Anyone here wait until they entered a committed, long term relationship before having sex for the first time...

Divorce rates are far higher for those who don't wait, even controlling for religion.
This is like giving a guy two revolvers, one with 5 chambers loaded and the other with just 1, and when he picks the second, he ends up killing himself--but a moron like you would still say he's "stupid" for not taking the first revolver.
Yes, bad things can happen despite precautions, and good things can happen to the reckless and foolish. Neither should be a guide to behavior, and if anyone should feel stupid, it's you, for entertaining such an absurd notion.

>t. brainlet who thinks Western history started in 1960
If you want a long-lasting marriage, you will wait.
>You cannot have a serious relationship without a healthy sex life.
Marriage is a serious relationship, dating that can be broken off at any point unilaterally, not so much.

When are you going to get therapy? You need help.

we won't split up, we are extremely happy together, if we actually do end up splitting up for some reason, my life will be over for sure.

Not an argument, degenerate.

It's good that you are happy. But it is impossible to guarantee you will be together for life. It can happen to anyone. Even the most perfect couples, happy together for years, can for some reason end up splitting.

of course, but it's very unlikely.

Bf and I have been together for 5 years, we're now 22 and 27. We've been waiting all this time and we'll probably get married within a year, we couldn't before due to circumstances.

Should we wait until the actual wedding day? Is it retarded to give up and do after engagement? If you're engaged, it's a promise to get married. Even though we both agreed to do this, I sometimes feel guilty towards my bf because he's so much older.

Which is why saying things like "we will be together forever because we stayed virgins until marriage" is retarded.

>5 years
>no sex
How is this even possible?

Living abroad for studies and lots of masturbation :/
>inb4 he cheated while you were gone
>inb4 unchristian acts to achieve something christian

Attached: 1410148942176.jpg (563x364, 41K)

I never said that we will stay together because of anything to do with virginity or sex, I only said we waited 2 and a half years to make it more sincere and sweet, not until marriage. I say we'll stay together because we sincerely love each other and make each other happy, regardless of premarital sex. saying that premarital sex ruins a true relationship is really stupid and makes no sense imo.

>Should we wait until the actual wedding day?
Ideally, yes. While it isn't the end of the world if you do so beforehand (and there isn't a statistical difference in divorces for those who only have one partner), you are introducing an unnecessary risk if your relationship abruptly ends before the marriage. Small, but there.
You've done amazingly, going for 5 years, so a few more months won't be hard. Good job, user.

>saying that premarital sex ruins a true relationship is really stupid and makes no sense imo.
It doesn't ruin a single relationship, it ruins relationships by being acceptable as a norm. That is, having multiple sexual partners DOES harm marital success, and if you are willing to have sex before getting married, even after a waiting period, you are also opening yourself up to the possibility you will end up with multiple failed sexual relationships before marrying. And therein lies the problem, because people like to tell themselves a relationship will work out while the have reckless sex. Whereas if you wait until marriage, it is exceedingly unlikely you will end up marrying that burden, unless your first marriage fell apart (and that's a rare event).

I hope this clarifies.

>Once you are married you are set for life because people never divorce
Not very bright are you.

*marrying with

He's got this pretty retarded idea in his head that the length of a marriage is equivalent to its quality. Him and the rest of the autistic, anti-degeneracy dumdum squad think that higher divorce rates are because of some kind of moral decline when in fact its just because our generation has more freedom and doesn't live in a society that forces them to remain in loveless marriages the same way our parents and grandparents did. He's also never been in a relationship or has any first hand knowledge of what a real one entails. I'd take everything he says with a few pounds of salt.

Well he's a 20 year old KHV, what do you expect?
He has no life experience to speak off.

