/b/ - Random

Well I can't talk for other men but my last boyfriend dumped me after I told him how many other guys I had slept with. Before that we actually had made plans to marry some day. He was the most romantic, good looking and intelligent man I could've hoped for and now I feel like I squandered my chance at marrying the guy I loved.
English is not my first language so sorry if I'm not being concise while writing this.
I'd say that there's a negative correlation between the number of people you've slept with and the quality of man you will end up with.
But if you don't care about getting married or aren't even straight then bang your heart out.

>>71629
>other men
Sounds like you dodged a bullet, femanonette. He doesn't sound like a nice guy and if body count is so important to him, he should have asked you way before he decided to want to marry you.

>>71629
This.
Keep your body count as low as you can. Men don't really deserve sexual favors anyways. Waiting till marriage is the only way to know your man isn't a total cunt.

>>71633
>he should have asked you way before
He did ask me but I kinda omitted a bunch of details.

>>71628
First argument would be that, even with birth control, the risks involved are not 0. You can still get STDs, there's always the chance of birth control failing, and this doesn't include the risks of the birth control itself causing health issues. Abstinence is the only 100% failproof way of protection from STDs and pregnancy (with historically only one recorded failure of this method :^)).

Second, I have some concerns over the effect of extramarital sex on a person's ability to maintain a monogamous relationship. (Note: not a functioning monogamous relationship, just a monogamous relationship.) In general, monogamous relationships lend themselves to civilization and nation building. If you don't like those two, and I don't know why you have a computer.

Any other arguments I could make would rely on goals and moral values you may or may not have. I have similar issues with any arguments for why suicide would be a bad idea.

>>71636
>civilization
You say like it's something good. Humanity ended with agricultural revolution.

pic related only applies if you actually want to get married ofc

>>71638
Lol, sexual 'revolution' was a fucking mistake. They convinced women that sleeping around was so empowering and brave, at the expense of their mental, physical and spiritual health just so more (and low value) males would get their dick wet.

>>71638
Obviously, virgins report higher "happiness" because they have no experience and they don't know any better even when their scrotes are shit. Women with more experience know more about scrotes and have higher standards but they also had more disappointments with men, so pleasing them is harder than pleasing virgins. Scrotes know that that's why they're obsessed with virgins.
t. virgin who doesn't want to marry a scrote

>>71640
And just so with the libfem shit that 'mEn aNd wOmEn aRe EqUaLs' men pushed this culture so women could emulate their nasty male promiscuity and now here we are.

>>71636
>Abstinence is the only 100% failproof way of protection from STDs and pregnancy
This is objectively true, but wouldn't that also mean a woman should continue to never have sex even in a relationship? Men can cheat and bring something home, so the answer to being fully safe is to remain a virgin forever.
So this argument isn't even just with regards to extramarital sex. The risk is ALL sex.
(Gay and likely permavirgin so I truly have no horse in this race btw. I'm not even really arguing anything.)

>>71643
I would just ask the guy to have a vasectomy and test him from time to time. I will never fuck a guy who haven't had a vasectomy.

>>71642
It's true but let's not pretend like women had it any better before that. I still prefer modern times than the 50s and 60s when marital rape wasn't even considered rape and the "happy housewives" were getting high on antidepressants in order to cope.

>>71638
>Marriage Stability
Women who have dated more men will know when they are being treated badly and will find it easier to leave.

>Hapiness (sic)
Same as above.

>STIs
Prostitutes will make up a big part of this category. Considering the number of men who insist on going bareback, it’s not surprising.

From some googling, family-studies.org seems to be biased towards families, whether they are happy or not.

>>71645
Didn't say it was better back then, just said that it's getting worse in other ways.
We never had any better, just progressed a bit.

So if you met someone that you really liked and wanted to be with them and were very attracted to them and enjoyed hanging out with them, you wouldn't have sex with them because you don't trust them enough to not leave you so you need a legal document to bind them with you?
>>71646
>Women who have dated more men will know when they are being treated badly and will find it easier to leave
This.

I have yet to meet someone with whom I want to have sex irl, but I would totally do it if I did meet someone like that, even if it was a one night stand.

>>71637
based

>>71649
Not necessarily marrying but many women choose to wait after a few a dates as a security measure.
Women get attached with sex and men take notes of it to fake interest and niceness just so they can get into your pants and ditch you shortly after.

>but I would totally do it if I did meet someone like that
https://youtu.be/12PXvKfWdZs
Watch out.

>>71637
If you don't like civilization why are you on a computer and not out in nature ala full retreat? If you really wanted to, there are places that are remote and you can survive just fine. You can leave. No one can force you as an adult to be a part of society.

Though to be fair it tends that civilization finds you after a while anyway.

