What am I supposed to do?

No she is a virgin this was the first relationship she had ever been in and that Is a fact

>marrying used goods

Lmao stop spending so much time on Jow Forums. Do you really have a problem with being with someone who's had sex with other people? Do you realize that having multiple sexual partners in one's life is normal? And that having a problem with it is not normal at all? Do you really feel like having sex with someone in some way soils a woman?

This website really fucks people up I guess. You gotta remember that what people say and think here is not a good representation of what normal or healthy people say and think.

Attached: file.png (640x363, 99K)

Agree, stop being a cunt about it. You don't own anyone dipshit.

> Do you realize that having multiple sexual partners in one's life is normal?
"Normalcy" is not an indicator for what is good. Promiscuity is most certainly harmful to any society which allows it, and first and foremost to women.
You'll of course criticize his word choice, as I would, in saying "used goods", but when it comes to objectification, that can be done well enough by men who ditch a girl the second they realize she's waiting until marriage. That is, when they can't use her body.
Anything to the contrary is a rationalization on the part of hedonists.

Granted, OP could be a retard who demands a virgin but simultaneously expects sex without commitment of marriage. But that's a separate issue from the standard of not fucking around, which (regardless of its prevalence in society) is a good one.

What's the big deal? The difference between 1 partner and 4-5 partners is less than 5%. (And note that in that study, 1 partner means your eventual spouse.)

No wonder she dumped you. A relationship with a virgin has a failure rate of over 95%.

Why do you think promiscuity is harmful? And how do you define promiscuity anyway? That a girl had sex with someone who is not you?

I don't totally follow your reasoning. Why is premarital celibacy always a good thing? Actually, to be honest, what's more interesting is why is even if it's something you want for yourself, why is it a desirable thing in your partner?

ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

lol even the paper you're citing acknowledges that you shouldn't mistake causation for correlation here

>The difference between 1 partner and 4-5 partners is less than 5%
That's the 5-year divorce rate. The average marriage lasts about 7-8 years before dissolution in the US, but even in this reduced timeframe, the effect of waiting until marriage is quite clear.
>how do you define promiscuity anyway? That a girl had sex with someone who is not you?
No need to make this personal. It's pure nonsense to suggest that's why--it's about maintaining societal standards which strengthen relationships in turn. A woman (and a man, for that matter) should save herself not for any individual person, but for the ideal of marriage and her eventual spouse. Who someone chooses as their spouse is obviously up to the individual.
Promiscuity obviously has gradations of severity, but most fundamentally it is sex outside of marriage. Other "standards" are completely arbitrary and near-impossible to enforce.
> why is it a desirable thing in your partner?
I don't see how this is such a mystifying subject--by waiting, you are giving yourself to one person only, your spouse. That would be enough for many people in itself, but it also slashes the divorce rates massively, and despite what you're probably thinking right now, the effect holds with only minor difference when controlling for religion. I'm not religious myself, but I wait because it's the right thing to do.

>it also slashes the divorce rates massively
Okay, but how do you know that itself is what slashes the divorce rates, and not some other common factor?

The intermediate trends in this subject always fluctuate a lot. That the 5-year divorce rate for those with two partners is higher is probably pointing to something other than partner count alone as the main causal factor. The basic trend that waiting until marriage produces the best results, however, is a consistent one across datasets.

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."

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract
>"I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution."

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."

You'll probably ask why waiting is necessary if just one premarital partner doesn't affect risks--and the answer is simple: a premarital partner is one without commitment, meaning that it's entirely possible (and unfortunately common) for people to have sex with the expectation of future marriage, only for said plans to fall apart. Then you're left with a partner count of 1, and will necessarily have to add another if you want to find a spouse. This is also the basic idea of why any so-called "standard" other than waiting is unenforceable.

See sources posted above. If you can posit some "factor X" that explains the consistent trends in all of these studies (and more, of course, but we have a 2000 character limit), I'm all ears, but in my years of posting on the subject I've yet to see one that makes logical sense, let alone one which is supported by a body of evidence.

Intuitively, that waiting improves marital quality makes sense. It forces you to evaluate a prospective partner by who they are as a person--that is, your long-term personal compatibility. Adding a sexual relationship will artificially cloud your judgement with the separate sexual component of attraction, and make you liable to commit too early or too heavily as a result. This does come with a caveat, of course: people who get married quickly to satisfy religious requirements while also having an excuse for sex are missing the point. It is partially for this reason (and other demographic factors besides religion, like a modern permissiveness to sex but a lingering expectation to marry if a kid is born out of wedlock) that the Bible Belt in the US actually has some of the higher divorce rates in the country.

(1/2)

I'm not tryna be argumentative but I don't see how that shows causation. Just because something's a good predictor of something else doesn't mean achieving one thing can increase the liklihood of another thing. I'm sure there's a strong correlation between poor dental health and lung cancer because smoking causes both, but it's not like brushing your teeth can protect you from lung cancer.

There is also the neurological component of pair bonding, something heavily connected to sex. This is going to operate more on conjecture (however well-founded it may be), as you can imagine the ethical difficulty in gathering data.
On the role of oxytocin:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97287/
>"Several studies have now demonstrated that oxytocin plays a role in the development of the pair bond in the female prairie vole. Injections of an OT antagonist, a drug that blocks activation of the OT receptor, directly into the female prairie vole brain prior to cohabitation and mating inhibits the subsequent development of a partner preference"
>"These regions [of the brain with oxytocin and vasopressin receptors] are excellent candidates for facilitating pair bond formation because they are rich in dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward and addiction."
That second quote was a bit of a smoking gun to me, personally--you know the saying 'love is a drug' (although it should be 'lust', not love)? Well, it has some truth to it, and moreover it's not too much of a stretch, given the data, to assume that one can build something of a tolerance to it.

Also note that testosterone is a suppressant of oxytocin, which would help explain why the effect of promiscuity is so directly visible in women compared to men. That's not to excuse the double standard of behavior adhered to by PUA's, of course. It takes two to have sex, so allowing male promiscuity will necessarily create female promiscuity down the line.

(2/2)

>I'm sure there's a strong correlation between poor dental health and lung cancer because smoking causes both, but it's not like brushing your teeth can protect you from lung cancer.
poor dental health = promiscuity
lung cancer = divorce
smoking = lack of morals
Don't smoke, you'll get lung cancer = Don't marry degenerates who fuck around before marriage, you'll end up divorced.

This is sociology, so precise mathematical causation is going to be an extremely difficult thing to "prove". But among all things, this is one of the most pertinent questions, and a very well-attested one at that. As I said earlier, you are welcome to try to think of another factor (analogous to smoking) which would explain the observations. At the minimum, and being extremely (I would say unfairly) generous to skepticism, we are shooting in the dark in terms of what is good for maintaining stable and happy relationships--and while there may not be a reason to wait, there isn't a reason to avoid waiting by that argument, either. But it isn't true that we're flying blind--we do have a great deal of evidence. Perhaps not enough to compel agreement (if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with), but certainly enough to point towards restraint in sexual behavior being a good thing.

Sexual behavior is at the core of human existence as the means of propagation, and it therefore has been addressed in some form by basically every society ever to have existed. I don't think it's a coincidence that basically every major religious and philosophical tradition in the old world civilizations, from the Abrahamic religions to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, all condemn (to varying degrees) promiscuity, and most of them fornication as well. The endurance of the standard across time and geographical distance is at the very least a testament to its viability, which we merely see repeated in modern data.