Saving Yourself for Marriage?

[dgirl1986]

Edited it for ya. Now I can agree with it.

My bad, I didnt mean all men

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My bad, I didnt mean all men

Meh...I know. Trust me, I know.
I'm just picky with that stuff. Everytime Sterling Archer posts something about atheists, I feel compelled to follow him and post clarifications too.

I wouldn't for a second say your sentiment was wrong, mind you. Only the wording.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its actually true, I think its just a turn on for men and a bit of an ego boost. Plus they know they wont be compared to anyone.

If a man's turn-on is "deflowering" a woman and the woman's expecting a lifelong monogamous commitment from the man, then either he or she going to end up disappointed in the long run.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If a man's turn-on is "deflowering" a woman and the woman's expecting a lifelong monogamous commitment from the man, then either he or she going to end up disappointed in the long run.

C'mon now...that never happens...:sarcastic

 

[dgirl1986]

If a man's turn-on is "deflowering" a woman and the woman's expecting a lifelong monogamous commitment from the man, then either he or she going to end up disappointed in the long run.

Happens more often that you'd think (not you specifically).

 

[Draka]

Having had sex both within and outside of marriages, both with husbands prior to marrying them and during marriage, and with those I was not married to, I think I can sufficiently say...getting married didn't change the sex. In fact, I've had sexual relations outside of my marriages that have been much more loving and true relationships than my marriages were.

Marriage doesn't make the relationship, the people involved do. And if the people involved happen to not be married...then no piece of paper is going to change what they already have.

 

[Caladan]

I think the "save yourself for marriage" position is a bit conflicted: on the one hand, they elevate sex to this uber-important position where it's absolutely vital that it only be done under certain circumstances, but on the other hand, they minimize it by implying that it's fine just to "wing it" with no practice at all, and that sexual compatibility shouldn't even be a factor at all in deciding on your lifelong romantic partner.

Exactly, we are sexual creatures. In any other aspect: economic or social we are expected to bring our 'credentials' when committing ourselves to marriage, It's absurd to neglect the physical part which is one of the base pillars of a healthy marriage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

C'mon now...that never happens...:sarcastic

Happens more often that you'd think (not you specifically).

I'm not sure you got my point. What I was getting at is that once a woman has sex, she can't be "deflowered" again. This means that one of two things will happen:

- the man doesn't stray beyond his monogamous relationship. He will never again indulge this desire of his... which would be pretty disappointing to the man.
- the man will indulge the desire... but since he can't do it again within the bounds of his monogamous relationship, he'd have to do it with someone else... which would be pretty disappointing to the woman.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not sure you got my point. What I was getting at is that once a woman has sex, she can't be "deflowered" again. This means that one of two things will happen:

- the man doesn't stray beyond his monogamous relationship. He will never again indulge this desire of his... which would be pretty disappointing to the man.
- the man will indulge the desire... but since he can't do it again within the bounds of his monogamous relationship, he'd have to do it with someone else... which would be pretty disappointing to the woman.

Nope. I totally got your point. I agree with it, too.
Was just posting my little sarcastic one liner whilst chuckling to myself. In my head (and watch-out, because I have been told it works in an unusual fashion) I saw a honeymoon couple.

'Wow, honey...that was awesome. Totally worth getting married for. That thing you did with the chihuahua was inspired!'

'Oh, thanks babe. Yeah, I thought it was great too. Same time tomorrow night?'

'Sure...I'll bring the champagne, you bring the hymen.'

'Oh...well...I mean...it's broken now...so...I...ummm....'

'What? You were pure when I married you. I don't know who you've become. You've changed!'

Ahem...
I did warn ya.

 

[Sha'irullah]

While I recognize that many cultures valued intact hymens more than the women who the hymens belonged to, this is a tradition that I for one am happy to discard. Call me crazy if you want, but I prefer to value the women themselves.

Considering who I am. It makes little difference to worry about the purity of something I do not want I shall leave that up to the sexual individuals

 

[Sha'irullah]

Meh...I know. Trust me, I know.
I'm just picky with that stuff. Everytime Sterling Archer posts something about atheists, I feel compelled to follow him and post clarifications too.

I wouldn't for a second say your sentiment was wrong, mind you. Only the wording.