>>71643
>Men can cheat and bring something home, so the answer to being fully safe is to remain a virgin forever.
I should clarify that I may have assumed OP meant "extramarital" as opposed to "premarital" sex in her question. I may be wrong on this, but it's what I started with so I will continue with it. The man has exposed himself to risk in these scenarios (possible STDs and possible impregnation of other women which could financially and socially hurt him) under the same reasoning I have already listed. However, I have heard no arguments outside of commune's for why having children within a marriage is not superior to having children outside of marriage on average. We could get into arguments about whether a single mother is going to be worse at raising a child than a unhappy marriage, this also doesn't include child abuse from parents, but that can happen both in marriages and in single parent households, so the distinction would be on rates rather than innate differences in the effects on the child.

With the question of pregnancy out of the way, as far as STDs are concerned she's still safer in this scenario. While it is true that 0 sex is the correct amount for utmost safety, 1 sex partner is the correct amount for absolute minimal sex and sex risks possible while still actually having sex in the first place.
>So this argument isn't even just with regards to extramarital sex. The risk is ALL sex.
True to a certain extent, but OP's question belies the underlying assumption that marital sex is good or least proper for actually trying to conceive. If OP was not actually assuming this, then I suppose I am in the wrong for making this assumption. If OP instead wants to start having an anti-natalist argument we can do that too.

>>71644
Vasectomies can fail as well. All forms of birth control have failure rates, no matter how small.

>>71671
>just leave society if you hate it lol
I'm disabled and it's not my fault I was born, the existence was imposed upon me. Now I need society in order to survive, which I hate. I have self-preservation instinct, I'm not suicidal, but in a more primitive society people like me wouldn't survive for long (probably) and that's a good thing. More advanced civilization creates an entire new class of people who shouldn't have been born in the first place, or should've died shortly after birth.
It's the same dumb quasi-argument with "just kill yourself bro" people use against antinatalists, which only proves the fundamental lack of understanding of antinatalism and the fact that adults killing themselves doesn't solve the problem which is the birth of new people itself.

>>71672
>I'm disabled and it's not my fault I was born
You are right, however, it's your responsibility that you were born, and it's most definitely your fault if you continue to choose to live.
>I have self-preservation instinct
Which many people everyday manage to overcome.
>I'm not suicidal, but in a more primitive society people like me wouldn't survive for long (probably) and that's a good thing.
Correct, but it also worked like this in Spart, and it would work like this in Nazi Germany if it was allowed to continue. Thus your problem seems to not be with civilization itself, but with the current Christian derived atheistic version of it. This is not an argument against civilization, but certain forms of it.
>More advanced civilization creates an entire new class of people who shouldn't have been born in the first place, or should've died shortly after birth.
Yes, and while prevention is best, correction is second best, and doing nothing being the worst.
>It's the same dumb quasi-argument with "just kill yourself bro" people use against antinatalists, which only proves the fundamental lack of understanding of antinatalism and the fact that adults killing themselves doesn't solve the problem which is the birth of new people itself.
Is it impossible to understand your reasoning while also telling you to kill yourself? I do agree that the disabled shouldn't be born in the first place, or should be killed shortly after birth, but alas, this is not a perfect world, and when prevention fails all that is left is correction, a path always open to you yet you constantly reject. I can understand Buddha's arguments against suicide and anti-natalism, as under that world view suicide wouldn't actually end the suffering, but just displace it. However, this doesn't fly for atheistic incarnations where suicide would most definitely solve the problem they are describing and not perpetuate it. Instead, anti-natalists (ironically) cling to life desperately as missionairies trying to prevent other's from meeting their own fate, thus relieving their own suffering with the feel good chemicals of trying to prevent other's suffering. While I understand the logic of it, the anti-natalist mindset is, fundamentally, incongruent with the nature of living beings in this material world. It will bubble up here and there for millenia after millenia, but due to it's intrinsic belief patterns, anti-natalists will, fundamentally, always be outnumbered by natalists, and forced to march toe-to-toe with pro-natalists. It's a losing position.

>>71675
Ah, and I forgot to mention. The entirety of anti-natalism falls flat on it's face if you don't agree with hedonism or utilitarianism where happiness (and it's sister mindset; avoidance of suffering) is the ultimate goal of human existence and morality, and not a byproduct.

>>71675
>durr antinatalism is wrong because most people will never agree with it because they are primarily driven by their animalistic instincts
Great blogpost with no argument against antinatalism. You didn't say anything new antinatalists haven't talked about themselves.
Also, there were gnostic/christian groups with essentially antinatalist views. I respect buddist approach but atheistic approach doesn't matter to me.

>>71678
You were expecting me to create an original argument when you're quoting other people? Now that's funny coming from someone depressed about relying on other people.

You also seemed to have missed this post which has the other argument. >>71676

Not the anon you were replying to.
>>71675
>I do agree that the disabled shouldn't be born in the first place, or should be killed shortly after birth, but alas, this is not a perfect world, and when prevention fails all that is left is correction, a path always open to you yet you constantly reject.
I take you you believe this because you agree that it would be better for these people not to exist than to exist in a state of suffering that also causes inconvenience to others. The question is, how much suffering for the individual and inconvenience for others is too much? My personal answer to that is "any amount".

