Yeah yeah yeah.

But pumpkin, really. You don't want to ask the girl if she likes to be face ****ed seconds before doing it. You want a feel of her nature long before you get there.

What is wrong with premarital sex, in a loving, committed relationship again? This wasn't explained to me.

Please explain why it's so wrong.

Not according to Mosbonian.

Nothing. But nothing is necessarily wrong with waiting either. Spreading legs and exposing her stuff tends to expose all her hidden emotional stuff too.

So what you are really saying is that if marriage doesn't go your way the whole time...."you are outta there"?

I'll say it again....you should consider never getting married. Ever.

No. I'm saying in 10 years, you would know if you were compatible with someone.

You really do have comprehension issues.....

I'm out of this conversation....later people.

I have a new question for you.

What is wrong with premarital sex, in a loving, committed relationship again? This wasn't explained to me.

Please explain why it's so wrong.

It's probably best.

Anyone who has been out of the dating scene for 30 ****ing years is so far detached from the current environment they probably shouldn't be giving advice anyways. People and things change and it's damn sure not the early '80s anymore.

Feel free to start a "How to stay married" thread though. There are large amounts of people who could use some help in that area. If you leave god out of it, I'd even be interested in reading it as I eventually hope to avoid paying someone to take half my shit when they leave.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UED4WqwNU1c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I suspect that you'll get more useful information about building relationships with women from Mosbonian than you'll get from GoChiefs. That's not really a knock on GoChiefs, it's just recognition that he really has no experience doing it.

This is about one thing: foregoing sex until you get married.

It's not too bright. The fact Mosbonian can't see simple logic is hilarious.

He sees it from the perspective of someone who has been through it. You see it from the perspective of someone who is guessing what it might be like.

I don't have a problem with the idea of having sex before marriage as a part of the process of deciding whether two fully mature adults are right for each other, but what I suspect you don't realize is that even after that sexperimentation, you still won't know how sexually compatible you'll be 5 or 10 years down the road. Nor do you seem to realize how small a part of marriage the sex aspect will be. Not that it's small, as in you never have sex, but that it's small in that there are other far more important aspects of making that marriage work.

I'll step back in here since logic has disappeared from your thought process...

Just because I am not in the dating scene doesn't mean I have no clue. I am a parent of a 21 y/o son and an 18 y/o daughter. if you don't think I am staying attuned to today's inclination of "leave them in the dust" relationships you need to understand what being a parent involves. I am guessing that you are young...a millennial....and have differing views than me. That's OK....but quit trying to act like I have no clue. I see guys like GoChiefs coming a mile away when it comes to the guys that ask her out. I've been smart enough to teach her where the pretenders play...


As for "how to stay married"....simple easy words...

Love, Respect, and patience. People screw up all the time.....patience is required to get past mistakes. Respect your spouse enough to never control or place demands.....Love your wife no matter what, because for every ounce of love you give her, she will give you a pound back.

The fact that you can't see it isn't that simple shows you have absolutely no clue.

I'm with gochiefs in that I'd have a very hard time marrying somebody that I'd never had sex with, but your stance is well-articulated here. Not that I've ever been married, but it's foolish to believe that all aspects of marriage can be understood before the fact.

Still, I found myself on gochiefs' side most of the time throughout their debate, even if his argumentative tactics weren't the kindest. Even among perfectly eligible young men and women, it's uncommon that one abstains from sex entirely before marriage.

Coming from a relatively progressive point-of-view: as a woman gets older, her virginity is undoubtedly a red flag without a good explanation (though there are exceptions for those with well-founded personal beliefs). It's just the same as it is for a man.

It's actually a ****ed up situation for the woman in this instance.

"Your 25 years old and a virgin? Either you're lying or you're ****ed up."
"Your 25 years old and have slept with over 25 dudes? Slut."

For a guy that becomes...

"Your 25 years old and a virgin? Those DnD tournaments must be fun, huh?"
"Your 25 years old have slept with over 25 chicks? Underachiever."

Since you're replying to my post, I assume that you're attributing these viewpoints to me, when I don't particularly believe in any of them.

I feel that having had sex with either zero or "over 25" people by the age of 25 is uncommon and worthy of curiosity (or caution), but it takes an unhealthy level of spite and self-loathing to actually believe the brand of vitriol you've included in the quotes you posted.

What kind of red flag is it? What does it mean to you?

Here are a few things it could mean:

* She's ugly or otherwise unattractive and can't get laid. - You don't need to know she's a virgin to recognize this.

* She is repulsed by the thought of sex - This can be determined through open discussion.

* She's waiting for marriage - Again, this is something you can find out through discussion. Whether it's a religious belief or fear of unwanted pregnancy or something else, it's something you can talk about.

Responses bolded above.

You don't know how you'll be personally compatible in 5 or 10 years, either. People change in a lot of ways, and nobody can say what a relationship might be after a period of time.

