Name me one sex-related problem that waiting until marriage wouldn't solve

Finding out too late that she won't give blowjobs

Fucking before marriage. Easy bitch.

>might have an unappealing looking vagina
>might have a number of conditions (medical or otherwise) that make sex (at least how you want it to be) unattainable
>might not be a virgin but lied about it and now that you're married she'd start making excuses/divorcing is a pain in the ass
>might not be into the same things sexually as you are, might be into things you're entirely against
>all of those things go for her as well only towards you
>a million other things that come from places like the things above
all of them are minute depending what perspective you're coming from but you asked and those are all legitimate concerns for many people, including on here

massively under - rated post

Never finding a woman who loves you.

a 3d is warm
1. if she's sexually inexperienced, she wouldn't be able to tell the difference
2. she won't know if she's a high sex drive or low until she's married, and if she / you have been a virgin for so long, you'd be used to it anyway.
Because, you're used to being a virgin. Also, if all of society waits until marriage, then it doesn't matter if she gives terrible sex, because at least it's sex.
I mean.. that's not a relationship problem, that's more of a work/finance related problem.
marriage isn't the problem, it's this generation of easy kiddos, that come and moan about their relationship problems, when there's no difference anymore between a gf/wife if you can sleep with both, and no meaning in marriage anymore, which is probably the root of my issue with it all.
She'll still have it at least once with you, because you can. See, it's also your expectation of wanting lots of sex when you're not even married that's making you think this is a problem, when it's really not. You're expecting relationships to be about sex when it's personality and friendship first, sex later. There's so many guys who complain, women have no personality I just use them for sex. If they don't give sex, then you'll find a suitable partner you can connect with as a great friend outside of sex.
Circumcision wouldn't matter anymore, because no one is judging you by your penis, but the beauty of your personality.
My point is, you won't put sex on such a pedestal if everyone waited until marriage. Nor would there be so much pressure to not be a virgin, if it became the norm to be a virgin.
LOL
Exactly man, if all a woman has to offer is her pussy, there's no incentive for them to develop a good and likeable character.

>Also, if all of society waits until marriage, then it doesn't matter if she gives terrible sex, because at least it's sex.
That is complete bullocks and you know it. It is going to matter and you will regret the marriage.

I missed teenage love and there's no turning back

>Circumcision wouldn't matter anymore
marriage doesn't change the fact that your penis is snippity snipped
of course that matters, it'll matter for the rest of your life

Pedophilia.

this message has never been seen before, but not as good as if I could have posted only the 1st word.

You wouldn't care about how her vagina looks, because you already love her.
The main gist of my argument being, you would stay with her already because of who she is, not just for sex. Sex would just be a bonus.
>might have lied about being a virgin
this wouldn't be such a big deal if you didn't put sex on a pedestal, as if "oh man, everyone is easy, everyone is doing it." You also wouldn't look down on women having sex, because they would have to be just as chaste as you are, so there would be no dynamic anymore of "women have sex so easy, men have it hard," because no one is having sex before marriage. So instead of N=99 for women and N=1 for men (or N=20 for Chad) it would be N=1 for both parties and it'd be equal and men wouldn't hate women so much.
>she'd start making excuses
this sounds like bitterness coming from expecting sex before marriage. If we lived in a sexless society, she wouldn't have even been tempted to have sex before marriage because that's how she was raised. You get what I'm saying? It's like the playing field is equal now.
you wouldn't know what you're into until you have sex. It's all this porn where you're into sewing up pussies and blacked, but if everyone waited, we would all be okay with just vanilla sex. Also, by putting sex on such a pedestal again, it's like saying, "she HAS to be into anal" instead of saying, "I want to find an honest wife" like sex is the most important thing in the world.
>all of those things go for her as well only towards you
She wouldn't want to leave you for anyone else because you're all she's ever had. I guess it's like, she wouldn't crave any other flavors of ice cream, because she's only had vanilla, likewise you wouldn't know you crave chocolate, when you've only had vanilla too, so you're happy to eat vanilla ice cream together.

You know not everybody is sexually compatible right? And if you and your future wife aren't then guess who's riding the cucktrain

There is. You will have a 1st love, like everyone.
And don't you dare insult me, fucking piece of virgin shit.