> However, this doesn't fly for atheistic incarnations where suicide would most definitely solve the problem they are describing and not perpetuate it.
As the other anon pointed out, the overwhelming majority of humans has an extremely strong survival instinct. We are also subject to various cognitive biases that shift our perception of quality of life for the better. More importantly for me, the most intense suffering is concentrated on the last decade or so of our lives, so from an utilitarian point of view it makes sense to delay suicide until one reaches a point of negative returns, so to speak. The problem is the survival instinct and the cognitive biases I mentioned, which make one push their check-out date further and further forward, until they are unable to carry it out by themselves, and must spend what time they have left wishing they had the guts to do it earlier.

>Instead, anti-natalists (ironically) cling to life desperately as missionairies trying to prevent other's from meeting their own fate, thus relieving their own suffering with the feel good chemicals of trying to prevent other's suffering.
Most anti-natalists act are only missionary insofar as engaging in relatively sedate conversation online. There are of course those that publish articles and books (Benatar, Ligotti, etc.), but they are no more missionary than any other person who believes that there is something morally wrong with how things are and wish that it would be different.

>feel good chemicals of trying to prevent other's suffering.
Are you suggesting people feeling bad about the existence of suffering and taking action to prevent the general suffering and ease their minds in the process are egotists? Couldn't that argument be made "against" every cause? "You only want to stop this company from turning these woods into a golf course because you feel bad about the local endangered species!" or "You only want to solve homelessness because you feel good about getting people off the street!"

>anti-natalists will, fundamentally, always be outnumbered by natalists, and forced to march toe-to-toe with pro-natalists.
Yes, we know. The fact that it's hopeless doesn't mean that we'll engage or condone the behavior we see as the root of all suffering. I know I'll probably not convince anyone, but I'll die with a clean conscience, and that's important to me.

>>71676
>The entirety of anti-natalism falls flat on it's face if you don't agree with hedonism or utilitarianism where happiness (and it's sister mindset; avoidance of suffering) is the ultimate goal of human existence and morality, and not a byproduct.
Personally, my primary motivation for anti-natalism is the idea that it's a violation of consent.

>>71629
Next time, lie. The only reason scrotes ask is because they have cuck anxiety, which is not a worthwhile reason to ask ANY question.

>>71683
>I take you you believe this because you agree that it would be better for these people not to exist than to exist in a state of suffering that also causes inconvenience to others. The question is, how much suffering for the individual and inconvenience for others is too much? My personal answer to that is "any amount".
The amount is any the individual personally doesn't want to bear and what the people they rely on don't want to bear. A simple return to natural values and the lives of animals would show that those who were inept could die quite easily if just left to do so. Any human sense to change this pattern is more human's being very bad at being animals and not accepting their nature.
>As the other anon pointed out, the overwhelming majority of humans has an extremely strong survival instinct.
How do you know it is "survival instinct" and not the sincere enjoyment of being alive? As evidence every single day, every single person innately carries within them the ability to overcome this instinct.

Though thinking about it more, are you confusing "survival instinct" with "optimism the future will be better"? Because those are two very different things.
>As the other anon pointed out, the overwhelming majority of humans has an extremely strong survival instinct.
And? Suffering is also based on perception. A person who doesn't recognize what is happening to them as negative, is, by definition, not suffering. This statement just implies that humans inherently aren't prone to suffering, which undermines your argument, not mine.
>More importantly for me, the most intense suffering is concentrated on the last decade or so of our lives, so from an utilitarian point of view it makes sense to delay suicide until one reaches a point of negative returns, so to speak.
First, by what measure? The fact that disease occurs more? That fact that others you know are more likely to have already died? What measure are you using for this.

Second problem, even if we were to agree on that premise, this is yet more bitching that doing the right thing is hard. This isn't a point for anti-natlism as much as it is, yet again, a point for letting natural course take place and not prolonging life artificially.