For most people, dating is shopping for a long term mate, and sex is generally part of the "shopping list" - finding someone that's compatible with you in as many ways as possible. I know I would never marry someone I'd not had sex with, much as I wouldn't marry someone with whom I hadn't had serious conversations about family, money, kids, etc.

And I fully disagree that sex becomes less important - I think that's one of the reasons there's so much infidelity, and may be more important over time, though likely less frequent. Sex is a way to retain intimacy and physical closeness with someone, which has a tendency to fade out. Maybe you're not getting it on twice a day, but IMHO, an active sex life is paramount to the success of many relationships.

My $.02...

Quoted for sake of what got me thinking that way, not as an argument.

I have always found it hypocritical and amusing the double standard placed on men and women in regards to sex. If women have lots of sex with lots of men, she's a slut. Not much if any sex, and she's a prude. A man has tons of sex with tons of women, he's a stud. Not much if any, and he's a loser.

I find that head shakingly funny.

It's unfortunate, no doubt about that. Sadly, I can't help but think that it's the sort of stance that will not disappear other than through time and generational change of opinion. Sexism is like racism in that regard, I think.

I think how one feels about that statement influences which side one falls on in the GoChiefs v/ Mosbonian argument.

Probably, unfortunately.

Men have problems with women that are confident enough to live the way they want, as well, thus why men feel the need to label those they would try to "break down" to make them feel "superior". We don't live in "Leave it to Beaver" times anymore.

I don't understand this response:

If the girl is repulsed by sex and you don't want to have a relationship with her because of that, then don't. You don't need to have sex with her to figure this out.

And I'm not sure where you get this theory:

In the interest of fairness, PEOPLE do that everyone. This isn't exactly a gender based stance, even if it does come through loud and clear and often there.

This debate is boring.

I still find myself deeply entrenched in the double standard between men and women when it comes to sex. I've had more sex partners than I'd like a woman with whom I may get serious to have had throughout her lifetime.

I can't explain it.

Sex becomes less important *relative* to the other things that become more important. I'm not disagreeing with you about it's continuing importance. I'm saying that other things that are less important on day 1 of a marriage become more important later. Kids are a good example of this.

It's all about the whys and not the how manys. Both sexes often screw for self esteem. For every cool and casual couple of friends that have nothing more than a smile and a high five as they get out of bed and go in their separate ways, there's someone ****ing just to prove they can... Damn the consequences.

I'm down with my daughter embracing her shower massager until Prince Charming comes. I'm also fully prepared to be Nana K or Miss K or Lola K or some bastardized version of a grandma within the next decade.

I liked her for a dozen other reasons, but ultimately there was a piece missing from our relationship that contributed to its demise. The lack of physical intimacy definitely caused us to be less close than we would have been otherwise. I think she can/will have relationship success with a man who feels the same way, but that falls under the category of "unusual circumstances".

As for the second bit: it's literally written in human genetic code to not only desire sex, but to bond with those who you have it with. This is true of women, especially. There are exceptions, but both scientific and anecdotal evidence points to the fact that sexless relationships often result in incomplete, less-happy-than-they-could-be partnerships.

You are an idiot. I'm not a hit it and quit it kind of guy. I don't even go to the bars.

What's the point of not having sex before marriage, again? Please explain.

To me its guys are sticking their dick into something so it doesn't seem as bad. Women are getting stuff put into them which in my head seems wrong.

Which is a dichotomy that has existed for ages....More times than not, men want women who don't have a history of revolving bedsprings. But they want to experience as much sex as possible for themselves before settling down.

I can't explain it anymore than you can...but I can tell you my view has changed simply because I am now a Father.

This.

You should fix your quote. Those aren't my words.

And you've distorted Mosbonian's position anyway. He asked the question, what's wrong with a girl who decides to wait until marriage and he pointed out that some of your attitudes about sex relative to a long term relationship are a little naive. He didn't come on hard telling people they shouldn't have sex before marriage.

The history of the species in biological evolution terms is a pretty easy explanation. Men are hunters and programmed to spread as much seed as possible. Women have the most to "lose" by engaging in sex, so they are programmed to be more defensive and selective. The biological factors are reflected in our psychological perception.

Something that I've thought of in the past, is how that may play a role in sexual experience as well.

No woman wants a man that is terrible in bed and the best way to get better is with practice. Guys would prefer a woman that has a bit of experience (without sampling all the dipsticks), but how bad can a woman really be at sex? Most of them just lay there anyway LMAO

That's exactly what he believes everyone should do. And that's the only thing I've ever been talking about.

He introduced all these other factors. Not me. He tried to take a conversation about pre-wedding sex and twist it.

He's FOS.