That's uh... that's not a sex related question. If you mean, "if she doesn't have sex with me, then she doesn't love me," that's kind of really shallow. Especially because there are so many "easy" women these days, I think finding someone who waits for you is more special.
You won't "know it" because it's not an issue for you. You didn't marry her based on the quality of sex, you married her because she was there for you good times and bad, a great cook, etc. I personally have never had sex, and don't plan to, so if I find someone to marry, it will be because of all those other things. Sex doesn't solve problems. You don't argue with someone, and then "if I have sex with them the problem goes away" I think it's more important that you find someone who sits down and figure out a solution rather than covering it up with sex.
I got a little off track there, but you won't regret the marriage because you married her for all the other reasons and not for sex, and you wouldn't put sex on such a high pedestal.
you're putting teenage sex on a pedestal because "everyone else had it, so I missed out." I guess with my hypothetical, it would become "everyone else is married, but I am not."
She wouldn't know what a cut vs. uncut cock would feel like, because she's only had you.
oh shit

you seem not to get that humans are sexual creatures by nature, not by societal norms
not amount of suppressing is going to change that and creating a "sexless society" while solving some of the "problems" would just create a million other ones, some that existed in the past when sex wasn't nearly as widespread as it's today (albeit it still was rampant and the world was never as "pure" as so many robots imagine it to have been) and other new ones that would stem from a combination of a "sexless society" and elements of society that are true to today only, like high level of self awareness and the like
this sounds like bitterness coming from expecting sex before marriage
this is a bit funny because your thread sounds like bitterness coming from not experiencing as much sex as others do (probably no sex at all) before marriage as others do

who said anything about what she knows? your peepee was cut and it got tough plus you can't feel anything with it
that's a lifelong problem

>If you mean, "if she doesn't have sex with me, then she doesn't love me," that's kind of really shallow.
You have it backwards. If the woman in question doesn't truly love me for who I am, which is overwhelmingly likely given female hypergamous instincts, then I would want nothing to do with her sexually. The fact that you jumped to the other conclusion makes me suspect you're either a roastie or baitposting.

Sexual compatibility wouldn't matter anymore, because you're not basing your marriage on whether or not she's great at sex. It wouldn't matter so much anymore.
I think if my wife had a super high sex drive, I could ask her to scale back, because sex is optional now, not a priority in our relationship for it never was. Also if she's the kind who was able to wait until marriage, it'd show that they have a great willpower and sense of patience, instead of giving into carnal desires (which leads to other areas of impulsivity, like fast food and video games)

Your argument is I won't realise the sex is bad?
Or is the argument that it doesn't matter?

I mean you said it would fix any problem related to sex. Now I say it won't fix the problem of bad sex and you just state it would not be a problem because sex isn't the issue?

Hey, why not not have sex at all? We're married after all. Oh wait, I am able to express emotion through sex and I need the reassurance of my partner doing the same but she doesn't. She just lays there. Does she love me? Maybe she got married because she confused friendship for love?

Do you understand what sex is to me and why I don't want it with a stranger but also why I need it to be passionate?
You just say sex is something else and it should not matter at all.

The problem of wanting to have sex with someone you don't want to be in a relationship with

just marry younger girls?
i dont see the problem

I don't think humans are sexual creatures, I think that's cope given by sex hungry people. "Oh, that's just normal!" That's like saying humans are Cheeto creatures. Cheetos taste good, but that doesn't mean you were born to be cheesy.
If no one had sex ever again, and humans breed by pods or something, what new problems would be had? Philosophical debates of epic proportions?
No, I've been offered sex in the past, but I turned it down. I just wouldn't respect myself anymore if I did, it wouldn't have enriched my life anymore than a Big Mac would've (dopamine wise), but it would take away from something special marriage would give. I would forever see myself as an animal who acted on animal instincts. I guess I just don't see why others make such a big deal about it? But I still cringe inside when I hear my friends say, "I had sex with this guy," because i guess... it makes me look down on them, in a way. I'm glad that we can be anonymous though, because that would piss off so many girls. It would also piss off a lot of guys who think sex is so special and the epitome of human achievement - don't give me that, organisms are born just to procreate - there's so much more to being born a human than an animal!

>waiting until marraige
Kek I bet you roasties laugh at the suckers who fall for this.

both I guess, you wouldn't be able to tell it's bad. And you wouldn't put it on such a pedestal.
>why not not have sex at all? We're married after all
Yeah. Well, I get you're being sarcastic about it, but I really don't see a problem with that.
>I need the reassurance of my partner doing the same
You wouldn't though, you'd base your assurance of love on everything else. You're only equating sex=love because you expect everyone to have sex, everywhere, all the time, and it's the most important thing.
>She just lays there.
That wouldn't be a problem because you're basing your relationship on more than just sex. You wouldn't value her as a human being based on how she reacts during sex.
>Does she love me?
You already know she loves you, because she married you.
>why I don't want it with a stranger
that's why I'm saying wait until marriage
>also why I need it to be passionate?
This is a tough one for me to argue, for some reason I don't understand. I guess its like if she brought you a doughnut, and you said, "What, you couldn't get me the strawberry kind with sprinkles?" It makes me kind of sad, like saying she's not good enough for you. but also like you're valuing her only by the quality of the doughnuts she can bring, and only on what flavor of doughnut means she loves you. She can clean your entire house for 6 hours a day, and then you say, "oh she doesn't care about me at all."