>Most anti-natalists act are only missionary insofar as engaging in relatively sedate conversation online. There are of course those that publish articles and books (Benatar, Ligotti, etc.), but they are no more missionary than any other person who believes that there is something morally wrong with how things are and wish that it would be different.
The degree of which is not important, the matter of importance is that they are engaging in this conversation at all in the first place. Caught in the same trap as the natalist they despise, instead of killing themselves and ending the suffering, they seek relief from their suffering by engaging in discourse. My point isn't that the anti-natalist is special, it's quite the opposite, the anti-natalist assumes the mindset of the natalist when they decide that the boon of emotional comfort of trying to save other's the same pain is worth perpetuating their own pain by not ending their own lives. This falls right in line with natalists that believe that life is worth creating as the happiness outweighs the suffering. If the anti-natalist did not inherently have an optimistic outlook, they wouldn't bother talking about it.
>Are you suggesting people feeling bad about the existence of suffering and taking action to prevent the general suffering and ease their minds in the process are egotists?
Aren't they? "I hate my life so everyone else must hate being alive too." In order to espouse views like this means they, egotistically, assume everyone's life is similar to their own. Furthermore, as sense of tonic on their ego they commit the "good work" of spreading the word of anti-natalism.
>Couldn't that argument be made "against" every cause?
See now you're getting it. Anti-natalism is not at all special and falls for the same premises it itself espouses to despise in practice and theory. You got it!
>Yes, we know. The fact that it's hopeless doesn't mean that we'll engage or condone the behavior we see as the root of all suffering. I know I'll probably not convince anyone, but I'll die with a clean conscience, and that's important to me.
Yeah it's my bad for thinking anyone that joins a movement with "anti" in it's name is actually emboldened by the fact they are an underdog and inherently in a losing game, because that's what being "anti" as opposed to "for" anything is all about. A constant losing position that is ego-tonic in an anti-hero narrative and is only emboldened by resistance. This one is entirely on me and is my bad for forgetting how any "anti" movement works.

I will say, taking it to logical conclusions, it would be interesting to see if an anti-natalist could have intentionally triggered a nuclear war to kill all life whatsoever on earth and actually fulfilling the premise they support. Alas, too scared to live, too scared to die, too scared to kill and too scared to create.

>Personally, my primary motivation for anti-natalism is the idea that it's a violation of consent.
Would you feel better if a religion told you you had consented to being created in the first place?

>>71693
>Yeah it's my bad for thinking anyone that joins a movement wit
*for forgetting anyone

>>71693
>A simple return to natural values and the lives of animals would show that those who were inept could die quite easily if just left to do so.
We both want to minimize suffering. Your approach is to prevent someone in a naturally unsustainable situation to go on living. Mine to is prevent them from coming into being all together. In other words, I see it as better to not have a child than have a child then abandon it in the woods when it comes out horribly deformed (which would cause suffering to both the child and the parents, though less than if the child was allowed to live).

>How do you know it is "survival instinct" and not the sincere enjoyment of being alive?
That's a good point. I would say that the fact most animals have something similar to fear, regardless of the state of their lives, shows an instinctive desire to continue to exist despite the circumstances. For example, a sick and beaten dog will still cower and try to escape if pushed towards a high ledge, or a fire. The fact that human beings in horrible situations oftentimes don't kill themselves can be seen as evidence of that, or of hope for a better future. Take the American/British POWs during the Japanese death marches: they could have easily stopped walking and gotten a shot to the head, but instead most of them walked to death. I wonder how many sex slaves in Indian brothels have tried to kill themselves somehow (I genuinely don't know, and maybe should look into it).

>are you confusing "survival instinct" with "optimism the future will be better"?
The two are related, but not always the same. This would fall under the "cognitive biases" I mentioned. It is adaptive to believe that things are going to get better. It is adaptive to remember the meal rather than the hunger that made the meal memorable.

>First, by what measure?
Overall quality of life decay. Loss of mobility, sensory perception, cognitive abilities, health and immunity, athletic ability, living friends and relations, etc.

>This isn't a point for anti-natlism as much as it is, yet again, a point for letting natural course take place and not prolonging life artificially.
Yes, when we're talking about people who already exist, I wholeheartedly agree with you that our cultural norms of trying to prolong life are making things actively worse.

(cont.)

>>71693
>Caught in the same trap as the natalist they despise, instead of killing themselves and ending the suffering, they seek relief from their suffering by engaging in discourse. My point isn't that the anti-natalist is special, it's quite the opposite, the anti-natalist assumes the mindset of the natalist when they decide that the boon of emotional comfort of trying to save other's the same pain is worth perpetuating their own pain by not ending their own lives.
You make the reasonable mistake of assuming that all antinatalists hate their lives. That is not the case, at least for me. I recognize that my life is not more negative than positive (according to my brain, which is subject to the aforementioned cognitive biases), but I still think it would have been preferable not to have been created in the first place, since the absence of the net positive of my experiences would not have been a problem if no one were to experience it.
The degree of which is important in the use of the word "missionary".

There is a fundamental difference between dying and never having existed in the first place. If that difference isn't clear to you, I'm not sure how I could articulate it satisfactory.

>This falls right in line with natalists that believe that life is worth creating as the happiness outweighs the suffering.
Yes, for antinatalists who base their position on utilitarianism, the symmetrical opposite are utilitarian natalists. This isn't really a refutation. The people who follow principle A reach conclusion X, so the people who follow a principle which is the opposite of A will reach a conclusion that is the opposite of X.

>Aren't they? […] they, egotistically, assume everyone's life is similar to their own.
I made the point that every person with a philosophical/political position could be said to be egotistical because they feel bad about the current state of things and wish that such a state would be different, presumably a state in which they would not feel bad. The argument it pointless because it implies that the only valid arguments are made by those with no emotional investment in the question being argued.

