Hey purefags and purefags that demand purefemanons, what exactly

i'm the opposite of pure but my guess is that it's insecurity.

I don't demand that someone doesn't live the way they do, I only hope that I can find a person who lives the way I do and that hopefully we are compatible with each other and can form a relationship.

I don't care if the guy has has some previous experiece in serious relationships and with people whom he loved. But I think sex and intimacy leads to a certain connection people who sleep around too much end up becoming numb to.
I want that connection to happen, so a long history of whoring isn't acceptable to my standards. Plus, so what. Either I get what I want, or I end up alone. I'm perfectly fine with either. The one unnacceptable outcome is being with a manwhore.

>>17940364
May be the don't want someone who has a higher chance of risking them with STI's/STDs, not getting cheated on.
So many other things.

T. celibate

Preferring partners who have a certain lifestyle isn't the same as demanding someone to live that life you retarded cumrag.

You can be a slut all you want, I'm not going to try and change you or to demand anything from you, I'm just not going to like you and I'll avoid you because of it.

>>17940382
Do you respond to my wording literally? As in, you prefer a virgin just cause that's how you prefer to handle sex just cause or is there a 'pure' element like my op said, as in you're morally impure/inferior if you chose NOT to be "pure"?

>>17940390
>But I think sex and intimacy leads to a certain connection people who sleep around too much end up becoming numb to
You think based on?

>>17940397
>Preferring partners who have a certain lifestyle isn't the same as demanding someone to live that life you retarded cumrag.
Yeah that's why I specifically worded it to address the ones that do feel that way you illiterate monkey

I pump and dump sluts and treat them like shit but if a girl is actually pure and not some dumb slag I'll actually treat her with respect.

File: 1479191455772.png (127KB, 276x299px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 276x299px

>>17940401
Stop it with that pure bullshitery alright! If I want a virgin it is only because this way it should be much easier to satisfy her, but also because I want her to bleed.

>>17940401
I don't think I'm morally superior or inferior to anyone, I just want someone who values sex the same way I do. I don't think of it as purity, I just think of it as the importance of sex in a relationship.

>>17940417
>You think based on?
On the fact how little they think of exposing themselves to others. If they don't care about getting naked with some drunk girl at a party, why would I think he has any more respect or affection for me, if for him the act is automatic and all the same?

>>17940417
Maybe your OP wasn't directed at that many people after all. I'm not that anon but I replied because I think maybe you miss judge some people, I don't know.

>>17940432
What do you think of this situation then?
>person likes sex
>person goes gets sex
>person gets sex from many people
>person doesnt find anyone they feel like go further with emotional
>person finds someone interesting and devote more time and attention
>relationship starts forming
>person become more enthralled with this person
>person becomes disinterested in others and remains exclusive to said person

You're focusing on the act and not the connection.

>>17940421
Okay so it's just to satisfy a fetish then?

>>17940423
Preference then, question doesnt apply here

>>17940433
It really isnt

OP is a master troll.

>>17940459
Alright, sorry then.

>>17940459
It could happen, sure. But I think I stand a better chance filtering these guys out. If they have a history, it's logical to assume they stand good odds to repeat it.

>>17940417
>Yeah that's why I specifically worded it to address the ones that do feel that way you illiterate monkey
No you didn't. You asked the "purefags" AND the "purefags who demand purefamanons". Not to mention that "purefags who demand purefemanons" makes no sense. They're demanding purefemanons to fall from the sky? Who are they demanding it from? The wording you're looking for is "purefags who demand women to be pure". Go back to primary school and learn basic english before calling anyone illiterate.

Also the question is redundant if you're asking people who feel that way because no one feels that way. Purefags don't want a girl who isn't a slut because they tell her not to be a slut. They want a woman who isn't a slut because of her values and beliefs.

>>17940364
we purefag don't give a fuck just don't expect us to put a fucking ring on it. if you don't want to be the property of men then their is no reason to commit to you.

>>17940459
Kind of.

Because I made a promise.

So did she.

>>17940482
>if you don't want to be the property of men then their is no reason to commit to you.
Manwhores naturally aren't the only problem. Some purefags believe stuff like this, so they rank just as low.

>>17940491
well how do you expect men to stick to their traditional roles of marriage when women don't stick to their traditional roles of remaining a virgin before marriage? I am not being judgmental or anything but I am still calling them out on their bullshit.

>>17940475
You're right I did say that.

>Purefags don't want a girl who isn't a slut because they tell her not to be a slut.
What I mean by this is if you disqualify someone who things might have otherwise gone fine with you're essentially demanding that they live their lives a certain way until meeting this person they didn't even know existed.

>They want a woman who isn't a slut because of her values and beliefs.
Understood. But see above. Seems like this is an issues of where you acquire youre values in the first place.

>>17940473
If that's how you feel I suppose

>>17940470
Np

>>17940482
>property of men
kek

Im going to bed in a bit btw so I probably wont respond anymore.

>>17940506
Are you OP? Why didn't you wait for tomorrow to make the thread? Did your mom just tell you to go to bed because you are past your bedtime?

>>17940504
Marriage done the traditional way can be a very egalitarian instituition. If everyone pulls their weight around the house, there's no reason to think either is being explored or overworked. That's appealing to me.
The notion of being treated as property isn't, and I don't see how it must fit into the idea of traditional marriage either. Men have this notion because they like, but it's not what holds a happy marriage together.

>>17940512
Yeah I was going to but my tummy hurt so I was puking and couldn't fall asleep but I went and puked so Im dosing off now

>>17940505
>If that's how you feel I suppose
Since it's guys who do the approaching, it's not uncommon for girls to have many suitors. We have to place some filters or it would be impossible to choose.

>>17940364
>what exactly makes you think you're so special
It's not being "special." It's wanting what's best. Unfortunately, some can't see this. I'll explain.

I want my future children to be special. I'll take special care to ensure to denounce things I perceive as bad, like murder/tattoos/white guilt, while I promote things I perceive as good, like competitive sports/Jesus/good grades. Now, I might be wrong: the higher paying jobs they are more likely to get with a better education might not actually make them happier. But I think they will make them happier. And damned if I'm not going to do everything I can for my future children. I want what's best for them. I want them to be special.

