to be in a relationship yes, but they also (as a group) change relationships like a chameleon changes colors. If you start talking to her, she likes you romantically, she will either immediately start having sex with you on the side while she has her BF, or immediately dump him and switch to you. I think hot girls might ride the proverbial carousel a smidge less, but only because 90% of guys will approach a cute girl, but only like 25% will approach a smoking hot one. Most guys get intimidated. (Except over social media, where the number if "heys" and "OMG your the most amazing thing I've ever seen" she gets on a daily basis are ridiculous).

The competition doesn't matter much. Most guys aren't really competition anyway. The vast majority of guys are so called "beta" guys and not that sexually attractive, even if they are ripped and very GL. Moreover, if a girl likes you (this is true of guys as well), she will have sex with you. Most women will and do cheat. This is WAY more true for young women. If I had a nickel for every time a college age woman slept with me who I later learned also had a "BF" or was "dating" someone. Most guys will and do cheat. It's more or less human nature. So when you account for girls sleeping with multiple guys and vice versa, the idea of competition becomes almost irrelevant.

The competition don't matter much BECAUSE most guys aren't really competitive. It's interesting to imagine what everyone would do if more guys were desirable. If all guys were hot I suppose there would be quite a lot more sex, as long as girls had the desire. But there would be a limit. If there are 100 hot guys and only 10 hot girls, I doubt all of the hot guys will be banging hot girls. If all guys were more "alpha" I think the situation might be even worse, as the point is to be better than the competition.

I was arguing that a fair proportion don't have much incentive to compete, if their shooting unrealistically high.

I can see how online dating can work really well for those who are hot. But even if you don't have to send messages to get a lot of interest, it can still be time-consuming. Just things like travelling from one side of the city to the other and then the date turning up late means even a quick date can take a couple of hours (I suppose they can set the location and they can turn up late though!). And even hot people can find the date they arranged doesn't meet their standards, so it can still be a waste of time. I think even hot guys usually have to put a bit of effort in though. Whereas hot people don't have to spend as much time online to arrange dates I still think it might be less efficient for them.

Banana Bread wrote:

I'm disappointed by the debauchery from most people here. Does anyone have faith anymore in god and jesus? Jesus literally died for us and God never asks us to sacrifice ourselves. It is not that difficult to abstain and wait until you meet your soulmate. How can you trust someone who abuses the gift of love and has no respect for the human body. I won't touch anybody until I am married to my soulmate. Would you be happy to be with someone who has been with others? I don't want someone dirty like Kiprop or Samuel Wanjiru.

While these ideas are not unreasonable, I don't think they are related. For example if people had "soulmates" the chances of actually meeting yours would be quite small. I live in England and have only travelled in Europe. Perhaps my soulmate lives in North America. If she did it's incredibly unlikely I'd meet her. Far more realistically there are types of people you find attractive and who will find you attractive. Even if we assume people are more likely to share attraction with people of similar culture there are still many millions of in that population. So instead of searching for a soulmate, there are more likely thousands of potential partners who could be the love of your life.

What do you think about a widow(er)? Do you consider it acceptable for them to re-marry? Would you consider marrying a widow?

How do you know that people who don't have sex are different? Maybe they are abusing the gift of love and not respecting the human body, through their fantasies. I think C.S. Lewis argued that imagining sex with different people was cheating, equivalent to having a harem. Couldn't one argue then people who do this are worse than those who have casual sex as the extent of their imagined debauchery is greater?

You said you won't touch anybody, but didn't you also say you may already have met your soulmate and she gives you lots of hugs? Isn't this the least bit titillating for you? Why is this acceptable?

Normal Person wrote:

Who cares? It feels good and if both parties agree to it, it's fine. Tons of people like it, male and female. Plus it's not like they just go in with no preparation or cleaning...

As long as she knows the long term consequences of loosening up her rectum. From webmd.com:

"Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet."

Also, how do you clean that deep? And make sure the anus is the last place you stick it. I here UTI's are awesome.

Mutual wrote:

Normal Person wrote:

Who cares? It feels good and if both parties agree to it, it's fine. Tons of people like it, male and female. Plus it's not like they just go in with no preparation or cleaning...

As long as she knows the long term consequences of loosening up her rectum. From webmd.com:

"Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet."

Also, how do you clean that deep? And make sure the anus is the last place you stick it. I here UTI's are awesome.

That's unfortunate unless the girls really enjoy it. I've heard stories that some can get better orgasms from anal. But maybe it isn't true. I think a lot of people feel pressure to say they enjoy acts they don't. Also some of these stories could be made up, a bit like Penthouse letters.