>Anti-natalism is not at all special
I never claimed that it was.

>Yeah it's my bad for forgetting that anyone that joins a movement with "anti" in it's name is actually emboldened by the fact they are an underdog and inherently in a losing game, because that's what being "anti" as opposed to "for" anything is all about.
So anti-slavery, anti-whaling, anti-war activists did it because they wanted to feel persecuted, not because they believed in it?
(Before you say something like "Those movements stopped existing the moment they weren't the minority any more", there aren't many anti-whaling and anti-slavery people around any more because mostly they won and got what they wanted).
Anti-universal suffrage, anti-interracial marriage are also examples of "anti" movements which were the dominant position when they started.

>Alas, too scared to live,
Wrong.

>too scared to die,
Death is scary, which is why we want to prevent it.

>too scared to kill
I don't want to kill anyone, I want to stop people from coming into existence.

>and too scared to create.
I'm not scared to create, I don't do it because I think it's wrong.

>Would you feel better if a religion told you you had consented to being created in the first place?
Consent cannot be given by something which does not exist, and it cannot be given retroactively. The moment there is something which can consent, there is something which was created without consent.

>>71691
If something comes down how you've acted, and it's between lying or conducting yourself differently. Do the latter, for god's sake anons don't lie.

>>71705
No, go ahead and lie. The only reason not to lie is if there's a solid evidence trail. Purity is a retarded obsession that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

>>71693
This retard still doesn't see the difference between killing someone and preventing birth KEK. That last bit about antinatalists nuking the whole humanity is my favorite
>What, you're a murderous freak, huh? YOU WANT KILL PEOPLE HUH? YOU'RE TURNED ON BY NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST HUUUUUH?
Take your meds.

If you don't accept that avoidance of suffering is a moral imperative, anti-natalism has no foundation and is thus untenable.

Ironically, the act of even talking to an antinatalist means that their moral system has failed. There is no room for discussion, as the discussion itself is the moral failure.

>>71737
Dying and never being born aren't different at all.
>That last bit about antinatalists nuking the whole humanity is my favorite.
It's not about anti-natalists doing, it's about anyone who actually took anti-natalism seriously would actually do it as a proper moral imperative. What is a minor, albeit large scale, occurence of suffering compared to an infinite possibility of suffering in the future? If avoidance of suffering is a moral imperative, prematurely ending all of it as soon as possible, alive or otherwise, is the only correct thing to do.

>>71745
someone correct me if I'm wrong, but antinatalists believe you have no right to impose death on the living just like you don't have the right to impose existence on the unborn. they also don't believe they have the right to stop people from breeding. it's just silly to assume that killing everyone is the final conclusion to antinatalism. it doesn't make any sense.

>>71745
That's only the case if you assume antinatalists are utilitarians. I think >>71748 is probably more correct about what they think.

>>71748
>it's just silly to assume that killing everyone is the final conclusion to antinatalism. it doesn't make any sense.
It's a very simple logical chain for the "avoidance of suffering" moral argument.
>There is a moral imperative to prevent suffering
>There is no moral imperative to increase happiness, or, at a minimum, it is impossible to increase happiness within a more severe increase in suffering
>Because there is a moral imperative to prevent suffering, but not one to produce happiness, bringing someone into this world is an a violation of moral duty, and furthermore, is an act of violence and control over that person.
>This is because, even if there is a chance for happiness, there is guaranteed suffering, and to not prevent possible suffering is morally wrong.

Now we get to the next logical step if we take that premise.
>any living being, at any given moment, at any point in time, as a chance to suffer in the future
>preventing possible suffering is a moral imperative
>furthermore, if left to their own devices, living beings will propagate and create infinitely more suffering
>for every child you don't kill, you have the possibility of that they will have children that suffer, and those those children will have children that suffer, ad infinitum
>there is an infinite potential for suffering by leaving anyone alive

The only difference is, anti-natalist say we should "just sterilize everyone and let all of us die off", as if that is any different from just killing everyone pre-emptively and actively. The two are the same in outcome. Everyone dies, no one is left alive. The only difference is one is passive (dying of old age after not having any children) and the other would actually require them to get off their ass (killing people to stop their breeding). Either way everyone is doomed to die, the acts are synonymous.

This at least address the utilitarianism argument, the only argument against this is the Buddhist one, which would put forth that the act of killing other's is pointless as it wouldn't end the cycle.

As far as the "violation of consent" anti-natalists, who, in my readings, appear to be a minority to the utilitarian ones, their argument is different. They would be the ones you are describing that believe they have no moral imperative to violate other living beings "consent" to reproduce, but I have problems finding very solid definitions of what "consent" even is or how you can ever give it in the first place for any interaction honestly.

>>71750
>They would be the ones you are describing that believe they have no moral imperative to violate other living beings "consent" to reproduce, but I have problems finding very solid definitions of what "consent" even is or how you can ever give it in the first place for any interaction honestly.