It's not up to you to criticize people who want what's best. Also, I'm not forcing any woman to change; I simply politely let girls down after I asked about their past until I found my virgin fiance. No one was hurt.

The topic of why we think this is what's best is another issue entirely. Let's keep this thread simple.

>>17940525
Only sith deal in absolutes just saying. Seems like a more dynamic and flexible code would be better for having the high ground. but im going to bed for reals now

>>17940530
I'll become flexible when I have no more choice. But while I do have fairly abundant choice, I don't see why I can't aim for a specific kind of guy.

Purefags have a twisted viewpoint that not being a virgin equals being a slut. And there's obviously the sad bunch of virgins who hate women for having what they can't get whenever they feel like

>>17940505
>if you disqualify someone who things might have otherwise gone fine with you're essentially demanding that they live their lives a certain way until meeting this person they didn't even know existed.
No, you don't. You just have a preference. You can't make demands to the past.

>Seems like this is an issues of where you acquire youre values in the first place.
It's more of an issue of when, most people don't care about the "where". I'm guessing the thing that was on your mind is that it's possible for a girl to be promiscuous in her early years and then decide that she should be "pure". She somehow had that value instilled in her but she already destroyed the purity and she can't claim it back, no matter how much she abstains from slutting around. Yep, she's fucked. Because it's not only the set of values that holds a woman "pure" these men want, it's also the trait of being pure itself. And trying to explain why they want that is pretty hard. Sure, a part of it is society, but society grown to teach you that you should desire that because of an intrinsic preference within us. It's not a coincidence that most religions and societies throughout time valued purity. It's an admirable trait in women, just like boldness and determination is an admirable trait in men.

>>17940552
That's the way it has been for thousands of years and "muh seckshool lihburation" isn't going to change that.

>>17940394
>not getting cheated on.
Someone whoo has had 0 sex partners actually would likely cheat on you because they want to see what it is like to have sex with someone else

>>17940661

Sure, because definitly someone who had sex ONCE in a relationship is EXACTLY THE SAME from a hooker who takes ten dicks a day for money

When is religion going away?

>>17940681
It will never go away.

>no hymen no diamond
Since when can NEETs afford diamonds?
Or recognize a hymen?
Or know she has one if she means to marry a virgin?

File: 1477373315173.png (229KB, 450x500px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 450x500px

I'm not going to stop anyone from living the way they want, but I'm also never going to marry a non-virgin. Not much point in dating one either. Yes, I'm aware that I'll die alone.

>>17940513
>Marriage done the traditional way
By traditional, I assume you mean the definition the West and its surrogates have adopted in the last 100 years? Please find my a society where a man and woman would join in extended dating to find out if they were in love enough to enter into a love-marriage before the year 1900. History has had human marriage as the transfer of the bride from the ownership of the father into the ownership of the groom. This is history.

That said, I'm very curious to see where the new marriages will take society. Will this new and trendy norm of love-marriages fail entirely? Is it already failing? Will we see a return to the pre-1900 monogamy that defined human civilization for 1000s of years? I'll keep my eyes open. I want to see where this goes. In the meanwhile, I'll enjoy my cute Korean waifu fiance who was a virgin when we met and has no other lovers to critique me by. We just both do our best.

Can't find the clip, but the joke goes vaguely thus:

Which would you rather have, an unopened grape soda, or one that's had a dick in it?

>>17940364
More partners = increased chance of marriage failure and an inability for the partner to effectively pair-bond.

Hard pass on relationships in general though, other people always have suspect motives and the though of either physical or emotional closeness makes me feel nauseous.

>>17940990
>getting this roasted over your bad life choices
lmao

>>17940593
>No, you don't. You just have a preference. You can't make demands to the past.
And that brings me to my original question. What makes you so special that you get to hold someones past against them? Call it 'preference' but in essence that's exactly what youre doing.

>It's more of an issue of when, most people don't care about the "where". I'm guessing the thing that was on your mind is that it's possible for a girl to be promiscuous in her early years and then decide that she should be "pure". She somehow had that value instilled in her but she already destroyed the purity and she can't claim it back, no matter how much she abstains from slutting around. Yep, she's fucked. Because it's not only the set of values that holds a woman "pure" these men want, it's also the trait of being pure itself. And trying to explain why they want that is pretty hard. Sure, a part of it is society, but society grown to teach you that you should desire that because of an intrinsic preference within us. It's not a coincidence that most religions and societies throughout time valued purity. It's an admirable trait in women, just like boldness and determination is an admirable trait in men.
Honestly this just sounds like nonsenscial rambling. But after read and sorting through all that nonsense it seems you should you actually pay attention to the real world. Social conservatism is dead and buried.

>>17940364
Not pure or any of that shit. But it's not about pushing that lifestyle on other people. It's about having fucking standards and its normal and healthy to have them.

Im assuming your girlfriend just told you to quit drugs or she's leaving?

Well if you love drugs let her go. You two aren't compatible.

>>17942616
Not even close to similar example retard.

The equivalent analogy would be

>I do/did drugs
>meet person
>person automatically disqualifies because of prior drug use despite potential to change/actual level of harm done so far, etc

>>17942630
It still boils down to standards and they're alright to have.

I must be retarded for guessing wrong though.

Guess your jacking off tonight druggie

>>17942639
>It still boils down to standards and they're alright to have.
Still dodging the question. Where do these standards come from? Do you pull them out of your ass? Are the learned? What makes your standards better or worse than someone elses?

>>17941826
>2017
>still believing in virgin memes propagated by a graph made by a religious pro-abstinence group using 20 year old data

>>17942656
They come from thinking you know what you want and having the self-esteem/self-respect to demand that from a potential mate, because she knows there's X amount of people out there that match that description.

Yeah women sometimes pull them out of their ass. Alot of times they grow up with dreams of Prince charming.

This one girl I used to work with wouldn't settle for any guy that didn't have a herculean physique, speak Italian, and great job. Sometimes standards are too high.

She ended up being alone for a long time because those standards are unrealistic and she ended up with some fat fucking mall cop.

>>17942685
>self-esteem/self-respect
The plot thickens. This is literally a matter of perception. Why do you get to decide if someone who either has had 200 non-romantically attached dicks in the them or put their dick in 200 women has "no self-esteem or no self-respect". Why do you do you get to decide those standards if you're 'pulling them out of your ass'? Are you literally saying a EVERY SINGLE WOMAN who has taken a certain number of dicks just literally feels like shit about herself everyday and doesn't feel she has any worth other than providing sex? Are you saying on a day to day basis theyre willing to let whoever come along and "disrespect" by letting randoms "use their body".