digest.bps.org.uk/2018/07/20/three-week-diary-study-sex-today-increases-sense-of-meaning-in-life-tomorrow/
The scientific literature disagrees with you.

but roasties wouldn't be laughing about it because they'd be virgins too. We only have this dynamic of "we hate roasties because sex is easy for them!" but if everyone waited, then there wouldn't be such animosity.

>That's like saying humans are Cheeto creatures. Cheetos taste good, but that doesn't mean you were born to be cheesy
i chuckled, i always appreciate a good pun
but yeah, people are sexual creatures, sex is literally one of the only acts in life that can be truly considered "our purpose" or rather the means to it, which happens to be reproduction
if humans began reproducing artificially they'd still be craving sex, they'd just be having it solely for fun, that is until perhaps hundreds of thousands of years into the future, with sex being somehow obstructed or prevented in societies where there's a good enough chance that evolution would do its thing and remove/subdue humans' need for sex, however it's too hypothetical and too far down the line to consider as anything other than a concept, i assume the conversation is about a hypothetical present/near future where making such assumptions is somewhat realistic as we have an idea of how things are/probably going to be in that frame of time
>just wouldn't respect myself anymore if I did, it wouldn't have enriched my life anymore than a Big Mac would've (dopamine wise), but it would take away from something special marriage would give
you can hold the idea of "eating a big mac" on the same pedestal as "having sex" and then it would have the same meaning to you, the difference is that you view sex as something special while eating a burger as something granted and mundane, ironically as well, since you talk about not understanding why people care so much about sex while holding it so high and mighty yourself, only in a slightly different concept
read max stirner to get a better idea on what i'm talking about
cont

Thanks for the link to the article, it does give me a bit of thought. I wonder, what if they're happier because they're "fulfilling the societal expectation" rather than just being close to someone?

another thing is i assume you're a female by what you wrote? take into account that your brain works in somewhat of a different manner than a male's brain when it comes to sex and subsequently reproduction, as you're biologically meant to only reproduce from time to time while males are meant to be doing it all the time
>don't give me that, organisms are born just to procreate - there's so much more to being born a human than an animal
it's kinda the truth though, but also a matter of perspective
as i said, read stirner since you mentioned philosophy anyway

Being unattractive, and therefore being unable to find someone willing to marry you.

>while holding it so high and mighty yourself, only in a slightly different concept
Thats a good point. I hadn't thought about it like that. I always thought to myself that the way I think is normal, and society is wrong. "Everyone would be happier and there'd be less problems in relationships if they waited."
>your brain works in somewhat of a different manner than a male's brain
I think in my "wait until marriage" society, men wouldn't be craving sex all the time because they wouldn't expect to have any until they've settled down. In a way, thats a bonus for women, who only want it once in a while, and a bonus for men, since they're relieved of the expectation of wanting it.

Ok, dude. This is pointless. You say it fixes an existing problem but fail to acknowledge existing problems.
We have no common grounds to argue upon.

Why are you putting marriage on a pedestal though? You don't need to love someone to marry them.

>You're only equating sex=love because you expect everyone to have sex, everywhere, all the time, and it's the most important thing.
I am not making that equation. All of that is your assumption. You on the other hand are equating marriage=love which as said before is false as well. People get married for all kinds of reasons. You need to express your love through marriage, I need sex for the same thing. This is why we can't come to an agreement.

One more thing though:
>She can clean your entire house for 6 hours a day, and then you say, "oh she doesn't care about me at all."
Cleaning your house is your best example of showing affection? I hope you will agree that this was an unwise example because otherwise you are describing a partner as a close friend who will do household chores for you and if you think that's love I don't think you have ever seen love before.

>fucking a girl
>yank her hair
>wig comes off
>mfw

Attached: 1532435360662.jpg (540x511, 24K)

If they aren't dating you for sex, they don't mind how you look or what you'd look like naked, because they're not dating you for looks/ how much you arouse them.