To put in another way, the argument goes that something that does not exist can not give it's consent, yet this implies that something that does exist does have the ability to consent. I have no proof to accept this premise that anything existent or non-existent has the ability to consent.

>>71750
antinatalists don't want to sterilize everyone…

>>71753
I am well aware they "don't want to", that's my point. Their philosophy states they "should" do so, but they, falling victim to their passions, can not carry out what is the correct action.

>>71755
nah, I think it's rather because they're not sociopaths bro.

If virginity is so important, then what the fuck is the point in even marrying men? Once it's gone, it's gone. No amount of personal development and discipline will ever unfuck you, so you're worthless forever. Fuck men. I never want to date one again.

>>71628
Anon, I've come to believe there is seriously something called spiritual health, and when you get into such an intimately close experience such as sex, you're not only endangering physical and mental health, but spiritual as well. I believe there are focal points on the body called chakras, and when you have sex you're aligning your body's chakras with anothers and it can leave you both feeling drained and deprived from one another. That's why it's so dangerous to have sex with someone you can't completely completely trust. For most, marriage is that ultimate foundation of trust to leaves someone assured they can be able to have sex and not regret it later.

>>71912
I can only agree with this if we put an equal emphasis on male and female virginity, not just the female one. I also don't see why would you need the institution of marriage to sanction this kind of life-time bond, or any other kind of man-made laws. Maybe if you're weak and you can't live without some sort of authority in your life.

>>71628
Best argument i've heard is that it makes you overly attached to the person, so you can't really make a fair decision on if you want to stay with them of not. If you wait until marriage, you've already made that decision so no worries committing to it. I think there' some truth to this, even if it's just that being single sucks even more once you've had someone you can bang regularly because you crave it.

>>71635
That’s a major mistake. Don’t do anything you feel the need to hide later. Otherwise he gets the primal ick try and put 2 and 2 together that it could be much worse.
Moids are risk takers up until marriage
>>71633
Nice beta guys care, cluster b bad boys don’t .
They’ll feel like an idiot cuck they got scammed and their family will judge him and kids will look at him like some cuck that couldn’t do better . There’s a shame to it.
>>71634
Think the loud Arab grandma had it down with this advice

>>71628
If a man isn't willing to wait for you then he is not worth it. Period. It's such a great filter.

>>303139
You got it wrong nona. Most men will care, specially the ones that hold themselves to the same standards (despite the fact that they are constantly mocked).
Some bad guys don't care because they don't see you as a person, just as a commodity that can dump later on. In the other hand beta guys will accept any woman that gives them any crumb of attention, they will be even accepting to open the relationship just to have her around lol

>>71675
>I do agree that the disabled shouldn't be born in the first place, or should be killed shortly after birth
I guess this is where we are as a society, huh? I'll just go cry.

>>306401
I'm glad you're here.

>>306413
th-thanks

Traditional marriage is just men exchanging property through blood pacts/rituals since they are incapable of meaningful, peaceful face-to-face exchanges on their own. The sex before marriage issue is just a new vs used debate among men and how it might affect the transition of their mutant Y chromosome through the treacherous strait of wombs.

What you should be considering is what sexual intercourse actually is. Birth control is palliative care for the delusional moid belief that natural systems are modular like their crude machines and that one can change/replace/remove parts without directly impacting the rest. If your lifestyle requires birth control to maintain, it is fundamentally anti-female.

every time a man puts his dick in you a little bit of your soul dies. when have you ever heard a straight man talk about his 'situationships'? us women catch feelings and have situationships meanwhile to men we're just gullible holes.

one out of many arguments against whoring around, just because OP started with religious argumentation

There aren't any solid arguments, people have been having sex before marriage for ages. They just hid it better. Sex before marriage is mostly men wanting women to stay pure because they're afraid of being cucked or compared. If you want a man who wants a pure woman just lie or hide it.

>>306662
This, lies and deception are the cornerstones of any healthy relationship

>>71628
its a great way to avoid becoming a pump and dump victim. i also dont see the purpose in having sex with anyone besides the one i intend on marrying/the one, it seems like a waste of time

I want a virgin moid, but I’ll never get one unless I'm probably willing to settle for some /r9k/ incel. All the virgin marriages are probably in people’s early twenties and if there are any good moids my age who are virgins, they are probably waiting for someone better than me.

>>306669
Do I have to start going back to Church to find one? I’ll fucking do it.

>>71628
>>306598
Am a 27 yo virgin (never even kissed) and it is somewhat weird thinking that I will probably only have sex with 1 person for the rest of my life…
>>306669
"Virgin moids and where to find them" I need that book
>>306670
Only if he's not some crazy zealot, tradlarper guy.

>>71628
Moids shouldn't (should NOT) be allowed to have sex EVER.

>>306664
Relationships have no real meaning nowadays. I have no idea why women trudge through series of aimless relationships.