Just answer the question man. You know half the reason nobody gives a fuck about what social conservatives have to say is because you pull this multi layer convoluted bullshit that nobody wants to deal with right?

>>17942677
>Instead, believing in no graph made by no group using no data

Not him, but I'm gonna have to go with guy citing some shit.

>>17941520
No, I was not referring to pre-1900. I think divorce is an important option to have, because I don't see why should someone be miserable if the person they chose to marry changed completely. Those marriages you mention certainly are long lasting, but I doubt many of them were happy.
I meant more the commonly accepted roles of men and women in a marriage. Both work just as hard to keep their families, and to me that seems fair and equal.
Being someone's property doesn't interest me in the slightest.

However
>has no other lovers to critique me by.
If that worries you, I think you're too frail to "own" any woman.

I handsome ching chong ding dong la i know need put up with you and you're bullshit la. My face it like brad pitt la!!!!

File: chart(1).png (104KB, 2080x820px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 2080x820px

>>17942743
Here's a graph for you. Better find out if that bitch is from Maine and eats margarine before you marry her. Look, it's data. That means you can trust it.

Retard.

>>17942954
What is it about margarine that makes women whores?

File: 1459900748073.jpg (37KB, 634x452px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 634x452px

>>17942138
>What makes you so special that you get to hold someones past against them?
Because it's their life, and they get to decide who gets to be in it. Women do the near opposite all the time, by giving men shit over lack of experience. I recently lost all interest in a woman a bit ago for that very reason actually.

While I don't identify with either extreme, it is entirely their right to do so. I may not agree with their values, but at the bare minimum everyone has the right to be an idiot.

>Social conservatism is dead and buried.
Wrong.

>>17942630
>person automatically disqualifies because of prior drug use despite potential to change/actual level of harm done so far, etc
That's actually an incredibly common hangup though. Drug addiction is not something that fades away, and lots of people would rather eliminate the chance of that shit ever being a problem.

>>17942138
>What makes you so special that you get to hold someones past against them?
literally everyone does that. You do that. You'd treat a murderer the same way you'd treat a retired doctor?
>oh, but you can't compare being a slut with being a murderer
Yes, you can't and I wasn't doing that. I was just making a point that what happens in the past will always influence other peoples opinion on you. You live in a fairytail if you think people don't judge you for what you did in the past.

> this just sounds like nonsenscial rambling
To you, maybe, because you don't have the patience/attention spam to comprehend ideas that are too complex to be expressed in 2 sentences. That nonsensical ramble is exactly the issue you're bitching about, why people judge women for slutting around in their past. TL;DR: because it's a natural preference that evolved in a social standard.

>Social conservatism is dead and buried.
This has nothing to do with social conservatism.

>>17942954
>Red Herring
>Relevant

Try again.

>>17940432
>ITT: Virgins hate on Chads because they never got laid after 26 years of anime and shit posting

>>17943248
>Purefag makes a good point
>Lol u virgin

>>17942939
cri·tique
kriˈtēk
noun
1.a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory.

I used the verb without any intended connotation. If I am better, I with very small. If I am worse, I lose big. Worse than stocks. I don't pursue paths where the odds are stacked against me and there is no greater incentive.

>>17943252
>Chad makes a good point
>virgin gets all buttmad

people can live however they want to. I simply prefer to date and marry virgin women as opposed to non-virgin women, because they are more trustworthy and place higher standards on sex

>>17940669
not as likely as a partner whose already been with 10 partners

>>17940364
look just because oyu have been a slut fucking everything that moves doesnt mean I want it.

I want someone like me, in this regard. not some loose pussy who fucked friends of friends.

Why do the roasties get so salty in these threads? It's instinctual for a man not to wife the town bike. The best way I can describe a non-virgin is you're a used ketchup packet, opened, left out on a picnic table, out in the midday sun, with flies trying to get at the old ketchup that's on the outside of the packet. I don't know how long it's been sitting there. I don't know how many fly eggs are in it. I could take a chance on an open one if it looks okay, but I'd prefer to have an unopened packet. With an open packet you'd always be wondering if you just got food poisoning, HIV, or HEP, etc.

>>17943470
That's retarded.
There's a lot of grey between a non-virgin and a meth whore.

>>17943478
Can't really tell if she's lying without that hymen though, huh? :^)

Let me tell you what I think about your slutty grey area.

File: photo-569.png (77KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 200x200px

Some like pure girls others think they are boring.
People like what they like.
Nobody demands anything, no need to get upset about a pointless thread like this.

>>17943378
The poster you originally replied to made a good point about the correlation of self respect. So, in your reply, your "point" was that virgins are getting mad, then your rebuttal to me calling you out on your name calling was more name calling? There are plenty of other boards you can go to if you want to practice name calling in good company. /adv/ is not one.

>>17943484
So you assume your partner is lying unless she can physically prove that she's saying the truth? Seems a great attitude to have in a relationship.

I lost my virginity to the guy I'm married with, I've been with him since I was 14 and never even kissed someone else.
Broke my hymen with a tampon, before I even met him.

>>17943623
dw hes being dumb. props to you for having standards

though you have to admit some women lie about their counts. you can understand why some men would be distrusting

>>17943631
It's not about "having standards" - I met a dude who turned out to be perfect for me when I was 14. I was fucking lucky, there's nothing else to it.
If it didn't work out with him I would probably have a couple more partners and I still wouldn't feel slutty at all. I would never fuck around, but I wouldn't want a sexless relationship.

Men lie too. It's not really a gendered thing. It would be ridiculous to not trust my boyfriend just because my friends got cheated on. If you don't trust your partner, why are you even dating them?

>>17943484
>le hymen meme

You know how I know you'll die a kissless virgin?

>>17943623
>Broke my hymen with a tampon, before I even met him.
Well tell your daughters to be more careful than you were.

>>17940364
bait? people are allowed preference in partner choice.

>>17940364
>what exactly makes you think you're so special that you get to demand someone not live the way they want to?

What makes you think that way?