>marraige will never happen
>even if it did i wont have a 6'5" ripped tiddymonster gfd gf

>You need to express your love through marriage, I need sex for the same thing.
You think that sex expresses love because that's how you're conditioned to think. Sex is just a means to procreate. Then we wouldn't have all these arguments of "she's a dead fish," or "I want it all the time and she only 3x a year" that eliminates a huge portion of marital problems to me.
I think it takes way more effort to show someone you care that way, rather than just laying back and think of England for 30 minutes. But when you put it this way, it sounds like sex is an easy solution for problems, but I think it also creates a lot of problems too.
Show me one close friend who is willing to live with you, and be there for you, and try to make your life brighter everyday. And then you throw that person under the bus because she won't undress for you? I don't think so my man, human beings are much more than that.

Marriage could happen, were you who you thought you would be 5 years ago? People change all the time my dude, and if you can change for the worse, there's a chance you can change for the better.
>tiddymonster gf
you wouldn't marry her based off how she looks

OP you're on the right track but probably for the wrong reasons. Your arguments won't work because you aren't pinning a hard purpose on sex. We can't have a discussion with 15 different definitions of what constitutes 'good sex'. We need to pin down a hard one. I believe in natural law so I believe that 'good sex' is sex which fulfills its purpose, its purpose is clearly reproduction. Every other perceived good which we associate with sex is tangential. Sex without these tangential goods can still be 'good' sex from this position, but sex with these tangential goods averting the primary good cannot be 'good' sex.

Moral of the story is Humanae Vitae was the smartest thing written in the 20th century and contraception is an abomination which destroys lives, families, nations and if left unchecked, the world.

Attached: LOVE EXPOSURE.avi_snapshot_03.29.22_[2017.09.15_22.35.35].jpg (640x352, 42K)

>Show me one close friend who is willing to live with you, and be there for you, and try to make your life brighter everyday.
Those are friends. I literally have that with one of my male friends. We love each other but we are not in love with each other because we aren't attracted to each other.
I am coming to think you don't know what either marriage or sex or love actually is.

>I think in my "wait until marriage" society, men wouldn't be craving sex all the time because they wouldn't expect to have any until they've settled down. In a way, thats a bonus for women, who only want it once in a while, and a bonus for men, since they're relieved of the expectation of wanting it
you seem to have what i refer to sometimes as "the socialist mindset" or something among those lines
you present a concept, that for you appears to have all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed so you assume it to be and ideal and viable option to do things, however it's only ideal on paper, just like socialism (hence my name for this mindset) where it's so perfect and appealing to (so many) people on paper, however fails miserably when tried irl
this is due to several reasons, one being that humans are simply not intelligent enough to foresee all the consequences and possibilities, it's amazing how people thing their political views (especially the experimental and/or extreme ones) are going to work just right when there's not a single event in history that ever had the intended outcome people wanted it to have in the long (and sometimes short) run
and the second, which is just an extension of the first just more specific, is that people seem to fail to understand the human condition, what drives people, what makes them tick
to make a tl;dr you can't make a fish climb a tree and you can't make people not be interested in sex (without physical intervention), for crying out loud people were literally having sex (and reproducing) during the holocaust, and you want peope not to do it when life couldn't be more comfy?
not to be rude but do you have autism? i'm legitimately not being rude, just curious, it's just this sort of "absolute thinking" is often sees in people with autism

Delayed ejaculation

Statistics for bastards born, marriages failed, adultery rates, etc have shot through the fucking roof since the introduction of contraception and the cultural shift of the sexual revolution. Pull your head out your ass, this isn't a psychology issue. At the same time user is wrong, in a 'wait until marriage' society people get married younger is how the testosterone is dealt with. That and manual labour rather than packing our youth into these retarded zoos we call education institutions until they're 21 years old minimum.

Killing 'wait until marriage' has killed the primary incentive to have families (requires sex, which without contraception leads to children), killing families means your country gets flooded with Pajeets to fill the labour-vacuum and bam now you live in a third world shithole and your day's labour is worth nothing because you sold your posterity down the drain for the sake of short lived and unnatural fun.

Lack of contraception leads to forced or broken families with many negative consequences. The world has changed you cannot cling to the old dating systems. People are gonna fuck and forcing children into unstable family relationships is not something worth enforcing. The problems are much more complex in society. If anything, contraception has acted as a balance to the medical advances that have decreased infant mortality rate in terms of the economy and global food supply. Imagine if no one used condoms and we had a global population of like 20 billion? Is this what you want?

>Lack of contraception leads to forced or broken families with many negative consequences
How? We need to look at each hypothetical situation and go further, since of course we're only talking hypotheticals you can't say this is absurd. A contraception ban would never take off in a million years, normalfaggots are too filthy.