>>71628
I'd say the main benefit is that if you wait for marriage, or at least until bethrotal or well over a year into the relationship, and you're sure he's your chosen mate and the one you want to spend your life with, you can relatively effectively sort out the many men who will just pretend to be nice at the start just to get in your pants and then GTFO.
No hymen no diamond (yes i know its a retarded slogan) goes both ways, no diamond no hymen.
That being said IDK how solid that advice is, I'm still a virgin and nowhere close to getting married

>>71628
How are you even asking this question. As for having promiscuous fun there is a time and q place for everything (college with bc) but most sex with moids is lame tbh. Most of them cannot give you an orgasm. So you have to be really selective and get a picture of their understanding of the female orgasm.

>>306767
additionally if you wait until marriage to find out they're horrible at sex this is an awful arrangement too. No body wins when you realize he doesn't care about your pleasure at all. You better find out beforehand.

>>306768
you know… you can put effort into improving ur self-life… right?

>>306770
You can but will the moid? 9 times out of 10 they absolutely won't. Most things start going downhill after you get married and especially after you have kids. So you better understand how much he really cares. For a ton of moids it is too much effort and they will completely lie about everything.

>>306772
if ur MOID husband wont help spice things up in the bedroom or help make sure you enjoy sex too, HES not the problem YOU are for PICKING a clown husband

>>306774
How would you even know that until you have sex and know for sure genius? If you dont even explore what both of you really like and find out you're compatible ? You're in fantasy land if you project that onto a man without proof.

>>306775
i would only marry someone who is understanding and willing to talk with me and help make sure i enjoy said things too, sorry i was assuming everyone who pick someone who genuinely cares

>>306775
Tradthot fantasy land. Not only are you NOT learning about yourself if you never experience sex, you're playing into patriarchal tradthot garbage

>>306776
Lmao you actually believe that ? Do you know how many understanding men turn to shit after they trap you in marriage ?

>>306778
Playing right into their hands is exactly what they want and after you're married you look like a clown for wasting your youth.

>>71628
>>71629
>>71633
It could be argued that virginal bride thing was necessary so that a man could be confident the child was actually his in the days before paternity testing. A man could absolutely get violent or members of his family could if they even suspect that they're raising a child not actually related to them, this very much puts the woman at risk. These feelings are entirely instinctual on the man's part, women don't have this because she is absolutely certain it's hers based on carrying the baby for 9 months. Civilizations do require some form of organized family structure to perpetuate itself so this risk of high distrust needs to be mitigated somehow, hence many cultures pushed the virgin bride, especially in patriarchal societies where inheritance and social status was passed down the male line.
This is probably the root cause of the disconnect, because men and women have separate and even contradicting instincts that color our behavior and hence social archetypes.

>>306768
Sex isn't a damn videogame, it just takes being a nice and decent person who at least semi-cares about the other person's happiness. You can tell whether you'd enjoy sex with somebody before actually doing it, simply by seeing whether they are a good person in general. >>306768

Alot of people remember their first time. It's something special to alot of people. It's hard to make a deep connection with someone else when you can't share things like that with them, and even have to keep it a secret.
Unless the first time is so bad or awkward that you'd rather not bring it up, but then is it even worth doing in the first place?

>>306808
The first time usually sucks because you're both bad at it.

>>306794
LmfAo that's what every woman says about their damn Nigel no matter how bigoted and shitty he is. If I had a dime for every woman who defended the goodness of their shitty partner rofl

I'm not even touching this with a 60 ft pole

Sexual compatibility is just a meme to get fucked. That compatibility is not set in stone and you shouldn't take it for granted. What really matters is if you both are compatible as human beings. There are a lot of couples who have nothing but sex, if you remove that everything falls apart. If you meet someone that understands you, you both work as a team and build your life in different areas then you're golden.

Im losing my virginity to my bf this weekend. He's been super (sexually) aggressive and ive told him if this isnt the best thing ever im leaving him.
Did i do good?

>>306826
>He's been super (sexually) aggressive

Leave, you deserve better

>>306827
Im ok with that. Ive already mentally left him

>>306828
What should i do?
He wants to fuck my ass the same day and i dont want that but he just wont stop

>>306826
Prepare for him leaving you after using you like an object like in picrel

>>306831
Ah fuck i forgot about condoms. Should i buy some or just tell him to buy them?

>>306825
Typed by bitter moid fingers

>>306825
Sorry I'm not gonna be a handmaiden for any sleezy moid.

I want nothing to do with living with a stupid scrote or the nightmare lifetrap that is marriage. Get fucked.

>>306830
Dump him for a submissive and get into femdom or be a switch. You've already mentally left him? Then why are you asking I'm confused

>>306832
Women like you are so confusing. Why are you even doing this relationshit thing if you don't even enjoy it ? The sex has to be a net positive for your existence or it's pointless. 99.99999% of the time master is better than sex with an actual scrotoid..