You can have true love without sex it's a different kind of love though so it's okay to wait till marriage or wait a while to have sex with somebody but it's also okay if you feel really strongly to have sex with them sooner you know maybe after you have been dating a couple weeks or a month. Alex not even really bad enough fuck somebody on a first date if you guys are both hurting each other doesn't message me it's going to work out it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to fail it just means you guys were really into each other and you had sex and you had a good experience and move on with your life if it doesn't work out. It's not going to make any future sex you have any less important or or make it not feel good. In fact when I've had great sex at using with somebody that I have regular sex with and we can get to know each other and that's when sex gets really good and great. And if you put love on top of that that's even better but I think it's better to if you're not going to have love nobody fucking loves you and nobody is going to fucking be with you at least you could have some good sex throughout your life
Hell maybe you'll fall in love with somebody that you're having some good sex with I mean nobody ever really fucking knows. All I really know is if you don't fucking go up and talk to people and show interest and fucking fucking to have the normal shit that always gone for the last fucking 8 years continue to be fucking normal instead of fucking trying to fucking make people read your mind can actions speak way louder than words fucking you think you had feelings for somebody and you did nothing about it you probably fucking have it at least that's what that person thinks that you can tell anyone after the fact that you had feelings but if you ain't fucking do anything like talk or flirt or kiss or any goddamn thing then it's doesn't really look like you had any feelings and you're just fucking trying to fucking be bullshiting

WHAT

I damn hope so, I'm worried I'm going to be alone for a long time because of this sort of view point. It's pretty depressing how this is a minority view these days.

Attached: 20155917_1825327317783000_5067944765320908504_n.png (600x397, 274K)

I’m 19 and my first time was when I was 16 with my girlfriend who was 14 at the time.
Still together, do everything together, not going to the same college, but plan to get married and save the white race

>Anyone here wait until they entered a committed, long term relationship before having sex for the first time? Maybe even waited until marriage.
Yes.

>All I'm asking really is, is this possible
>Has it worked out for anyone else?
Yes, his and my entire families. No divorce but there's a few who never got married.

>Is it possible to get my fairytale love?
Theoretically. You, them, etc so many variables including lucky that you met. Take the time to get to know them, but don't waste your time on someone incompatible.

>missing the entire point
Cognitive bias is an incredible thing--the amount of mental gymnastics you people do never ceases to amaze me. It's about rates.
>think that higher divorce rates are because of some kind of moral decline when in fact its just because our generation has more freedom and doesn't live in a society that forces them to remain in loveless marriages the same way our parents and grandparents did.
>it says, as it proudly cites its complete dearth of sources
psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25811-011
>"Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length."

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00996.x/abstract
>Bivariate results suggested that delaying sexual involvement was associated with higher relationship quality across several dimensions. The multivariate results indicated that the speed of entry into sexual relationships was negatively associated with marital quality, but only among women."

Or how about this one, conveniently left out (and note I am NOT contending sex is the sole reason):
ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf
>"measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men."

>muh life experience
literal brainlets, the whole lot of you
I provide sources when asked for everything I say, and often when not asked, too.
>plan to get married and save the white race
Well, good luck with that, and your heart is in the right place, but please note that the Alabama plan isn't the best route--starting relationships that early is a massive risk factor.

Good luck. Relationships where you were each others' firsts as teenager very rarely last.

Why do you not throw actual relevant statistics about marriage such as age, socioeconomic backgrounds? Those are all far more relevant than sexual partners, which is not even a good indicator to begin with.

People who have only had sex with 1 person have the lowest divorce rates

Well duh. Because if they get divorced they will find a new sexual partner. The only way you could have someone divorced with 1 sexual partner is if he/she stayed celibate the rest of their lives.

>Why do you not throw actual relevant statistics about marriage such as age, socioeconomic backgrounds?
The former I have done, although it's usually less relevant. Unsurprisingly, marriages with a large age gap are more liable to breakup. As for "socioeconomics", it's a leftist favorite, although that's not to discount it entirely. For example, interracial marriages essentially all end in much higher rates of divorce.
>Those are all far more relevant than sexual partners, which is not even a good indicator to begin with.
I'd bet money that this is just your personal opinion speaking. And while undoubtedly there are things which can torpedo a relationship far quicker than having multiple premarital partners could, sexual behavior is rather unique in the amount of control we have over it. Holding other things equal, the effect of waiting is clear and positive, as you'll see pointed out in my earlier post.
You're both right. He is right in that those who marry very young or start having sex early are more likely to separate, but within those conditions those who only had one partner are comparatively less likely to divorce. Still, you are probably running at least at national averages for divorce risks overall. I hope it works out for both of you.