You're literally saying "No, YOU HAVE TO DATE SOMEONE WHO YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO".

You know that right?

You can be rejected for any fucking reason ever. being a virgin, not being a virgin, having six toes, being fat, being too thin. Too nice or too mean.

Shit, someone could straight up reject you just because they felt like rejecting someone that day.

You can't do a damned thing about it, cunt. Ever heard of "no means no"?

Shit, alot of these "pure-fags" are virgins who just want someone as inexperienced as them - maybe they think there will be less judgement on them, less pressure. Maybe they think a virgin partner will be more understanding.

And that's fucking fine.

We're not demanding you live a certain way, we're just saying we might not date you. Because we can.

No one is entitled to love, sex, romance, companionship or anything really.
The funniest part of this is; YOU CUNTS TAUGHT ME THAT.

- A Robot.

>>17943701
Why?
Normal people don't inspect their girlfriend's vagina before fucking them. I really hope my daughters can date normal dudes.

Most girls who are doing any sport at a serious level have to use tampons. I sure as fuck couldn't swim when I was on my period without one.

>>17943730
>Normal people
Normal people also cheat a shit-ton and get divorced a shit-ton.

Sucks for the sporty types. Maybe they should invent something that doesn't break it.

>>17943753
Or maybe they'll just find a man who isn't an insecure mentally ill douchebag who wants to inspect their hymen. Like 99.9% of men.

>>17943763
No one inspects it lmao it just bleeds. C'mon, roastie.

>>17943771
>everything I know about vaginas I learned from watching hentai

If you ever lose your virginity one day you'll be in for a surprise.

>>17943783
Why are you lying? How can you be so immoral? Lmao.

t. non-virgin

>>17943753
Virgin people cheat and divorce too. 1/10 couples who married virgin (not even fucking each other before they got married) get divorced before their 5th year together. This according to your meme statistics that you post over and over.
I mean, you could find a 27 year old virgin with a master degree and wealthy parents (make sure they're still together, too) and marry her. Make sure you don't fuck her before marriage, or your chances of divorce skyrockets! From 10% to 25%.
Or you could actually bond with the person you're marrying and make sure you're a good match and work well together in the long run.

>>17943771
Hymen doesn't bleed when you have sex for the first time.
If they bleed it's because their vagina isn't lubricated properly when you fuck. Which doesn't mean that they're virgin, just that you're useless at foreplay.

>>17943791
>Hymen doesn't bleed when you have sex for the first time.
>If they bleed it's because their vagina isn't lubricated properly when you fuck. Which doesn't mean that they're virgin, just that you're useless at foreplay.
[Citation needed]
That's a hell of a stretch for some guys and some hymens.

File: 1399505415723.jpg (71KB, 330x319px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 330x319px

>getting butt blasted because other people have standards

>>17943669
but the point is that you have sex with someone you're in a committed relationship with, not some joe schmoe chad

>>17943819
You know it's so hypocritical too. I've had straight up sluts cry when they've found out I've kissed someone before. And yet here they are wondering why some guys prefer certain girls.

>>17943827
>I've had straight up sluts cry when they've found out I've kissed someone before.
Things that didn't happen: the post.

>>17943805
Hymen is a very tiny membrane, it doesn't cause noticeable, massive bleeding when you tore it apart.
It might cause some discomfort, some very light bleeding but the main cause for noticeable bleeding during intercourse is laceration of the vagina walls because of lack of lubrication (which might be caused by uselessness of the guy or nervousness of the girl). A lot of girls experience that bleeding even after several years of sex - it's very common for rape victims to bleed after they've been raped, for example.
Moreover, hymen doesn't break just through sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse doesn't always break the hymen - hymen can stretch.
Hymen is a pretty poor way to determine someone's virginity.

Most girls don't even bleed at all during their first time. Around 63% of girls said they didn't bleed at all during their first intercourse.

I'll link sources later, hubby wants dinner.

>>17943841
How does it feel having an ugly face numalefag

>>17940364
What makes you so special that you get to demand others accept your western liberal morality?

>>17944785
Because it's normal.

Is what they usually say

>>17944785
its an issue of double standards. You don't see people automatically disqualifing virgins just because yet you do the other way around. So there's A) virigin lives how every they want to but 'experienced person will overlook that and give them a chance anyways vs B) virgin meets experienced person and automatically disqualifies them. See the difference? You're pretending your morals are superior AND acting on it.

>>17943714
No, I'm not. I'm trying to find out why they feel that way.

>>17943709
This has been acknowledged over and over again. I'm trying to get to the WHY for the preference.

>>17943002
>literally everyone does that. You do that. You'd treat a murderer the same way you'd treat a retired doctor?
>Yes, you can't and I wasn't doing that. I was just making a point that what happens in the past will always influence other peoples opinion on you. You live in a fairytail if you think people don't judge you for what you did in the past.
That's not even remotely comparable. Literally everyone that hits age 13 knows that the desire for sex is there. It's a matter what the norms are for pursuing it. Telling someone "you're 22 you should NOT have that many sexual partners at that age or else!" is a pretty arrogant position to assume in relation to someone you've never even met. Again you compared that to some that actually committed a crime so you can't compare at all. But back to the point, you STILL dodge the main question. You never answered WHY you think you can make that demand.

>To you, maybe, because you don't have the patience/attention spam to comprehend ideas that are too complex to be expressed in 2 sentences. That nonsensical ramble is exactly the issue you're bitching about, why people judge women for slutting around in their past. TL;DR: because it's a natural preference that evolved in a social standard.
kek, it's nonsensical rambling because you, yet again, completely dodged the question. I asked WHERE these moral come from.

>>17945434
>>17943002
... and spun in to some tirade saying that WHEN is the actual question and lead to some pulled out of you ass because society has always been like that! (despite the example you used contradicting that)

>>17942970
>That's actually an incredibly common hangup though. Drug addiction is not something that fades away, and lots of people would rather eliminate the chance of that shit ever being a problem.
Great now back and think up another argument to make up for your argument that's based off an inadequate example.

>Because it's their life, and they get to decide who gets to be in it. Women do the near opposite all the time, by giving men shit over lack of experience. I recently lost all interest in a woman a bit ago for that very reason actually.

While I don't identify with either extreme, it is entirely their right to do so. I may not agree with their values, but at the bare minimum everyone has the right to be an idiot.