>The world has changed you cannot cling to the old dating systems
>cling
To cling there would have to be something left to cling to. In the 'west' or whatever you want to call it at least the sane systems are dead. We can't go back but we aren't railroaded into one future and there's no final destination.
>People are gonna fuck and forcing children into unstable family relationships is not something worth enforcing
If I somehow have the power to force a contraception ban I'm assuming I have the power to prevent fucking to some degree. Huge culture of shame, remove pornographic elements from popular culture, parents actually raise their fucking children, restore Christendom, etc.
>contraception has acted as a balance to the medical advances that have decreased infant mortality rate in terms of the economy and global food supply. Imagine if no one used condoms and we had a global population of like 20 billion? Is this what you want?
I'm an accelerationist of a sort. If our misbehaviour is going to hurt us I think it best if we get hurt fast and hard, these safety valves just let us get stuck into bad habits and convince us that our actions don't have consequences, when in fact they're only delayed.

Having actual sex desu.

>Let's keep education to a minimum so we all spend lots of time on menial labor and we're less productive per person so there are more (((jobs))) to go around

Retard KYS

explain why a lack of sex is a problem

your world view is so narrow minded t b h
you just spew those things as if they were positive, like "families" for example, how many people do you know from broken homes, families that are way below the poverty line, families with one or more abusive members, simply disfunctional families as the parents have absolutely no idea of how to parent (this is the direct result of "marrying young" btw, however unfortunately some people are just stupid in general, so for them it doesn't change with age)
also you're advocating manual labor while it's a dying form of labor, if you're advicing going back technologically wise on purpose and reverting progress it's a whole other dumb argument to be had
society isn't fucked because "people are having sex" it's fucked for countless reasons, but furthermore, it was always fucked, just in different ways, for every problem that exists today there was a different one in the past, and will be in the future
society doesn't have an "ideal" state of being, it's fluid and bound to constantly change, you need to simply learn to adapt and make the best out it, otherwise you'll never change anything and remain miserable

>(((productivity)))
Why don't you set up a bed at work if it's so great? Jobs aren't a problem, having lots of jobs available is good. A lack of jobs is what fucks us over.

As a general rule (statistics on divorce support this) marriages between virgins are almost always successful (as in they at least rarely divorce). I think that sex culture is a primary destroyer of family life. Beyond that, of course shit families exist and always will. What's your solution to that?

>manual labor
>dying
No it isn't. Hands will always be useful to some degree. And automation is a meme, poorer quality work and less money going around, unless you're a billionaire you lose in a world with automation, people will realize this soon I'm certain. It's simply too retarded a concept to justify. People can only be lied to or distracted from the problem for so long.
>(((progress)))
Progress implies a highest good that we're working towards and that technology becoming more sophisticated is pulling us towards that. Do you believe that?
>society was always fucked
Yes, that doesn't mean we shouldn't address problems as they arise. This is blatantly a problem.
>society doesn't have an 'ideal' state of being
kill yourself relativist, emotivist scum
>it's fluid and bound to constantly change
this doesn't disprove the first point
>you need to adapt
I try, but again this is no reason not to take issue with problems
>you'll never change anything
you just told me to adapt
>remain miserable
misery or happiness should have nothing to do with circumstances.

because it sucks
orirginallu

only if you're a pleb with disordered desires. Complete celibacy feels cool.

>Name me one sex-related problem that waiting until marriage wouldn't solve.
Not immediately having sex.

Attached: IMG_2785.jpg (222x250, 20K)

Not a problem if you get married immediately. Checkmate atheists.

>My point is, you won't put sex on such a pedestal if everyone waited until marriage.
What if you did?

>As a general rule (statistics on divorce support this) marriages between virgins are almost always successful (as in they at least rarely divorce). I think that sex culture is a primary destroyer of family life. Beyond that, of course shit families exist and always will. What's your solution to that?
i will just point out, that like so many, you most likely don't understand how statistics work
yes, couples that married as virgins have more stable marriages, but why? is it because they come from societies where there's serious repercussions for divorce, where people undergo brainwashing and/or indoctirnation (religious/cultural/etc)? yes they remain married longer, but statistics that point to the fact that abuse is more prevalent in those types of communities, toward children or women exists as well, for example, of course you chose to conveniently ignore that
>No it isn't. Hands will always be useful to some degree. And automation is a meme, poorer quality work and less money going around, unless you're a billionaire you lose in a world with automation, people will realize this soon I'm certain. It's simply too retarded a concept to justify. People can only be lied to or distracted from the problem for so long
a compeltely contrived statement with nothing to back it up
the only manual labor that is still prevalent today is construction of sorts, for the most part doing thingd manually is seen as novelty nowadays, like cars that are made by hand for example
>Progress implies a highest good that we're working towards and that technology becoming more sophisticated is pulling us towards that. Do you believe that?
"progress" implies a higher and better quality of life, which people have right now relative to any point in the past
cont