Is our long term "evolutionary programming" a factor in the current divorce rate? Did we evolve into long term monogamy or slow the system by using it as a crutch? Should we, as a species, even be monogamous for long periods of time if children are not currently being raised?

I can attest to this being a conversation you should never have with a woman you're dating. ROFL

I can see you have no ability to see past the end of your Johnson....and is anyone if FOS when it comes to relationships it is you. I've been married to the same woman happily for 30 years.

The only relationship you have had that lasted longer than 30 days is the one with your right hand I am betting.

Is burning in hell for all of eternity that hard to understand? Get your heart right with Jesus, douche bag. You ejaculating monster.

Should people have sex before marriage?

Why or why not?

Please explain. Without insults. You religious nutjob.

Damn my story escalated quickly

Yeah so did you get in those pants or what?

A key that can open all the locks is awesome. It's the master key.

A lock that can be opened by any key is just a shitty lock.

:facepalm:

Your new moniker should be desperate shitty lock.

I think you have that second part wrong. Men can impregnate a virtually unlimited number of women, so we are wired to be prolific. Women have a very limited number of children they can carry, so they are wired to be selective.

Birth control chips away at this, but it doesn't eliminate it.

ur an asshat

I think you're both right. Women have more to lose in the sense that they have to provide an insane amount of nutrients to a growing fetus. This isn't such a big deal now with a controlled environment and abundant resources, but certainly still ingrained into the evolutionary fabric of females.

I don't disagree.

IMO, either men and women can nail as many people as they want without judgment or both sexes should sleep with as few people as possible.

Just got back. This girl is without a doubt one of the coolest girls I've been with. She's really got a great personality.

She did say she wants to wait until marriage. Why? Every guy she's been with has just wanted sex. There was no passion or dinner dates, spending time together (you know that bullshit that girls like) and she didn't want to just have sex. It ruined her past relationships/dates.

She said she would do everything leading up to sex, but it's weird bc she said that guys hated it that she didn't put out, so I don't get what actually happened?

This isn't a religious thing, and I would bet money on the fact that if I was close with her sex would eventually happen before marriage, like it naturally does.

She's a dude.

Ditch her. She's crazy.

She's post-op and waiting for things to heal.

As much as I hate to say it, you may be right. I don't think I can do a non-physical relationship.

Sounds like an asshole thing to say, but I don't think a successful relationship/marriage can be had without having sex.

Waiting until marriage for sex is a big gamble.

Yeah, especially if you marry her. When you bang her scrotal folds contorted into labia, she won't get pregnant.

You seem to like this girl, so give her another chance.

Date her for a month. Tell her you can't continue to see her without getting intimate.

She is honestly hopeless if she can't engage in a mutually pleasurable experience with her SO at that point. It's a healthy and natural thing, and draws people closer.

Of course you have to decide if she is worth that month, too. The girl I'm currently seeing is making me wait, and I'm perfectly fine with that, because we get along great. But I also know she isn't going to make me wait until freakin' marriage.

You just got done saying she's not anti-physical. She just won't go all the way... for now at least. If you had a good time, see where it goes and try not to obsess on intercourse. Don't let these guys talk you into blowing off a potentially good girl with their stupid macho bullshit. Be a gentleman and see (a) if you're good enough for her and (b) if she can make you happy. Like you said, if she gets to the point where she trusts you to treat her right and if you two hit it off, the embargo on sex before marriage might go by the wayside.

Don't mistreat her or use her for her body though. If that's what you want, look for a girl who's equally shallow.

Good luck.

IMO, a girl that puts a prescribed waiting period on sex is damaged goods.

She's ****ing other guys

I think we were saying the same thing. Since women, in the biological sense, are more invested through the childbearing process and limited by the amount they can have, they have "more to lose" if pregnancy were to occur, and therefore are more selective.

Its a test. If you ditch her, you are just another a$$hole. If you say "you are worth waiting for" and go along with it for a while, she will put out. No way she is waiting until marriage if its not tied to religion - its too hard to resist without the threat of an eternity of burning hellfire.

Just don't get too worked up in the "everything but sex" - seriously...no wonder other dudes ditched her, blue balls is torture.

Is she against sex or everything sexual? You need to find this out.

Never kiss a girl you haven't banged. Makes you look weak. Better to withhold sex from her...)

Yep. One no man should sign.

Why does anyone get married these days? We're in a rut in our society that tells us we need a college degree, wife, 2 kids, house and dog to be normal. I have all these things and now ask myself why? Just so I can fit in? I'm on my 30th car and only my 2nd wife. How the Hell can I be expected to stay at those numbers? There is too much life left to live.

Also you need to ask her if she's into anal because as everyone knows the vagina is the 3rd option.

And no matter what they say there's three good holes on a woman...

I love college...

Your mom goes to college

That gives her permission to take half your shit.

Shit. I really liked that one.

Oh well.

Is Mosbonian a chick?