That statistic, as tracked in the NSFG, only applies to married women. And I'd wager that there aren't many women who are in a second, celibate marriage (which, in any case, would be recorded as a divorce also).

Wait, are you saying that women who marry as virgins, divorce, and get remarried are thrown together in the same bucket as "2 sexual partners, divorced"? Because that kinda blows your entire statistics out of the window.

Ok, well people who have had sex with 2 people are the second least likely and soon

Oh, no. I mean that if a woman divorced after waiting, that incident would count as divorce with one partner.
They had a special way of dealing with second marriages, and I don't think they were included in the data set I'm talking about. Sorry for not being clear on this.

While broadly true for long-term statistics (from what I've seen), one user showed me an interesting source which showed that short-term (within 5 years, which is 2 years less than the average time of divorce in the US) divorce rates are highest in those with two partners. I'd guess it's because buyer's remorse, so to speak, is strongest with such a limited number of cases, and this was alluded to in the study.

You're sure they had a way to deal with second marriages? I don't remember any study ever bringing it up.

>I provide sources when asked for everything I say, and often when not asked, too.
Yeah the same outdated shit you keep reposting ad naseum.
Still not going to take you serioiusly on the topic if relationship advice, kid.

Many of the studies I cite go off of data from the NSFG, which itself recorded numerous dimensions--like marital status, whether women were in a first, second, or third marriage, and number of partners. These responses were then pooled into the public-release statistics you can find here
cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/index.htm
But these only show aggregate totals, since it is fully anonymized by US law. However, the microdata (i.e. statistics tied to each individual response) is available for research purposes, and that's what is used in things like the Heritage review--and from that they filter out the necessary data.
>outdated
That's a new one.

Data that's over 25 years old is kinda outdated.

How can I get my hands on that microdata?

When you're pointing to historical trends, it isn't. And it's not like humans have suddenly stopped processing things the way they have for thousands of years just because society is doing a shit job reigning in idiots.

Be a researcher and get approval for whatever it is you're doing.

25 years is an entire generation. Society-related things change a lot in that time.

And? Behaviors and conditions change, the underlying relationships don't. The challenge is in isolating said relationships, but that is why you control for other factors like religion, income, etc.

You do know that economic reasons are the top reasons for a divorce right?

From my experience and many other people I know, sex before marriage is a must. It's important because you need to be sexually compatible with your partner, which doesn't always happen. I've known people with sexual issues who hide them until they are married which creates some pretty awful situations. Would recommend not having sex until you are about to get engaged, just to be sure that everything will go well after your married

Wrong. See pic.
This can easily be discussed beforehand if it's so important. And those with utterly depraved fetishes or Dionysian libidos aren't going to be able to wait in the first place.

Attached: reasons.png (534x341, 30K)

Hitler, do you have a source for this data? What study is it from?

It's really important to source your evidence. If this sample was carried out by say, a Christian group, you may find that the evidence is screwed or interpreted in order to suit their agenda.

Of course this is the same with most data but I know you're very keen on proving your arguments, so it's something to keep in mind.

>do you have a source for this data? What study is it from?
It literally says in the figure where it's from

assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/divorce.pdf
Here you go. Look at page 23 of the PDF for the overview. And surprise, surprise, contrary to what Mr. Dickbrain ITT said, 'sexual problems' were a meager 5-8%, and I'd guarantee they pretty much all fell into the categories of "perpetually horny" or "degenerate fetish".

I get this a LOT. Watch, next they'll attack the source.