This is getting circular now. So not entertaining this anymore

File: male-female-2002a.jpg (151KB, 1200x1380px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1200x1380px

>>17945434
>You don't see people automatically disqualifing virgins just because
I don't think the reason is "just because". The general reason is that women who are virgins until married tend to be better long term wife material and less likely to divorce.

>>17945466
But what if you're a virgin girl who doesn't want marriage at all?

>>17945466
>still using graphs made by religious-abstinence group using 20 year old data and no disclosure of methodology

Those graphs are made to scare gullible teenagers into not having sex.

>>17945481
>But what if you're a virgin girl who doesn't want marriage at all?
Then the relationship will end and both will go their separate ways assuming that the girl not wanting marriage is an irreconcilable difference.

>>17945487
It wasn't a great source, but I found another more reputable one that has similar results.

http://family-studies.org/sex-and-divorce-whats-the-connection/

>>17945497
https://faculty.utah.edu/u0046574-NICHOLAS_H_WOLFINGER/bibliography/index.hml

Also the credentials of the author of the study in case that is pertinent.

>>17945466
The only women who wait until marriage to have sex are the very religious ones. And they don't divorce because it's not allowed, no matter how unhappy they are.

>>17940669
Statistically unproven

Purefags are perfectly fine as long as they, too, are pure.

Everyone can have their own preferences, go cry about slut-shaming.

>>17945514
Citation needed

>>17945487
It's from 2002 you sperg. You're not very convincing when all you do is say the exact same thing over and over without even looking at the thing you're replying to and with no further reference.

>>17945487
>>17942743
See

>>17942954
By all means, use that data to make decisions for yourself if you ever decide to go to Maine. On the other hand, we will keep using our data to make informed decisions on the issue of virgins making better brides instead of going in blind believing in no studies made by no groups with no data.

>>17945514
I agree that religion may be one of many factors that contribute to lower divorce rates, but to say that it is the only contributing factor is rather disingenuous without a citation.

>>17946229
Virgins don't make better brides. They just divorce less.
People who marry virgins (because if you fuck your virgin girlfriend before you marry her, it doesn't work - same chances of divorcing of a girl who had 1-2 partners before) are often very religious. You know what religious people dislike too? Divorce.

>>17946232
https://family-studies.org/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

Here, on the fucking website you cited.

>Obviously, one of the most common reasons for premarital abstinence is religion, and NSFG data support such an interpretation.2 Figure 2 shows that women who marry as virgins are far more likely than other women to attend church at least once a week. It’s also noteworthy that virgin marriages increasingly became the domain of religious women between the 1980s and 2000s—and during the same years, the divorce rate for virgin brides continued to drop. These findings make sense in light of the fact that people who attend church frequently have lower divorce rates than do non-participants.

>>17946241
>one of the
Thanks for proving my point.

>>17946249
Can you even read?
>one of the most common reasons for premarital abstinence is religion

Your point was that divorce rate was caused by the inherit qualities of virgin women. My point was that low divorce rate and virginity at marriage are linked simply because both divorce and premarital sex are prohibited by religion.

File: 1467056004768.png (244KB, 1200x4168px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x4168px

>>17946237
>Virgins don't make better brides
The CDC says other wise. Virgins clearly make marriages more stable and less unhappy. That seems like a better bride to me. Also, before you go into panic mode and say these stats are shit because muh source, let me remind you that you currently make a conclusion based on no studies made by no groups using no data. I'm gonna have to go with the published results on this one, unless you can pull some data to rove the null hypothesis. Start searching kid.

>>17946257
Notice that the study doesn't disqualify the possibility that the lower possibility of divorce is caused by something such as an increased (less decreased) ability to pair bond not lost over having sex with multiple partners. I agree that the study does make the cast that religion is one of the factors involved with virgins divorcing less. However, the study makes no conclusions that religion is the only reason. You would need another study to disqualify, or qualify, another variable like pair bonding influencing virgin bride divorce rates.

>>17946259
It's not the CDC that says so, it's a data analysis done by a Christian organisation.

As I said - those who marry virgin are religious, religion doesn't like divorce.
That's it. It doesn't make them better brides.

If you read the study linked to those fancy graphs you could read how they say that the number of divorces decreased as staying virgin till marriage become more and more something reserved for highly religious people.

>>17946268
please link the study that shows what you say to be true conclusion then. Until then, you are believing in no study made by no group using no data.

>>17946265
It is easily disqualified by the fact that people with 1 premarital partner have a higher chance of divorce than people with 2 premarital partners.

People who have 1 premarital partner most likely had sex with their spouse before getting married to them. This means they had sex with just one person. Yet they divorce at the higher rate than someone with 2 pre-marital partners.

>>17946272
Your own fucking study, my dear. If you read the whole study it says so.

Here >>17946241, I linked the study and posted the extract where it say it.
It is the analysis you're quoting.

>>17946279
>Religion does or doesn't contribute to virgin marriage stability
>Virgins do or don'd make better brides

You are trying to use your date to make both of these conclusions. Your data can only be used to make one of these conclusions, and my data can only be used to make one of these conclusions. Guess which is which.

>>17946268
>As I said - those who marry virgin are religious, religion doesn't like divorce.
>That's it. It doesn't make them better brides.
I'd say that a lower chance of being divorced DOES make them better brides.

So now it is on you to prove that virgins don't make better brides based off of a study.

>>17946268
So what's your point? That it's all because of religion? I mean, c'mon at some point you have to realize how ridiculous these rationalizations are.

When a correlation has been found between the number of sexual partners and pretty much every negative aspect of sexual and romantic life I'd say that "slutting around is harmful" may be a reasonable conclusion.

>>17946294
>>17946293

No. There is no inherit quality that makes virgin better brides.
Both avoiding premarital sex and avoiding divorce are consequences of being highly religious.

If you read your own study you could see how the difference of divorce rate between virgins and non virgins became much larger as the number of people who married virgins became smaller.
This means that, as marrying virgin became a prerogative of highly religious people, the divorce rate lowered significantly.
Since the rate of divorce between virgins and non-virgins was similar when marrying virgin wasn't a religious fanatic habit, I guess it is pretty logical to come to my same conclusion: avoiding premarital sex and avoiding divorce are consequences of being highly religious. If virgins always were better brides by default, their divorce rate would always have been significantly lower than the other divorce rates, and it wasn't the case.


