I'm a Virgin...

[rod_in_gtown]

You should try and get married soon. I'm curious are you open to hanjobs, bj's, getting naked... or anal... if so I'm curious which you have done, or are willing to do before marriage

 

Great questions... actually wondering this myself about you MissTiger.

 

I do not agree with you about sex until marriage, and I think you're going to find it almost impossible to find a virgin man who'll wait to lose his virginity (if he already hasn't lost it) until marriage.

 

At the same time, I think you're putting the pussy on the pedestal, you are making assumptions about something you've never done so it's like a man telling a woman what a period feels like.

[lovelorcet]

Virgin brides are less likely to divorce. It's something like 80% marriages work for virgin brides, and 50% for non virgin brides.

 

Hence the importance on sex is misplaced according to the stats.

 

 

These types of statistics are of course biased because a virgin who marries will often come from a conservative background where divorce is more frowned upon. This also makes your conclusion to these numbers somewhat meaningless. What these numbers are more likely suggesting is that a person from a conservative background is more likely to stay in a bad marriage.

 

Sexual compatibility is an important factor for many relationships and therefore it is important to know what you want...

[Jez_UK]

These types of statistics are of course biased because a virgin who marries will often come from a conservative background where divorce is more frowned upon. This also makes your conclusion to these numbers somewhat meaningless. What these numbers are more likely suggesting is that a person from a conservative background is more likely to stay in a bad marriage.

 

That was taken into account and discussed in the paper.

 

Yet you have formulated your own conclusion from your own personal beliefs rather than reading what the paper had to say on it and how the numbers were generated.

 

Sexual compatibility is an important factor for many relationships and therefore it is important to know what you want...

 

According to your own personal belief system.

 

Sorry, but I am going to believe an independent study rather than listen to some biased opinions on a forum.

[IrishCarBomb]

Why is "healthy marriage" the ultimate goal?

 

Shouldn't the criteria be which choice leads us to a better life?

 

Shouldn't the self-awareness gained in the knowledge of our sexual selves be balanced against the self-awarenss gained by knowing we can step back and restrain ourselves in the face of temptation?

 

Then, doesn't it just break down to a personal judgment based on what each individual sees as best for themselves?

[rod_in_gtown]

Virgin brides are less likely to divorce. It's something like 80% marriages work for virgin brides, and 50% for non virgin brides.

 

Hence the importance on sex is misplaced according to the stats.

 

To base the success or failure of a marriage based on prior sexual experience seems baseless and misguiding.

 

Marriage is such a complex situation that to say that your chances are better by never having sex before is purely argumentative. I've known couples who have gone virgin into their marriage and the marriage didn't last more than 6 months.

[Jez_UK]

Why is "healthy marriage" the ultimate goal?

 

Shouldn't the criteria be which choice leads us to a better life?

 

The point is that healthy marriage is more likely to lead to healthy well adjusted children.

 

If you want to fulfill your own needs according to what gives them a better life that's fine, but I think people should give greater consideration as to whether those life choices gives them suitable parenting skills.

[lovelorcet]

That was taken into account and discussed in the paper.

 

Sorry, but I am going to believe an independent study rather than listen to some biased opinions on a forum.

 

where is the reference please?

[Jez_UK]

To base the success or failure of a marriage based on prior sexual experience seems baseless and misguiding.

If there's a social causality than can be shown it's as justifiable as smoking leading to cancer.

 

 

Marriage is such a complex situation that to say that your chances are better by never having sex before is purely argumentative. I've known couples who have gone virgin into their marriage and the marriage didn't last more than 6 months.

Well of course you have, but nowhere is it suggested that a marriage won't fail or work either way. It's an independent expert opinion that suggests that it greatly improves the chances of it working if there's no pre-marital sex. And unless you can refute that then what you say is baseless and misguiding.

[prettybaby]

I used to think that way when I was 18 or so, but then I learned that sex is one of the main factors in a relationship. You can't really control how the other person will be in bed with you, and if it sucks, then you're really out of luck! It's best to give it a shot before making things official, or else, good luck putting up with a crappy sex life!

 

It's also good to have something to compare with. I know a few virgin brides who end up wondering how it would be like with a different person.

 

You can have different partners over a life time without going overboard and living a perverted life. You can still be picky about your partners and have zero regrets down the road.

 

I'm personally not a fan of extremes in either sense.