And what is wrong about my opinions on atheists :sarcastic

 

[dgirl1986]

I'm not sure you got my point. What I was getting at is that once a woman has sex, she can't be "deflowered" again. This means that one of two things will happen:

- the man doesn't stray beyond his monogamous relationship. He will never again indulge this desire of his... which would be pretty disappointing to the man.
- the man will indulge the desire... but since he can't do it again within the bounds of his monogamous relationship, he'd have to do it with someone else... which would be pretty disappointing to the woman.

From what I have seen they dont see it as something they necessarily pursue or constantly pursue with different women. It is kinda like a threesome I guess, when they do have the opportunity their mind goes OH HELL YEAH MAN.

Sometimes its just a case of they get what they want and they move on rather than being in a "committed relationship" of any sort if that makes sense.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And what is wrong about my opinions on atheists :sarcastic

That you have a tendency to ascribe particular traits to atheists, that you sometimes post as if atheism is some sort of philosophy, and that sometimes I suspect you only recognise strong atheism as atheism.

Haven't you noticed me haunting your threads, just itching to catch you out...?

 

[Sha'irullah]

That you have a tendency to ascribe particular traits to atheists, that you sometimes post as if atheism is some sort of philosophy, and that sometimes I suspect you only recognise strong atheism as atheism.

Haven't you noticed me haunting your threads, just itching to catch you out...?

You are aware almost all of my issues with atheism is against strong atheism right? You and a handful are about the only "moderate" atheists I come across on multiple forums. I have had atheists on this forum tell me they can disprove the existence of god flat out until they figured out I am a Deists. I have a whole thread which consists of atheists trolling non stop as well. To be fair, I have never found placing differences between the levels of atheism as useful considering I can only make 2 out of 50 talk rationally.

Also recently I have written a serious questions and refutations you atheists cannot deny

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

That's a take on things that isn't often addressed. It's just as valid to approach sex with the attitude of "you're the person I was getting good for" as it is "you're the person I was saving myself for."

In any other field of human endeavour, if you don't practice at all before the big performance, this demonstrates that you don't care about the performance... and by extension, that you don't care about the person/people you're performing for.

This seems like the most logical view to me. If you've never cooked before, you wouldn't try cooking dinner for the first time ever to make someone happy. Well, you might, but you would fail miserably and waste perfectly good food.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are aware almost all of my issues with atheism is against strong atheism right? You and a handful are about the only "moderate" atheists I come across on multiple forums. I have had atheists on this forum tell me they can disprove the existence of god flat out until they figured out I am a Deists. I have a whole thread which consists of atheists trolling non stop as well. To be fair, I have never found placing differences between the levels of atheism as useful considering I can only make 2 out of 50 talk rationally.

Yup. I know your opinion on that. But I'm pretty sure that being the case you can expect the 2 out of 50 to complain about being misrepresented. Think of me as a one percenter.

Also recently I have written a serious questions and refutations you atheists cannot deny

You're right. I cannot deny that you've written a serious question. You also written some...less serious questions. I'm not casting stones, I do the same. The fact you have a sense of humour is what led me to using your name when making a joke.


As for not refuting what you wrote, 2 quick points;

1) Not sure which point I didn't refute.
2) Are you sure I could understand what the heck you were talking about??

 

[dust1n]

I'm not sure I understand.

Nor do I. I'm having a hard time making sense of using one's virginity for the attraction of females, when it seems said attraction can't really be used for the purposes of which people attract mates in the first place.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Nor do I. I'm having a hard time making sense of using one's virginity for the attraction of females, when it seems said attraction can't really be used for the purposes of which people attract mates in the first place.

I have always rationalized that sexual people liked virgins since it was like the equivalent of purchasing a new car instead of a used one.

Not sure if this is applicable in modern day society because used or not I sure ain't touching it

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I can have sex without affection, and make love with my gaze.

I know, but think about it - wouldn't you feel a little bit, even the slightest bit better if you had a virgin wife? Just the fact she chose you to be the first one to pop her cherry means something, at least to me. She might have been with other guys, but she refused to have sex with them. But now she is letting you have sex with her, that means she shows more affection for you than other guys.

Like I said, if you have sex before marriage, I personally don't see a problem with it, but it is more romantic when marriage before sex.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have always rationalized that sexual people liked virgins since it was like the equivalent of purchasing a new car instead of a used one.

Not sure if this is applicable in modern day society because used or not I sure ain't touching it

To continue with your analogy, are you choosing a brand new Corolla, or a Ferrari with only 150 kms on the clock and a small stone chip?