>>306837
Masterbation*

>>306830
If you don't want to but he won't give up the idea I'd just cancel all plans to do it tbh, I'd be VERY uncomfortable with the fact he just doesn't respect my boundaries, and coupled with how he's been very sexually aggressive that just screams like a rape waiting to happen. I'm sorry nona but that seems like he's just in it for sex. I would've already left him just on the fact that he doesn't care if I say no.
>>306831
Holy shit, scrotes are such fucking selfish, disgusting assholes

>>306836
Nah femdom is lame. I want him to use me but at the same time i dont want him to think he's hot shit. If its not the best thing ever i am just going to walk out. I dont care for him if he cant follow up his big words.
>>306837
I am co-dependant. He was fine up until recently then he just went 0-100 with the sex stuff. Wanting to "break in my ass" and all that.
>>306839
Good point. What should i do? Just ignore him or lead him on and just not turn up? Sex meet up is at his place and he doent know where i live.

If anyone is pathetic and lame here it's definitely you. Holy fuck.

>>306842
What wont be good?

>>306840
I guarantee you if you've never had sex with this guy before it will NOT be the best thing ever.

>>306840
>What should i do?
Depends on what you think is most sensible, but I would just send him a message telling him that he's been making me very uncomfortable and that he doesn't seem to respect my boundaries and that's why I'm ending the relationship then explicitly state that I'm cutting all type of communication with him. Then block and move on.
>he doent know where i live.
Then it's even easier for you to run while you still can. Take this opportunity now before it's too late.

If you don't care about your first time being 'special' or 'romantic' and just wanna make it a positive experience and still getting to orgasm then it wouldn't sound like a bad idea to hire an escort, just to scratch that itch. There was a thread about that same topic here in the hidden board. A nona talked about her experience with an escort and how it was worth it for the treatment. The thread might be in page 2 or 3 if you wanna go read it.

>>306832
Anon is a scrote angry he's not getting pegged by his girl right now :)

>>306845
>I would just send him a message telling him that he's been making me very uncomfortable and that he doesn't seem to respect my boundaries and that's why I'm ending the relationship then explicitly state that I'm cutting all type of communication with him. Then block and move on.
Would everyone agree on this?

>>306847
Why are you even asking for a collective opinion to dictate exactly what you should do?
At least please come to your own conclusions and ideas, it sounds like that would help you

>>306848
I am asking if "the collective" thinks this is a good idea. If they think that then i will do it.

>>306848
I just want my holes stretched out because im currently a femcel. Thats all i want

>>306851
It's not as amazing as you think sometimes. Don't rush it, you'll just feel disappointed.

>>306852
Jokes on you i already have one on the way

>>306851
LOL, you're gay, boy.

>>306825
I used to think this too. Until I broke up with ex and got a new bf and the sex blew my mind and melted my brain. Sex compatibility is definitely a thing. That's my experience is all I will say. I used to think it was made up but definitely not from what I've experienced myself first hand.

>>306826
You need jesus by this point, geez. Who thinks like this.

>>306848
It does not matter what today is considered normal. What matters is how you feel. If you feel uncomfortable, bad, etc. Then fuck the opinions of us legbeards. This is such a simple problem — if something or someone makes you feel bleh, then stop hanging out with them. People seeking opinions collectively from people, tend to be insecure in their own thoughts and lack self esteem. Probably shit parent(s) constantly gaslighted them to always question and doubt their instincts or neglected their needs. Whatever the case, stop being a retard. If you feel uncomfortable, then there's something wrong. Leave. Learned this in therapy myself and learned to stop overthinking and doubting my gut instinct. Greatly improved my life. I always had second thoughts and relied heavily on the opinions of others all my life and realized it isn't healthy. You need to trust yourself, and you need to seriously stop over thinking in life. And to relax. Not over complicate things in your head. That'd be my advice to anyone with this trait, cuz I used to be the exact same, never able to make up my mind in the past cuz I ignored how things made me feel when it felt bad. Bad habit I learned from my faggy parents who always wanted to win and be right and convince me I'm stupid when I was living with them.

>>306898
>Until I broke up with ex and got a new bf and the sex blew my mind and melted my brain
Not her but while I do believe sexual compatibility is real, what you're describing is one of the things a very small percent of women will ever have the privilege of experiencing, with their bfs

>>306812
I am sorry to hear about your regrettable first time.

>>306813
Bad sex can still be a special memory.
Especially looking back on it after being with the same person for many years after.

>>306902
>Especially looking back on it after being with the same person for many years after.

That's really sweet, I wish I could live something like that

>>306826
unironically the best way to deal with moids who wont respect your bodily/sexual boundaries is to casually threaten to accuse him of rape if anything happens. it makes them scared shitless

>>306826
Some of us are actually femcels here, stop bullying us you spring chicken.

>>306949
discord?

>>306973
10 year diff is alot…