Because
>2004
And people with sex problems most of the time don't even make it to marriage.

Do you even leave your room?

Haha, that's a pretty pathetic comeback. You would have been better off not replying.

He's an incel, he doesn't require non pathetic comebacks.

There we go. Yes, I'm sure in the CURRENT YEAR everyone divorces because the women are all fucking dogs now. In those 14 years since the survey, men have shifted from substance addiction and abuse to locking themselves in their rooms and masturbating to anime. Obviously, the data presented is completely irrelevant now--times have changed.
>And people with sex problems most of the time don't even make it to marriage
To think you people constantly whinge about me providing citations, for fuck's sake.
>implying

I'm gonna do it and be a living proof it's doable, just watch.

Being unable to wait until marriage is a massive glaring red flag. It just won't do for me.
Patience is a virtue.

My wife and I waited until marriage with everything that's more sexual than kissing, we married with 22/23 though, so relatively young but have been together for 4 years prior
So it is possible, just not easy, especially once you found someone you want to stay with

Glad you see my point.

>Fucking fucking fucking fucking
Jfc. Hang yourself.

>Being unable to wait until marriage is a massive glaring red flag.
Waiting for marriage is a glaring red flag.

Sex is a big part of an adult relationship, I want to make sure that department is good before I get too invested. I've never waited very long, but ended up in a ltr with all but 1 person(1 night stand with friend I knew for years). There is no real reason to wait too long, especially not until marriage. That would be awful, marry just to find out your partner has a micro dick or something, fuck that. Your dad isn't selling your virginity to the highest suitors bid, it's not important. If anything you'll be developmentally challenged from lack of experience

You're still very young and probably headed towards an eventual divorce, idk why you're talking as if you just celebrated 50 years together.

Kid, shut the fuck up. You can't be a month over 23-25 years old. You think you're some kind of elder now that you've held down a job for a few years after graduating out of school? Don't be so full of yourself. You, in turn, have a worldview dominated by your own ego and narcissistic tendencies. Don't worry, everyone has to work through that man/woman-child stage in their 20's before they become fully functional adults.

You can't even help but contradict yourself within your own statement. You say that sex isn't anything special, then literally follow that up in the next sentence by saying people won't put up with the lack of sex and that a serious relationship cannot exist without it. Ipso Facto, sex does hold a special place within romantic relationships.

Obviously one's partner has to hold the same view for things to work, but that's the beauty of living in a free society - if it really doesn't work out after discussion and thought, then the disaffected party or parties break up and hopefully take the right lessons.

By the way, "denying her pleasure" and "forcing someone into thinking the same way about sex" really aren't that far apart in terms of selfishness.

Sex is plenty special, otherwise so many people wouldn't get so fucked up over it. Virginity, on the other hand, isn't. The important thing is to go into it with open eyes and understand what it is that one is actually doing fucking someone.

Can you tl;dr that angry rant?

Holy shit, either you roasties need to come up with a decent rebuttal or just dont bother posting, its embarrassing really.

you don't even know how old i am

Put you trip back on Hitler. Stop bypassing my filter.

>>Child raised on iPad doesn't have the attention span to read

Case in point, I guess.

>There is no real reason to wait too long, especially not until marriage.
Except for what has been posted ITT and for the moral reason of saving yourself for your partnership.
> That would be awful, marry just to find out your partner has a micro dick or something,
This doesn't require sex to deal with. This is, like all arguments of its kind, an ex-post-facto rationalization to yourself of why you shouldn't admit you were in the wrong. I don't mean to be overly harsh, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it.
>You're still very young and probably headed towards an eventual divorce
Statistically, he isn't. He is almost in the ideal on the age aspect, too: he married someone within a few years of his age (lowest likelihood to divorce), married close to the ideal of 24, and waited (which included a lengthy period of dating). If anyone is going to have a long-lasting marriage, it's him.
>virginity isn't
Pure ideology speaking. It makes sense both as a rational standard (you either have sex or don't) and from a statistical one, since waiting gives you the best outcomes.