>>17946297
Then why people who have sex with just one person divorce at the same rate then people who had sex with two people?

I lost my virginity to the guy I married. I never had sex with anyone else, but I didn't marry virgin.
I have the same chances of divorcing of a girl who fucked two guys and got married with the second guy she fucked with.

File: 8-bit fate zero op 1.gif (3MB, 256x144px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 256x144px

>>17946316
>No. There is no inherit quality that makes virgin better brides.
Correct.
>Both avoiding premarital sex and avoiding divorce are consequences of being highly religious.
And that level of religious devotion makes them better brides. I can't speak for anyone else, but my argument has been that virgins today make better brides and that is a verifiable fact. The point of the thread was to try and understand why people prefer there partners to be pure and I think I did a good job of explaining that.

>>17946316
>why people who have sex with just one person divorce at the same rate then people who had sex with two people?
Because the difference between 1 and 2 is really small? If you want to draw a relevant conclusion look at the extremes and the overall function of the graph, not the difference in one variable caused by the change of one unit in the other variable. That's not how statistics work.

Saying that the number of partners makes no difference because the statistic difference between 1 and 2 is ~0 is like saying that GDP per capita doesn't influence the happiness of a country's citizens because the countries with a GDP per capita of $50.000 have citizens just as happy as countries with a GDP per capita of $49.000. Statistical errors are a thing and you're not taking into account all the variables, so there will be fluctuations. You can't draw relevant conclusions from such a narrow set of data.

>>17946259
>CDC says so

Liar. They don't. It's a religious group with an agenda, they use cherrypicked data from CDC to get the conclusion they want.

>>17946341
I don't think that not divorcing your husband makes you a better bride. I think that level of devotion makes you unlikely to ask for divorce, but at the same time I don't see it as a guarantee of a long, happy union.

Maybe I'm biased, because one of my best friends is a very Christian man who married virgin to a virgin and is stuck in an unhappy marriage with his wife, but he cannot divorce because of his religion. Not saying that all virgin-till-marriage relationships are like that, but probably it gives me a strong bias against this whole "I'll marry virgin and be happy forever" mindset I see a lot on here.

It especially pisses me off because I see many people who want to date a virgin girl and lose virginity before marriage because of these statistics, without understanding that having sex before marriage makes them as likely to get divorced as everyone else.


>>17946350
I haven't said that it doesn't make any difference. There is clearly a correlation between the number of partners and the quality of marriage, I wasn't negating that.

I was saying that
(1) people who marry virgins don't have any inherit quality that makes them better partners
(2) the main factor in the virgin-till-marriage low divorce rate is how devoted to religion they are, not how little people they fucked with.
(3) people who want to have sex before marriage but still want to date a virgin shouldn't use those statistic as a justification because they literally say that unless you marry virgin you could as well have sex with "used goods"
(4) it isn't as certain that high number of partners causes higher rate of divorce, even if there can be a correlation between the two

>>17946277
>the fact

Datamining by an unscientific group with an agenda that does not reveal their methodogy is not fact.

>>17946341
Religious devotion would make a girl a hellish bride for anyone who is not also highly religious.

I understand this is a very divisive film, but you can't deny that after all of this hype that Snyder didn't have something going on. Vulgar auteurism is probably the next big movie trend and it is a very exciting movement to a lot of people. BvS had great visuals and the faggots just marking that off as nothing are being awfully dismissive. Do you remember the Nolan batman movies have amazing visuals? I don't think so. I was a good summer blockbuster, but that's about it. Superhero movies are mostly info dumps anyways and they sure did that by adding wonder woman and whatnot. With that, Batman film really doesn't warrant to have loads of character development because you know that superheros are going to act the way they do because they are so well know. It's really not a contrarian statement to say this was a good movie. No one is expecting some deep, multilayered movie by going into a movie called 'Batman vs Superman - Dawn of Justice'. It isn't the best movie of last year either, but it will have more of an important legacy than The Dark Knight.

>>17946376
>people who marry virgins don't have any inherit quality that makes them better partners
Inherent quality? Probably not. Will they be happier and better partners? Apparently so.

>the main factor in the virgin-till-marriage low divorce rate is how devoted to religion they are, not how little people they fucked with.
Debatable. But here's the thing. Someone who fucked 3 guys before marriage has a lower chance of divorcing than someone who fucked 10 guys. And someone who fucked 10 guys has a lower chance of divorcing that someone who fucked 20 guys. Is religion also to blame here?

>people who want to have sex before marriage but still want to date a virgin shouldn't use those statistic as a justification because they literally say that unless you marry virgin you could as well have sex with "used goods"
I agree. That's just a rationalization, men simply prefer virgins for biological and social reasons and they came up with that as a reason. Doesn't mean these statistics don't reflect a reality though.

>it isn't as certain that high number of partners causes higher rate of divorce, even if there can be a correlation between the two
Well it's either that or there's another cause that makes women both fuck around and divorce more often. So at the end of the day it doesn't matter what the primal cause is, the result is the same. Marrying sluts is more likely to get you a divorce.

>>17946390
all u said was the visuals were great. nothing meticulous at all.. ramis spiderman flicks were better on every level and they aren't even classics. can u really not think of anything else at all?

>>17946407
>Someone who fucked 3 guys before marriage has a lower chance of divorcing than someone who fucked 10 guys.
I see this claim being made all the time, and yet nothing to back it up. Those graphs are not proof. They are completely unverifiable.

>>17946407
>Inherent quality? Probably not. Will they be happier and better partners? Apparently so.
Definitely no inherent quality, since in the past virgin brides still divorced at a similar rate as non-virgin brides, and just recently the trend changed.
They are happy, but not significantly happier, around 50% of virgin-to-virgin marriages are unhappy according to that statistic.
Better partners is debatable. Does simply not divorcing make you a better partner?

>Is religion also to blame here?
No, I don't think so.
It is shown how people who come from broken homes, are poorer, are less educated, have mental health problems are more promiscuous than others. It is also shown how all those things affect divorce rates, as well as the age of spouses.
I simply think (from what I've read about this topic) that high promiscuity and divorce rates are correlated because they are caused by similar things, but it's not like one causes the other.