[Jez_UK]

where is the reference please?

I already gave it.

[Geishawhelk]

The knowledge that pre-marital sex is more likely to create an unhealthy marriage is about as academic to someone promiscuous as the knowledge is that smoking causes cancer is to a smoker.

Except that smoking is a physical act with a tangible object, whereas marriage is a state of mind, and a bit of paper. Comparison of the two is illogical.

[rod_in_gtown]

If there's a social causality than can be shown it's as justifiable as smoking leading to cancer.

 

 

 

Well of course you have, but nowhere is it suggested that a marriage won't fail or work either way. It's an independent expert opinion that suggests that it greatly improves the chances of it working if there's no pre-marital sex. And unless you can refute that then what you say is baseless and misguiding.

 

an Independent Expert Opinion on human relations is just as reliable as the rhythm of the waves in the ocean. There are also "independent expert studies" that suggest that sexual compatibility greately improves the chances of a healthy working marriages.

 

I think your basing your entire argument on this "expert" on something as largely unknown and misunderstood as human behavior is, well, rather funny.

 

Also taking scientific examples from a well documented illness like cancer and smoking, which can be proven through the scientifict method, and comparing it to an entirely subjective situation like marriage and pre-marital sex, where the scientific method cannot be applied, is really just comparing apples and oranges.

[lovelorcet]

I already gave it.

 

Again, this correlation is very weak because this article focuses on the women entering into a marriage as a virgin. These virgin woman will be less likely to divorce based on their conservative upbringing. One should keep in mind that when it comes to divorce it is the women who file in the overwhelming majority.

 

It is quite dangerous to make such a simple conclusion like this.

 

 

Also... this was published in a journal with an impact factor of 1.75, might also be a point to keep in mind.

[IrishCarBomb]

I already gave it.

 

It's kinda funny you would pick that study...

 

Results suggest that positive relationship between premarital sex and risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences rather than to direct causal effect.

 

[O]nce the unobserved factors affecting both the likelihood of being a virgin and the likelihood of marital disruption are taken into account we find that being a virgin no longer has a significant effect on the risk of divorce.

[Jez_UK]

an Independent Expert Opinion on human relations is just as reliable as the rhythm of the waves in the ocean. There are also "independent expert studies" that suggest that sexual compatibility greately improves the chances of a healthy working marriages.

 

I think your basing your entire argument on this "expert" on something as largely unknown and misunderstood as human behavior is, well, rather funny.

 

Also taking scientific examples from a well documented illness like cancer and smoking, which can be proven through the scientifict method, and comparing it to an entirely subjective situation like marriage and pre-marital sex, where the scientific method cannot be applied, is really just comparing apples and oranges.

Firstly rod, the scientific method doesn't prove anything, it only comes up with principles. Maths deals in proofs, science deals in evidence.

 

Secondly the scientific methods in social science are as applicable and justifiable as the one used in the natural sciences. So you are not comparing apples and oranges. If you are disputing this then you negate psychology, evolutionary theory, and pretty much all other connected disciplines.

 

Thirdly showing the causality of smoking to cancer is a intirinsically complex as a social scientist showing a cauality between sex and marriage. The causality between smoking and cancer was refuted several times over before it became established, due to a wide range of factors such as other causes of cancer. Yet you seem to suggest because social science is complex it can't be correct.

 

Fourthly, sexual compatibility in marriage is orthogonal and not diametrically opposed to the position that the paper I've cited has taken.

 

Oh and finally, this is a waste of time for me explaining all this to you. It reminds me that half the world seems to think it has a grasp on a complex subject such as global warming, but despite this doesn't seem to have a clue about something as simple as particle physics.

[lovelorcet]

It's kinda funny you would pick that study...

 

 

Yup, yup I was thinking the same thing as i was reading that...

[rod_in_gtown]

Oh and finally, this is a waste of time for me explaining all this to you. It reminds me that half the world seems to think it has a grasp on a complex subject such as global warming, but despite this doesn't seem to have a clue about something as simple as particle physics.

 

Without going into much detail, you're comparing facts vs theories, theories by the pure virtue that they cannot be satisfactorily proven have a great room for error. Again, you're comparing something tangible with something intangible.

