Where do you find virgin women and what do you do to make them want to get to know you?

Where do you find virgin women and what do you do to make them want to get to know you?

Attached: 1523719065556.gif (400x267, 1.56M)

not you again
damn frogposter

But that's not a peepee poopoo frog.

Why are virgins so important to you user?

Not op, but I can answer since my (lack of)experience.

We want virgins because we're insecure about performing badly, because it can bond two people and because of some religious bs. Doesn't matter that we're not religious, it's subconsciously in our brains I guess.

Not him, but I uphold the same standards that I desire to see in a woman. Virginity is the central tenet of those standards, and going back on it would destroy everything that I've built upon.

And no, the problem isn't me. There is data that shows that the number of prior sexual encounters inversely influences the probability of success of a marriage. Not only that, but the happiness of a female individual is inversely related to the number of sexual encounters as well.

Add in to the fact that only about 2% of American females are virgins, and being with a virgin is an extremely special occurance.

Any frog posted on Jow Forums becomes a peepeee poopoo frog

Do you know a out "correlation does not equal causation"? People who are birgings at marriage are usually strictly religious. In, Christianity, Islam and judaism, strict followers arent allowed to divorce as easily as others. Therefore there are many miserable marriages that are just 'held out' because their religion forbids them from separating. If they weren't so religious, most likely they would have divorced

You tell him he's not good enough and then you stalk him and take pics of him picking his nose in calculus class.

Just out of curiousity, are you a virgin yourself?

Yes. Im trying to get with my close friend named vincent but im awkward. :(

Attached: catherine___vincent_brooks_hq__jacket__for_xps__by_mvegeta-d8jw1ql.jpg (1191x670, 179K)

mental hospitals

>There is data that shows that the number of prior sexual encounters inversely influences the probability of success of a marriage
False. The data shows that the number of prior sexual encounters influences the LENGTH of a marriage, not its success. Length does not equal success.
>Not only that, but the happiness of a female individual is inversely related to the number of sexual encounters as well.
Happiness is not an objective measurement. Surveys are unreliable. People lie.

Sorry man, but that's just not the truth.

Believe in what you want, but it will not change my dating preferences.

I'm not in the mood to argue. I can back my shit up, but I don't want to.

It's all just so tiresome.

> The data shows that the number of prior sexual encounters influences the LENGTH of a marriage, not its success. Length does not equal success.
Incorrect.

> Happiness is not an objective measurement. Surveys are unreliable. People lie.
Happiness is a subjective feeling that can be measured objectively. Surveys have countermeasures for margins of error. All studies are based upon the honesty of the participants.

>Sorry man, but that's just not the truth.
You are entitled to your views. You are not entitled to truth. Your statements were factually incorrect. Correlation vs. causation exists and your data fails to meet the benchmark of proving causation. This is the reality.

>Believe in what you want, but it will not change my dating preferences.
Belief has nothing to do with science. You are under no obligation to change your dating preferences. Just keep in mind that no one is interested in listening to you whinge about it. No one is interested in listening to you attempt to bend and manipulate data to justify your mindset. Go live life the way you want dude, no one gives a shit, just don't act all flabbergasted when you make false statements and people correct you.

>Incorrect.
The length of a marriage does not equal success. That isn't up for debate, user. Its just basic logic. The length of time that I've owned a car is not equal to how well the car runs. I don't know how to explain that concept any simpler.

>Happiness is a subjective feeling that can be measured objectively
I'd like for you to read that sentence again and really ask yourself whether or not it makes any sense. A subjective feeling that can be measured objectively. Really think hard about what you've just said.

>All studies are based upon the honesty of the participants.
Which is exactly why they're so unreliable, user. I'm sorry but science doesn't work on the honor system.

>Surveys have countermeasures for margins of error.
Post your source then. Instead of insisting that your data meets the requirements of basic scientific method how about you just post it so the whole class can see for themselves.

I don't care. The data is there. I will not post it again just for you individuals to not read it once more.

Just leave me alone. Stop replying to me if you're so disinterested.

> I'd like for you to read that sentence again and really ask yourself whether or not it makes any sense. A subjective feeling that can be measured objectively. Really think hard about what you've just said.
>> are you happy
>>> yes
Simple. Individuals have different standards for happiness. Whether or not they believe themselves to actually meet those standards is measurable.

A successful marriage is one that has not ended in divorce. What you are implying is that all marriages end in divorce, hence length. This is untrue.

> Post your source then.
No. I know what board I am on. I will not post the data just for you to baselessly claim it is wrong once again.

At least literally hitler put some effort into promoting his stupid views on relationships

I'm not promoting anything. I will put in minimal effort.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Play stupid games badly, fail at winning stupid prizes.

>I don't care what you say the data that proves I'm right exists but I'm not gonna show anybody
You're retarded.
>A successful marriage is one that has not ended in divorce. What you are implying is that all marriages end in divorce, hence length.
The only thing that still being married proves is that you haven't divorced. The length that someone has been married is not at all that they are in a happy, functional relationship. All it proves is that they haven't filed divorce papers. Like I said, the length in which I've owned a car is not equal to whether or not the car is functioning. All it proves is that the title is still in my name. Thats it. I honestly can't explain this concept any simpler.
>No. I know what board I am on. I will not post the data just for you to baselessly claim it is wrong once again.
So you make a scientific claim and then refuse to back it up with actual science. Got it.

It is a good thing I failed to win the prize, then. I was never playing any games.

I don't care. The board is worse than I.

Lots of people have happy marriages that just fall apart at some point, that's life

> The only thing that still being married proves is that you haven't divorced.
It is impossible to measure events that may or may not happen in the future. There are other ends to a marriage that are not divorce.

> The length that someone has been married is not at all that they are in a happy, functional relationship.
I never implied that. I stated that the number of intimate partners is directly inverse to the number of successful marriages and the level of happiness in a female. The two groups are measured independently of each other.

> All it proves is that they haven't filed divorce papers.
Read above.

> Like I said, the length in which I've owned a car is not equal to whether or not the car is functioning. All it proves is that the title is still in my name. That's it.
And there are multiple endings to you and your car's relationship that do not end in it being sold. Your metaphor is also flawed.

> So you make a scientific claim and then refuse to back it up with actual science. Got it.
I'm not an idiot. I'm not falling for your bait.