cont
>>Yes, that doesn't mean we shouldn't address problems as they arise. This is blatantly a problem
it's your lack of a viable solution that's the problem, not your address of it
people like you don't realize just how many problems their ways of thinking as well as their attempts at "fixing" stuff have caused and continue causing
>this doesn't disprove the first point
your low iq level is no reason to lash out, if you believe in something with complete contrary evidence that point to the complete opposite it's your fault, not mine
>this doesn't disprove the first point
it does, it means you can't change it the way you think you can
>I try, but again this is no reason not to take issue with problems
never said you shouldn't
>you just told me to adapt
adapting is not change, it's acceptance mostly
>misery or happiness should have nothing to do with circumstances.
yes they do

>implying anyone here can get laid let alone a life long commitment

> is it because they come from societies where there's serious repercussions for divorce, where people undergo brainwashing and/or indoctirnation (religious/cultural/etc)
Yes, I don't view those as negative things. If I somehow reproduce my kids aren't watching tv or movies, bible all day every day.
>statistics that point to the fact that abuse is more prevalent in those types of communities
Probably because of all of the autistic pajeet families counted under the statistic. They're probably the biggest fans of arranged-marriage culture left in the world. Even if it's true I see the issue as making changes to these communities to fight the abuse, not destroying the culture altogether to make way for condoms, sterilizing pills and ephemeral, faggot-like sexual relations between fertile people.
>the only manual labor that is still prevalent today is construction of sorts, for the most part doing thingd manually is seen as novelty nowadays, like cars that are made by hand for example
Do you not know what a factory is? Do you not know that most of the planet work in manual labour of some kind. Like all of the poorer parts of Asia and Africa for instance.
>but I want muh white collar
Why? It's fucking depressing. I work in law and I'd rather be a medieval peasant.
>"progress" implies a higher and better quality of life, which people have right now relative to any point in the past
Can you quantify this? We work more than any population in history, are addicted to distraction and numbing substances, our relationships with each other are a mess on nearly every level, existential anxiety is crushing us. Where's the improvement? If you say we die of less diseases I'll find and hurt you.

>it's your lack of a viable solution that's the problem
I don't participate in this culture and I speak out against it. You can't say my solution won't work when we're speaking hypotheticals. Nobody can stop this. We're discussing principles, not social action. In principle sex-culture is wrong. I believe that my principles would make us better off. Can I impose my principles upon the whole world? No. Nobody can.
>acceptance
How are you defining acceptance here? I don't reject reality.
>complete contrary evidence to the world having an ideal state
If there is no highest good statements of any kind about 'good' are meaningless. The fact that the world is constantly changing has no bearing on this.
That's why we campaign for arranged marriage culture. Too late for us (we become monks or something) but future robots will have hope.

sexual tention after blueballing yourself for 4- 6 years not beaing able to tell if its even worth it

>Yes, I don't view those as negative things. If I somehow reproduce my kids aren't watching tv or movies, bible all day every day
then you're going to doom them to a life of misery, not in the "wahh i didn't get to enjoy life like all the other kids" (even though the chances of that misery are high as well) but mostly as your kids are going to grow completely unfitted for society, mostly lashing out and blaming the government/jews/media/sex/etc for their failures as opposed to the direct cause which is simply shitty parenting
also, just to point the hypocrisy, that if you see this type of parenting as the proper course, why not get off Jow Forums that's filled to the brim with the type of degeneracy you claim to be so against and go read the bible or join an amish community, maybe mormonism? you know, start small with yourself before you force this lifestyle upon others
>Probably because of all of the autistic pajeet families counted under the statistic. They're probably the biggest fans of arranged-marriage culture left in the world. Even if it's true I see the issue as making changes to these communities to fight the abuse, not destroying the culture altogether to make way for condoms, sterilizing pills and ephemeral, faggot-like sexual relations between fertile people
another contrived statement
no, it's mostly that conservative, tightly controlled communities manifest behavior that remains locked behind closed doors, any form of power is subject to corruption and misuse, it's not just governments and dictatorships that do that, hence why you shouldn't be advocating for such measures, you should focus on yourself, your life and the life of those in your care, if you're unable to fix that you're in mo position to try and dictate how others should live
cont