I wonder how much counts as repetitive.

LM wrote:

Also, you defined Adultery as having sex with someone who is not your spouse. Having sex with your spouse is not a sin, I'm about 90% confident in my religious knowledge that at least that is true.

Which means that anything else is Adultery, including pre-marital sex (she isn't your spouse). I think what you meant to say is that cheating, if you're married, as adultery. Which by the way I totally agree with, don't fvcking cheat. That's dirtbag behavior. Of course, my answer to avoiding that is much different than yours, and that's to never promise monogamy to any one person.

If you're having sex with someone who's not your spouse it is adultery. She will be someone's wife someday and you're having sex with her. It's adultery.

muttonchops wrote:

LM wrote:

Also, you defined Adultery as having sex with someone who is not your spouse. Having sex with your spouse is not a sin, I'm about 90% confident in my religious knowledge that at least that is true.

Which means that anything else is Adultery, including pre-marital sex (she isn't your spouse). I think what you meant to say is that cheating, if you're married, as adultery. Which by the way I totally agree with, don't fvcking cheat. That's dirtbag behavior. Of course, my answer to avoiding that is much different than yours, and that's to never promise monogamy to any one person.

If you're having sex with someone who's not your spouse it is adultery. She will be someone's wife someday and you're having sex with her. It's adultery.

She won't necessarily be married one day.

Believing in one soulmate = Incel. The belief in a soulmate is a nice anchor for sexual repression. Even when people think they have married their soulmate they have not done anything more special than any two people who tie the not with less conviction in that fallacy and the results vary just the same.

Hmm. That example is interesting. Hard to say with those numbers, I imagine most of those guys if they were all 100, hot "alpha", guys would get with at least one of the hot girls eventually. I doubt they would go dry. Some of the guys would probably have sex with more of the girls depending on specific personalities and what qualities the guy had and what the girls were specifically into. Almost certainly, at least one of those girls would be a "loves sex" type and would bang plenty of those guys. Another 2-3 would probably be "must get in relationship" and starting dating immediately. She would probably get bored of the guy, and with such high quality dudes hitting on her...quickly cheat or jump boyfriends within a few months over and over. The other 5-6 would probably have lots of short flings with various guys, with occassional hookups and FWB relationships.

Being better than the competition helps, but at the same time we are humans and very biologically wired to wanna fvck. If all the guys were hot I think there would be a ton more sex. Think Olympics and it's condom stories. You've got thousands of fit ripped men and women who are generally superstars with status and confidence and it's a massive sex pool. Everyone is attractive, everyone wants to bang.

Just a guess, but I'm pretty sure in that situations, while some guys might go dry still...there would just be a TON more sex.

I get you, but don't think it's an issue for most guys because the competition is so minimal anyway. Even if you're a legit 4/10 slightly below average looking dude you can date hot women. Obviously need to take care of skin, get solid grooming, get serious about the gym; ideally packing on 20lbs or so of muscle and dropping to 8-10% BF. Clothes that fit and suit you. Ideally also become reasonably successful and have a degree of status. If you're at that point, with good style and looks you won't be "hot" but even with your poor face your overall shredded, well dressed image will halo to so that your passable. Women will give you a chance.

From there, alpha attitude, status, and good sexual vibe and confidence will carry you.

If you're around or below average and don't fix those things, plus develop good dating skills...yea forget it. Just going to have to hop from relationship to relationship with somewhat unattractive girls that just happen to decide to wanna date you.

Online dating works amazing. Yes I'm fairly good looking. Not a "Chad" or model status, but attractive enough to get favorable celeb comparisons and some comments about being sexy/handsome.

Good pics are obviously step 1. One pic of you as a main pic that's you being as open and inviting and approachable as possible. Good photo of high quality goes without saying. This probably means with your best smile. Then at least one (ideally a candid) of you showing off your body assuming you are around or below 10% BF. Then one where you are clearly the leader of your group and having a good time. Ideally you're the tallest in the photo or appears that way. Other pics don't matter as much, but should still be flattering, high quality photos that convey whatever it is you're trying to convey.

If you have no good pics, and know you're looks are close to or below average...don't do online. Yet. Fix your clothing, grooming, appearance, and physique, then revisit.

It's very time efficient. You can spend 2-5 hours a week to easily have 5-10 dates a week. You should be able to turn at least 1-2 of those dates into successful ones. That's pretty good in my book. In person is going to have the same issues too. Still gotta meet the person, get a number, invite her out, hope the date goes well. It does avoid the catfishing, but I find, especially as you get better at knowing angles and tricks, that it's not too often I feel "catfished". 1 in 25 dates maybe?