>So at the end of the day it doesn't matter what the primal cause is, the result is the same.
Not really. Unless your whole point with these statistic is shaming women who fuck around, you're not doing a good work.
Saying "marrying a slut means you'll divorce" is like saying "marrying someone with divorced parents means you'll divorce" - might be true, doesn't sound useful.

>>17946437
>Someone who fucked 3 guys before marriage does not have a lower chance of divorcing than someone who fucked 10 guys
I see this claim being made all the time, and yet nothing to back it up. No graphs constitute no proof. Since there is no data to begin with, the claim is unverifiable.

What makes you think they demand you to change?

>>17946376
>I don't think that not divorcing your husband makes you a better bride. I think that level of devotion makes you unlikely to ask for divorce, but at the same time I don't see it as a guarantee of a long, happy union.
It isn't a guarantee of a long happy union, but it is sure as hell a good indicator. Someone who refuses to divorce is more likely to try and make the marriage work and be happy. In addition, single parent households are awful for most kids and from a self-interest standpoint the person who makes more money wants to marry a virgin because it means that person is at significantly less risk to lose a large portion of their money.

>>17946453
>the person who makes more money wants to marry a virgin because it means that person is at significantly less risk to lose a large portion of their money.

That doesn't happen in the real world. How would you know? You don't make money. You've probably never even been on a date. I make a fair amount of money, and I'd be an idiot to go look for someone who is specifically a virgin to marry.

Then again I'm a bit older, and wouldn't marry any girl under 25. And any girl who is still a virgin at 25 has something seriously wrong with her, it's a red flag.

>>17946453
>Someone who refuses to divorce is more likely to try and make the marriage work and be happy.
I don't think that most people divorce the first time their relationship has a problem.
Your own statistic says that 50% of people in virgin-to-virgin marriages are unhappy.

>single parent households are awful for most kids
Statistically speaking, for the well being of kids, happy married parents > divorced parents > unhappy married parents. Divorce fucks over most kids, but having parents who cheat, argue and hate each other is just as bad.

>>17940364
because i cant get laid for the life of me, yet you fucked a dozen guys in high school. i'm envious, and dislike you.
I hope you slut it up so much a monogamous relationship is impossible, and you die alone with several failed marriages.
But eh, good luck dude.

>>17946463
>>17946463
>because i cant get laid for the life of me,
So the problem works itsself out since you'll never be in this situation in the first place.

>>17946440
>marrying a slut means you'll divorce
>marrying a slut is more likely to get you divorced
Two different things

>people who come from broken homes, are poorer, are less educated, have mental health problems are more promiscuous
Damn, so you're telling me that by avoid sluts I also decrease my chance of running into poor, uneducated and crazy people? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT? And yet sluts don't understand why so many men don't want to commit to them.

I'm not the guy who posted those statistics, but yeah, slut shaming is what I'm doing. Because, guess what, I don't like sluts.

>>17946470
ha, nice. i realize i'm being shitty, sorry. im just frustrated and should definitely change my personality

>>17946456
>That doesn't happen in the real world. How would you know? You don't make money.
Quit trying to strawman because I disagree with you. Rather than trying to attack my character attack my argument.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/business/harold-hamm-oklahoma-oilman-billion-dollar-divorce.html?_r=0

>>17946461
>I don't think that most people divorce the first time their relationship has a problem.
That isn't my argument nor did I say that. Quit strawmanning me. It is very rude and makes me not want to discuss anything. It is my position that they are more likely to put in more effort to put in effort to make the marriage happy because their marriage is sacred
>Your own statistic says that 50% of people in virgin-to-virgin marriages are unhappy.
Which is still happier than people who have 1-10 partners by 10%. Not only that, many marriages that will be polled are having children, raising families, working hard to improve careers. Of course they won't be happy with their marriage because of how stressful it can be at times, but that isn't because of the partner.

File: Seriously.gif (25KB, 164x200px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 164x200px

Why the fuck is everyone responding the third fucking thread of this?

>>17946480
Sluts like people who had 2 sexual partners? Or people who fucked you before marrying you?

>>17946487
>It is my position that they are more likely to put in more effort to make the marriage happy because their marriage is sacred.
Your position isn't supported by data. That is what I was saying. I think most people try to work to save their marriage, whether they married virgin or not.
The "happiness" index is a bit ridiculous to me, anyway. I don't think you can quantify happiness.

>Not only that, many marriages that will be polled are having children, raising families, working hard to improve careers.
All those marriages are, probably? That's what people in most marriages do. It's not a prerogative of virgins to have kids. At 30 most people are having kids, raising families and working on their career.

>>17946512
Sluts like any girl who had sex with someone who's not him.

>>17946487
This is what you claimed:

>the person who makes more money wants to marry a virgin because it means that person is at significantly less risk to lose a large portion of their money.

Nowhere in the article you linked to does it say anything remotely close to that. It's an article about a very expensive divorce.

Now, are you going to backpedal and say you were talking out of your ass or actually will provide something to back up your claim?

>>17946531
I think that he was speaking more to the possibility of a costly divorce. That possibility, coupled with the higher rate of divorce among non virgins, makes the increased likelihood of that disastrous event evident.

>>17946559
Someone who's made it really rich is not likely to be so gullible as to believe graphs posted by religious groups with an obvious agenda. He'll want to marry someone he thinks will stay with him forever. He can choose from the best, and doesn't limit himself to a tiny fraction of available girls who are guaranteed to be of lower quality.

>>17946512
>>17946521
>Sluts like any girl who had sex with someone who's not him.
Kinda. I mean, I wouldn't exactly call someone who had sex with someone other than me a slut, obviously, but the fewer partners a woman had the more I like her, with 0 being the optimal number.

Welcome to the real world honey, men are possessive of their partners and prefer girls who had no sexual encounters with anybody but them. I know you think that's just a small portion of men, but in reality it's most of us. Why do you think almost all societies and religions until feminism valued purity and virginity? Nowadays most men just have the courtesy of acting like they don't care how many dicks their partner sucked because they know there's nothing they can do about it and it would just make them feel bad. But most of them do care to some extent. I've seen it in many people, my best friend's girlfriend thinks he couldn't care less that she fucked half of our group of friends and then some, but he admitted to us that it bothers him. And I've heard this story over and over, from many people.