Can't blame them--they don't have sources on their side, after all, so tossing silly insults is the limit of what they can do.

>everyoneIdon'tlikeisHitler.jpg
>"The emotional child's guide to winning arguments"
Protip: that wasn't me.

Then we wouldn't get along very well.
Plenty of fish though, suit yourself.

I can abstain from sex for my SO for an indefinite amount of time, even after marriage (forever if that's what it takes).
I expect nothing less in return.

Abstaining until marriage is a perfect proof of that. Proof that sex will never come between us in our married life.
No, I'm not asexual. What point would abstaining prove if there was no challenge in the first place?

>marry just to find out your partner has a micro dick or something
So no sex means no nudity and no intimacy too? That's prolly not what OP meant.

>So no sex means no nudity
I take it you're a yuropoor? In Burgerland, it does. But that's not an issue anyway.

Wow. Seriously?
No surprise there's so many opponents of it in USA then.

In yurop no sex means just nothing sexual: you can still sleep together, cuddle, run around naked, do whatever the fuck, except fuck.

Damn. There's no way I'd agree to no nudity before marriage. That's just nuts.
How's that "not an issue"? It's a crazily big issue imo.

Also since the thread is dying out, so it won't be too much of a derailment, might as well use this opportunity to thank you for spreading the right ideas on Jow Forums - keep up the good work.

It's a challenge.
I'm 28 and my gf is 20. The gap is a issue as it is and like you she's a horny teen.
I'm not a virgin, which I do regret, but I was an idiot.
But one of the reasons I fell for her was that, she early on told me she wanted to wait until marriage. Which I was find with, if anything I supported her on that.

Is it hard? You fucking bet it is. When we spend time together human desires get in the way. And, at times she gets to the point where she wants to do it. It becomes me who has to stop her because I know it's the rush getting to her.

I don't know if the fact that I'm not a virgin makes it easier for me to wait, or if I really want this to work out, so I rather wait. Could be both.

As Hitler
said above, you don't even have to be religious. Neither my gf or I are. We kinda just want to do this. Which, I'm quite happy she accepted me even with the fact that I've already had it. In the year we have been together she's never mentioned it or used it against me. It's just a thing I regret but she accepts.

That stung for a while. Even as a guy, I was a little scared to tell the that I failed in waiting. It ate me up for a while, but she was okay with things. So it's pretty much me now.
>Real life is not a fairytale. It takes much more than love to sustain relationships
This. Relationships are work, not only love. It's something that's has been lost in modern times. Most people in our age groups have a mindset that a relationship should be perfect at the start and keep going that way.
Little do they know that the person they are with are just that, a person. With their own dreams, desires and goals. It takes a lot of communication, patience, and effort to make a strong relationship.
Love is sugar, but you also need proper substance to keep things strong.
It's a fine balance between give and take, and most people don't like that. Once cracks form, they jump, instead of putting in a little elbow grease.

Attached: 1520166842866.jpg (2048x1638, 690K)

>In yurop no sex means just nothing sexual: you can still sleep together, cuddle, run around naked, do whatever the fuck, except fuck.
A lot of it is culture--you guys have nude bathhouses, for example, and there's nothing sexual about it, but to Americans, it's steeped in sexual tension. I don't think you eliminate it entirely even with your culture, but it does make for a clearer separation in theory.
> There's no way I'd agree to no nudity before marriage.
I should clarify, it's not the nudity itself, but that Americans would find it hard to believe you got naked and slept next to someone without fucking-so the behavior becomes suspect. I'd imagine there are limits to what you would find acceptable as well, just from a credibility standpoint.

And thanks!