cont
>Do you not know what a factory is? Do you not know that most of the planet work in manual labour of some kind. Like all of the poorer parts of Asia and Africa for instance
do you know what "outsourcing" is?
most factories in first world countries are automated, but business outsource to third world shitholes where production is cheaper, but is also subpar, hence why you hear stuff like "stuff from china are cheap crap (manual labor) while stuff from japan are quality (automated)
manual labour is dying, it's a simple fact, it might change as you claimed but again, it's a groundless assumption considering how things are going
>Why? It's fucking depressing. I work in law and I'd rather be a medieval peasant.
and again you're being a hypocrite
as i said in my previous post, if you hate it so much join an amish community or something, but you wouldn't do that, because you're full of shit and would never let go of the high quality of life your "muh white collar" provides you with
>Can you quantify this? We work more than any population in history, are addicted to distraction and numbing substances, our relationships with each other are a mess on nearly every level, existential anxiety is crushing us. Where's the improvement? If you say we die of less diseases I'll find and hurt you.
a bunch of contrived stuff again
those "distractions" are peoples means to a happy life, you have an abundance of entertainment and hobbies to choose from, ability to travel whenever and wherever you want, an access to nearly unlimited amount of information and ways of communication
your inability to, here that word again, adapt to those things and utilize them properly is your fault, not mine
and yes, we live longer, healthier lives, go back to the 50's and enjoy your 10% of being born with polio if you're so inclined
cont

>I don't participate in this culture and I speak out against it. You can't say my solution won't work when we're speaking hypotheticals. Nobody can stop this. We're discussing principles, not social action. In principle sex-culture is wrong. I believe that my principles would make us better off. Can I impose my principles upon the whole world? No. Nobody can.
at least you admit
they're your principles, with absolutely no backing of people being better off under them than they're without them
you know why? because principles imply "subjectivity" other people might not desire your life style, they might see it as hell on earth, and for you to suggest that your "principles" are still to be upheld despite that destroys the very fabric of what makes a principal a principal, the supposed "objective morality" you most likely believe in since your apparent disdain for "relativists"
>How are you defining acceptance here? I don't reject reality
you do reject it, as you fail to see what it entails and wish to shape and bend in a manner that isn't natural to it to be in
>If there is no highest good statements of any kind about 'good' are meaningless. The fact that the world is constantly changing has no bearing on this.
so you do get it then
there's no "good" or "bad"
just what is "good" or "bad" for you as you see it and others as they see it

Most of these is just forcing someone to put up with you lol

keked
If you're a virgin until marriage, you won't be """sexually incompatible""" assuming your partner is also a virgin.

>a 3d is warm
2d is also warm, have you ever tried touching your computer screen?

>kids will be miserable is raised Christian because they won't fit in
I'd rather be miserable than normal in 2018, ideally they'll have some kind of Christian community. I'm not one in a billion, sincere and practicing Christian families and even communities do exist. And if they become failures who says they won't just blame me? Parents are usually the first to cop this stuff. Though I may teach them some Mel Gibson-tier stuff too.
>leave Jow Forums
I'd like to, but I get tired and relate to the more normal people here. Also arguing is one of my favourite things. I'm not amish or a mormon, if you think those are reasonable suggestions to offer someone who isn't already within them you don't understand Christianity.
>power is subject to abuse
sexual freedom is being abused too. No system will be perfect, but mine isn't a society-killer. Providing the means of fixing individual families is the answer, not destroying all families because a few don't work. And again why isn't your statement contrived?

And you keep accusing me of dictating. We're speaking hypotheticals you fucking autist. I'm not a King or God so my beliefs are only beliefs. You say work at my own life, it's all I'm capable of working at.

That's pretty much what marriage used to be. It's an obligation, not a contract for the shared pooling of goods and property and exclusive use of one another's sexual organs.

>he still uses a CRT screen
kek

>outsourcing
In hypothetical user-land we lynch people who try to do this. Irl we should tell our children not to be ashamed of working with their hands if it means they can work fewer hours and not burn through so much time and money in education.
>manual labour is dying
no it isn't. It'll always be with us. If it actually dies we'll hit such an economic clusterfuck with all of the idle hands that sex will be the least of our concerns.
>high quality of life
If my life was good would I be here? I'm sincerely considering becoming a priest/monk to get out of this and live for what I really believe in. But at the same time part of me thinks it's too early to give up on the world and detach completely.
>happiness
You didn't quantify any of this. You just listed distractions (most of which most people have limited access to, many none at all even. And they aren't related to sex and marriage. Also I'd argue many hurt us, if not all of the means you listed. I think I actually disagree with all of them).
>go back to the 50s
rotten time, I'd rather go back 700 years than 70.