So yeah, it sucks and it's unfair, but that's how things are.

>>17946586
You're a virgin. You don't speak for all men. You speak for a tiny minority, virgin adult men. And even among them, most are not insecure like you.

The fact is simply that once a guy has had sex, he realizes how dumb it is to put pussy on a pedestal, and stops fantasizing about a virgin wife.

>>17946586
I can understand that.
I actually am like that to some degree, I love thinking that no one else ever touched my husband but me, and no one else ever touched me but him.
If we broke up I'd have no problem dating someone who isn't a virgin, and would probably prefer that - I like the mutuality of it.

Anyway, my point is - unless you are waiting till marriage, dating a virgin doesn't improve your chances of being together forever. It is nothing more than a fetish.

>>17946604
Yeah, see, that's the typical response. Name calling. That's why so many people convinced themselves that they shouldn't care about how many partners a girl had before, even if they can't really stop how they feel. Or they just wouldn't admit it. I'm not a virgin and I definitely am not putting pussy on a pedestal.

I'm also not speaking for a tiny minority. As I said, this isn't only my experience, but it's also the experience of other men I know. And this is a common preference among men throughout all the recorded history. They build cultures, societies and religions around this preference, but somehow now only virgin, insecure men feel that way.

File: 1482495595678.jpg (240KB, 801x1064px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 801x1064px

>>17946606
I think that's a good point. Even if the success rates are marginally better for dating a certain kind of woman, at the end of the day, it's more often than not just a fetish. The decreased chance of divorce I can get for dating my Korean gf is just a bonus compared to how she treats me like an absolute king and loves me back compared to my former 4 white gfs who grew up in America.

>>17946638
>And this is a common preference among men throughout all the recorded history
>recorded history
jesus citation need batman fucking christ

>>17946578
>He'll want to marry someone he thinks will stay with him forever. He can choose from the best, and doesn't limit himself to a tiny fraction of available girls who are guaranteed to be of lower quality.
Someone who is most likely to be with him forever is a virgin as all the evidence in this thread has stated. Do you have any evidence to say that virgin girls are more likely to divorce or have some characteristic that makes them worse for marriage?

>>17946512
>Your position isn't supported by data. That is what I was saying. I think most people try to work to save their marriage, whether they married virgin or not.
Whether most people try to save their marriage or make it happier, people who only have sex with the person they are married to or become married to are more likely to be in a happy marriage. Whether this is causal or not it can be tough to determine, but virgin marriages hasn't seemed to have been contested by any data.
>The "happiness" index is a bit ridiculous to me, anyway. I don't think you can quantify happiness.
It isn't clearly quantifiable in a way you can quantify water in a glass, but you can clearly measure it to some degree. Couples who abuse each other are unhappier in comparison to couple who don't. Since you can measure it in a vague manner like this you can measure it to some degree in others.

>>17946655
You want me to give you sources that from all times and periods recorded in history to prove something that's common sense?
Look at christiniaty and Islam, the 2 biggest religions. Women who weren't virgins before marriage were absolutely despised by society. In fact this still happens in islamic countries.

>>17946691
>In fact this still happens in islamic countries
okay so i shouldnt value virginity then? whatever islam does usually doesnt work out well.

>Look at christiniaty
theres also like 3k years of recorded human history and a fuckton of the rest of the planet that doesnt practice.

>>17946740
What are you even arguing about? Do you deny that it was a common practice throughout history for society to shun promiscuous women?

Why do you think feminists always bitch that women were always sexually repressed? What do you think the sexual liberation movement was about?

>>17946661
>Someone who is most likely to be with him forever is a virgin as all the evidence in this thread has stated.
As has been stated many times, those unsourced biased graphs have been thoroughly debunked.

You want a predictor of a stable marriage? Look at socioeconomic factors. Statistically the most stable ones are when both come from similar socioeconomic background. So, yes, two religious virgins can have a stable marriage. One nonreligious nonvirgin and one religious virgin? No way in hell that will end up a happy stable marriage.

Unless you are a religious virgin, there is absolutely zero reason to marry a religious virgin.

>>17946770
>As has been stated many times, those unsourced biased graphs have been thoroughly debunked.
>>17945497
No debunking of any of these have been provided in this thread. The assertion that they have been debunked, but no actual debunking.

>So, yes, two religious virgins can have a stable marriage.
Do you have any data that compares the stability of marriages between two religious virgins and others with similar socioeconomic backgrounds?

>>17946758
>What do you think the sexual liberation movement was about?
liberating sex

>Why do you think feminists always bitch that women were always sexually repressed?
because people bitch about their sexual choices in the first place

>Do you deny that it was a common practice throughout history for society to shun promiscuous women?
different cultures are different plenty of pacific island, south and SEA cultures actually encouraged women to be promiscuous. prostitution was even legal in many ancient cultures (not encouraged but tolerated). but what am i getting at here? scientific knowledge and lessening influence of religion on a day to day basis are changing current notions at an extremely fast rate. want some more fun facts? the concept of sex in a negative light doesnt even exist in PLENTY of hunger gather tribes in north/south america and africa. do think they just completely fucking stopped when the spanish showed up and told them to listen to jesus? no, these beliefs we mixed into and are still deeply rooted in spic countries.

>What are you even arguing about?
way to open the conversation is very well defined.

>>17946864
Yeah, of course there were societies that tolerated promiscuity. There were even matriarchal societies, there were societies that encouraged homosexuality and all that.

My point was that throughout history men showing a preference for "pure" women was quite common. Not that every single man in the past 2 million years hated sluts.

>>17946786
>No debunking of any of these have been provided in this thread. The assertion that they have been debunked, but no actual debunking
You can't debunk legitimate studies.

>>17946906
cool man whats funny is the greatest european empire had quite a high tolerances for promiscuity and one of the cultures you listed (islam) is highly intolerant to promiscuity but is all universally shit. ever notice how the western nations that are doing better deviate more and more from the de facto religious authority in the west (the catholic church) hell one of the largest empires the world has seen started with some king being pissed he couldnt just tell his wife to fuck off.

whats my point? only the stupid and weak care about this thing

>>17946948
you started an argument by insulting someone, then strawmaned the shit out of his point and then when he cleared it up you attacked him again in the most annoying, passive-aggressive way possible.

go back to the rock you crawled from, you petty cunt.