>In yurop no sex means just nothing sexual: you can still sleep together, cuddle, run around naked, do whatever the fuck, except fuck.
what? I have never heard anyone who was against premarital sex say that those things are acceptable, except for cuddling maybe

We don't eliminate it completely, but in a situation where two partners jointly decide to hold back desire and disjoin sexuality from nudity it works.
Kinda like on nude beaches or in nude bathhouses - upon entering you agree to disjoin sexuality from nudity otherwise you'd be called a freak and got kicked out.
Same thing happens in private if you agree on no sex but allow nudity.

Well it's not "acceptable" from an outside perspective.
Like Hitler said a post before yours - it's hard to believe two people could sleep naked without anything sexual happening, so society frowns upon the idea of sleeping together even when it explicitly states that it doesn't involve sex.

But in private, between two people in a relationship. It's all just an agreement between them, isn't it?
If it's unclear what "no sex before marriage" means for them - they can just talk it through and decide.
Whether it involves nudity, cuddling and what have you - is all separate points of discussion, not one group of activities under one "no sex" banner.

I see what you're saying. My point is that social conventions exist to avoid this kind of risk--you may very well be able to restrain yourself, but it's a huge temptation that should be avoided. You can't know how a person behaved with past partners, and if they profess to be alright with being naked and sleeping next to someone they're dating, it is very difficult to trust (and moreover, confirm) that they could control themselves.

The bottom line is that moral/social expectations don't exist for those who could uphold them on their own, nor for those who always flaunt them--they exist for the majority of people who would be lost without such guidance. If you take 100 couples and tell them to wait on sex, far more of them will succeed if you, say, forbid cohabiting. Sure, some of them could probably manage anyway, and others would probably find ways to fuck in a gas station bathroom, but the bulk of them would benefit from the removed temptation.

Oh, I know exactly what you're talking about regarding social conventions and I agree completely.

What I didn't know is that burgerland includes nudity as part of the "no sex before marriage" deal, which is most interesting to find out!
Btw. I just double-checked with one friend (best I can manage on such a whim), also from yurop, that our convention doesn't include nudity or sleeping together as part of the bargain.

I understand the rationale as to why it's that way in USA (to err on the safe side, in case someone is not trustworthy), although I'm legitimately a bit surprised that you bunch these things so close together.
Obviously nudity and sleeping in one bed carries sexual connotations by itself, but if you agree that it doesn't with a person you can trust - that sounds fair, doesn't it?

>What I didn't know is that burgerland includes nudity as part of the "no sex before marriage"
It's iffy. Depending on the area, it won't strictly be lumped in together, but it's enough of a social violation that it'll cast doubt on actually waiting. There are some areas where this doesn't apply as much, like commiefornia or Hawaii, but generally, to people who do bother waiting, it's off-limits.
>I'm legitimately a bit surprised that you bunch these things so close together.
It might be my way of explaining it--nobody here would say you're a nonvirgin just for seeing someone else naked.
>but if you agree that it doesn't with a person you can trust - that sounds fair, doesn't it?
On a rational level, I can understand, but on a visceral one I can't. With someone of the opposite gender, it would always have that severe appearance of being inappropriate, and I can't shake it, barring really exceptional circumstances.

The biggest exception, in my opinion, is with family--that's just a given that there isn't (shouldn't be) any sexual aspect. You could extend that somewhat to situations where you're "roughing it" with other men, as I'm sure any soldier could tell you.

That's all really valuable info considering it'd have never crossed my mind.

Here it would surely cast suspicion, strong enough to make witnesses intervene and inquire what's going on.
But that's solely because they are assuming an invasion of privacy is happening, not because of any sexual implications.
It is obviously a more severe violation of privacy if it involves a member of the opposite sex, because what's worse than unwillingly being seen naked by a stranger? - being seen by an opposite-sex stranger!

Yet, if both parties are fine with it, and privacy is respected then no harm's done.
Opposite sex or same sex, it doesn't really matter at this point.

That's how it works in public nude places. By entering you agree that you're fine with being seen naked and you don't mind seeing others as such. No violation of privacy = no problem.

Though precaution for temptation is an interesting point. I suppose not everyone is equally adept at desexualizing nakedness.