 

Theoretical sciences vs applied sciences are also 2 different fields, and knowing what we know about the "facts" of theories such as the one you're bringing up, we also know that while they can be 100% right they can also be 100% wrong. But presenting your theories as ground-breaking ahead-of-their-time facts that will only be proven right in about 100 years only shows how much of an egocentric maniac you really are.

 

And as entrenched as you seem to be in your theories and unwillingess to accept that you *might* be wrong only shows me immaturity.

 

As for the personal attack on my intelligence... all I have to say is pftftftftftftftftft...

[Jez_UK]

It's kinda funny you would pick that study...

 

Yes so the paper concluded that the type of women having premarital sex were the ones who were most likely to leave a relationship. Did you just want to throw an out of context quote up without understanding it? What's your point?

[Geishawhelk]

the point is you're using invalid and unproveable statistics and using rhetoric to try to blindside people with facts that won't stand up under scrutiny.

If you'd like to base a marriage on averages statistics and hypotheses, go ahead.

most of us are happy to take the chances life and fate gives us,

Virgin or not, marriage or not, sex or not.

[rod_in_gtown]

...and I'm proud of it. Sex is overrated and I see my virginity as a rare and precious gift, like a diamond. I want my husband to be the only lover I'll ever know. I want my husband to be a virgin as well. I'd be disappointed if he didn't wait for me,our marriage bed would be pretty "crowded" if you know what I mean.

 

Any virgins here agree with me? And is there anybody who doesn't?

 

So what exactly is your definition of virgin? what kind of physical contact do you/have you had with your partners? do you consider virginity vaginal penetration? or just any physical nude contact? would fondling and "heavy petting" be considered a breach of virginity in your book?

[IrishCarBomb]

Yes so the paper concluded that the type of women having premarital sex were the ones who were most likely to leave a relationship. Did you just want to throw an out of context quote up without understanding it? What's your point?

 

My point is that the paper supports a conclusion quite different than your own. Also, my quote isn't out of context, because if you read the entire paper it is actually the finding of their best model.

 

The study did not conclude that women having premarital sex were the ones who were most likely to leave a relationship. It concluded that there was instead an unobservable factor that caused both behaviors to be more likely in the same person. It does not conclude that engaging in premarital sex causes a higher risk of divorce.

 

In short: your point requires a causation, the article says there is only a correlation without any causation.

[Jez_UK]

Without going into much detail, you're comparing facts vs theories, theories by the pure virtue that they cannot be satisfactorily proven have a great room for error. Again, you're comparing something tangible with something intangible.

 

It's not a scientific FACT you're talking about rod. That's something like gravity. Smoking causing cancer is dealing with an increased risk and it's still not completely understood how tobacco affects cells.

 

Theoretical sciences vs applied sciences are also 2 different fields, and knowing what we know about the "facts" of theories such as the one you're bringing up, we also know that while they can be 100% right they can also be 100% wrong. But presenting your theories as ground-breaking ahead-of-their-time facts that will only be proven right in about 100 years only shows how much of an egocentric maniac you really are.

 

I'm willing to accept different opinions within a rational framework. You knowing a few people whose marriages didn't work isn't anything resembling that. So while you're talking so much about science where's your scientific evidence? "Bit obvious innit" seems to be your line of reasoning.

 

And as entrenched as you seem to be in your theories and unwillingess to accept that you *might* be wrong only shows me immaturity.

I'm willing to accept it. You're not willing to show something that refutes it, other than to question the validity of social psychology. Good luck on dismantling that.

As for the personal attack on my intelligence... all I have to say is pftftftftftftftftft...

I didn't attack your intelligence, just your knowledge on the subject. You're the one questioning your intelligence. But thanks for wasting my time, it's been fun.

[Jez_UK]

the point is you're using invalid and unproveable statistics and using rhetoric to try to blindside people with facts that won't stand up under scrutiny.

Where's your scrutinity?

 

.

.

.

oh here it is

most of us are happy to take the chances life and fate gives us,

 

It's what's know as an appeal to popularity.

[rod_in_gtown]

But thanks for wasting my time, it's been fun.

 

You're very welcome, I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress... unless she's not a virgin then you might want to burn her at the stake.

[Jez_UK]

You're very welcome, I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress... unless she's not a virgin then you might want to burn her at the stake.

 

Eh? I've been in several sexually active relationships. But don't forget to tip your waitress, that is if you can't draw many incorrect inconclusions about her before doing so.