So you're saying it really doesn't matter if you have an out?

Sex before marriage is contrary to human nature as we know it. Individuals with zero sexual partners before marriage are the least likely to be divorced.

The 1960's were a mistake on multiple fronts.

Beenaroundtheblock wrote:

Believing in one soulmate = Incel. The belief in a soulmate is a nice anchor for sexual repression. Even when people think they have married their soulmate they have not done anything more special than any two people who tie the not with less conviction in that fallacy and the results vary just the same.

This is wrong -- incels are involuntary celibates -- desperate nerds who want to get laid. Believing in one life partner and abstaining from sex before marriage has nothing to do with them. Incels want to have sex before marriage. People who wait until marriage are voluntarily celibate.

Anyways, are you promoting polygamy?

big HONKING birds wrote:

Beenaroundtheblock wrote:

Believing in one soulmate = Incel. The belief in a soulmate is a nice anchor for sexual repression. Even when people think they have married their soulmate they have not done anything more special than any two people who tie the not with less conviction in that fallacy and the results vary just the same.

This is wrong -- incels are involuntary celibates -- desperate nerds who want to get laid. Believing in one life partner and abstaining from sex before marriage has nothing to do with them. Incels want to have sex before marriage. People who wait until marriage are voluntarily celibate.

Anyways, are you promoting polygamy?

No. That's usually a very bad idea to try to have multiple serious relationships. If you read this thread, you will see that I have absolutely been promoting "don't get married, there is no reason", and more importantly: don't me monogamous.

big HONKING birds wrote:

Sex before marriage is contrary to human nature as we know it. Individuals with zero sexual partners before marriage are the least likely to be divorced.

The 1960's were a mistake on multiple fronts.

Are you kidding me? Human nature is non-monogamy and incredibly frequent sex with multiple partners. Sexual dimorphism, testical size, penis size, tip of the penis designed to literally scoop and pull sperm back down the vagina giving advantage to the man currently having sex, human civilization only starting monogamy within the past 10,000 years, etc.

Humans evolved as, and are, inherently non monogamous creatures. Monogamy is a social construct, and not a good one for most people if you're interested in long term happiness (there are exceptions, these are rare). Please read the prior pages of the thread and bring yourself up to speed.

big HONKING birds wrote:

Beenaroundtheblock wrote:

Believing in one soulmate = Incel. The belief in a soulmate is a nice anchor for sexual repression. Even when people think they have married their soulmate they have not done anything more special than any two people who tie the not with less conviction in that fallacy and the results vary just the same.

This is wrong -- incels are involuntary celibates -- desperate nerds who want to get laid. Believing in one life partner and abstaining from sex before marriage has nothing to do with them. Incels want to have sex before marriage. People who wait until marriage are voluntarily celibate.

Anyways, are you promoting polygamy?

Maybe you're right. I think of incels as having a compulsive thought disorder that handicaps them from getting any action, so not exactly choosing to be celibate, but being trapped into by their own mental issues . Believing in a "soulmate" could part of the disorder.

Not advocating polygamy. Playing the field maybe , why not? Exclusivity is o.k. if that's what people agree to. I don't approve of "Until death do us part" type of vows .

Beenaroundtheblock wrote:

big HONKING birds wrote:

This is wrong -- incels are involuntary celibates -- desperate nerds who want to get laid. Believing in one life partner and abstaining from sex before marriage has nothing to do with them. Incels want to have sex before marriage. People who wait until marriage are voluntarily celibate.

Anyways, are you promoting polygamy?

Maybe you're right. I think of incels as having a compulsive thought disorder that handicaps them from getting any action, so not exactly choosing to be celibate, but being trapped into by their own mental issues . Believing in a "soulmate" could part of the disorder.

Not advocating polygamy. Playing the field maybe , why not? Exclusivity is o.k. if that's what people agree to. I don't approve of "Until death do us part" type of vows .

That's a good way on thinking about incels. In my experience there are a few incels who truly are close to that because they are people that are uniquely ugly. Perhaps massively fat or dealing with a deformity or very unusual face. It's pretty dang hard for those guys and I sympathize with them.

The rest...all mental. Admittedly using not super attractive guys, but they still look fine. They just have this idea that if you're not a 9/10 Chad that you'll never get laid, not realizing that normal guys get laid all the time, often with attractive women. They just don't realize that their shy, reserved, hyper analytical and socially miscalibrated personality is the reason why they don't get laid.

They do make some points about the importance of looks that have some truth to them though. Good looking people are advantaged at all stages of life.