>people might disagree
they'd be wrong
>for you to suggest that your "principles" are still to be upheld despite that destroys the very fabric of what makes a principal a principal, the supposed "objective morality" you most likely believe in since your apparent disdain for "relativists"
make sense
>you want to bend reality
I'm the one arguing *for* natural law
>there is no good
then discussing anything with you is pointless.

I want to marry and have children before transitioning into a trap but there's a million reasons why neither is in the cards for me.
Yes, I'm a degenerate and ashamed of it.

>That's pretty much what marriage used to be. It's an obligation, not a contract for the shared pooling of goods and property and exclusive use of one another's sexual organs.
Fuck that noise user, if we were living in a real society we'd still be practicing Patria Potestas(The ideal system). Forget obligations and commitments trying to give women the false belief that they have agency, no, they are property, and the Romans were right to believe so before they made the mistake of believing women possessed internal subjective states..

Attached: Power to the Father.jpg (938x755, 389K)

>I'd rather be miserable than normal in 2018, ideally they'll have some kind of Christian community.
see, the word "i" is key here
what you want is not necessary what they'd want, and forcing your values on them instead of helping them be shaped into the most productive and potentially happy adult versions of themselves makes you a bad parent
>inb4 your way is the best way
that's essentially what most shitty parents think too before they fail miserably
>I'd like to
and the rest is just excuses
if you want to, do it
you talk so much about how great your proposed life style is yet you can't even make the first step yourself on your way to adopting it
it all boils down to one of my first comments in this thread, having what i call "socialist mindset" or something along those lines, where you contrive an idea that looks so perfect in your head, but alas even you seem to intuitively not want to implement it in practice
>sexual freedom is being abused too. No system will be perfect, but mine isn't a society-killer
can't know it since it's just an hypothetical situation, again the "socialist mindset" as you're so certain your idea is "it" even without having anything practical to back it up with
protip: using problems within the existing system isn't a means of validating your hypothetical one
systems don't usually form from a contrived mindset and when they do they always fails
you build a system on general principles (united states was founded on the idea of freedom and individuality) not on set in rock rules (any communist society that evidently failed when reality didn't play by their silly rules)
>And you keep accusing me of dictating
you dictate in the form of wanting, ideally, for everyone to live according to your ideals, you don't see them as viable for making their own decisions as you for some reason consider yourself, morally and intellectually superior to them
and like before: do you have anything to back those statements up?

having no penis

>In hypothetical user-land we lynch people who try to do this. Irl we should tell our children not to be ashamed of working with their hands if it means they can work fewer hours and not burn through so much time and money in education.
>manual labour is dying
no it isn't. It'll always be with us. If it actually dies we'll hit such an economic clusterfuck with all of the idle hands that sex will be the least of our concerns.
society is shifting and adjusting itself to be ready for that, with space exploration and the growing needs of people for new stimuli the job market might look completely alien in a few decades to what it is today and was for the past century
society isn't heading in a bright direction, it's something that was foreseen by scientists, philosophers and the like decades and centuries ago, but the problems that it faces are too complicated and varied to be solved by "being less promiscuous" and "doing more manual labor"
>If my life was good would I be here?
and followed again by a bunch of excuses
you again validate my point, that despite all your claims you just can't go off the comfortability this life and society allowed you to have
>You didn't quantify any of this. You just listed distractions (most of which most people have limited access to, many none at all even. And they aren't related to sex and marriage. Also I'd argue many hurt us, if not all of the means you listed. I think I actually disagree with all of them).
all you need to do is simply drop them all out of your life
when you crawl back to them as you almost certainly would, you'd see my point
it's that simple
>rotten time, I'd rather go back 700 years than 70
for like the fourth time this thread:
just go innawoods
nothing's stopping you but yourself

Not being sexually compatible with eachother.

>they'd be wrong
entirely subjective
>make sense
did you just *gasp* agree with me?
>I'm the one arguing *for* natural law
no you aren't
what people like you fail to understand is that life as we live it is natural law, since it's dictated and constructed by natural beings with natural instincts and needs
it's because that society, as flawed as it might be, survived this long
what you're advocating for is control and manipulation of natural law that simply goes against it, hence why your ideas are only hypothetical and any attempt at their implementation in modern times fails miserably
>then discussing anything with you is pointless
it's nott because i'm not talking from a "moral" perspective but trying to from a logical one

Go to church, user, Jesus still loves you

Having to marry someone just to release sexual tension