Deleted

Mr_Walkway · January 21, 2015, 7:53pm

[quote]Silyak wrote:

A virgin bride has an 80%+ chance of staying married. That drops to around 50% if she has had sex with even one man before marriage other than her eventual husband (pre-marital sex with the eventual husband does have a negative effect but it is small). A woman who has had 5+ sexual partners before getting married has a greater than 70% chance of getting divorced.

Most men (almost all) care about how number of past partners when considering a long term partner (per above, the ones that don’t probably should). Most women instinctively know this and thus try to hide their partner count. Obviously, for some men it’s a much bigger deal than for others. That’s different than not caring. [/quote]

you don’t say?

semi-related… every girl ive dated initiated ‘the number’ conversation.

ActivitiesGuy · January 21, 2015, 8:15pm

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
you don’t say?

semi-related… every girl ive dated initiated ‘the number’ conversation. [/quote]

Both of them?

Mr_Walkway · January 21, 2015, 8:26pm

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
you don’t say?

semi-related… every girl ive dated initiated ‘the number’ conversation. [/quote]

Both of them?[/quote]

haha the two I dated seriously yeah… and the small handful I dated casually.

odd trend tho

EmilyQ · January 21, 2015, 8:28pm

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
you don’t say?

semi-related… every girl ive dated initiated ‘the number’ conversation. [/quote]

Both of them?[/quote]

They’re after his number because fifteen minutes into the date they can’t believe he’s ever gone out with anyone else.

MaximusB · January 21, 2015, 9:18pm

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]jzy50309 wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:
For real. I’m sort of surprised there is a question of the validity of a blacked out sexcapade. I’ve had my share of waking up next to a girl that I don’t even remember meeting up with. Made sure I got another go in the morning so I could at least count it. But I have always been a very very functional black out drunk. It’s also part of the reason I have severely limited my alcohol consumption- got myself into too much shit that I had no knowledge of until filled in later.[/quote]

Yeah, its the kind of doubt that’d be associated with lack of experience or lack of exposure to college aged youth. Or exposure to heavy drinking, in general.

See also: that recent maryjane thread

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]tsantos wrote:

[quote]jzy50309 wrote:
On a serious note, I hate the social stigma associated with the promiscuous one night stand. Woman shouldn’t feel objectified, or disgusted with the thought of having sexual relations with a relative stranger, its a primordial instinct. No reason to justify it with excuses, such as: I drank too much, or it was drunk mistake…We all know it was no mistake, you just were horny. [/quote]

No issues with this, however, I don’t understand why women who do do this then get so righteous about men only being interested in them for sex. Or why they continue to find themselves single - as if it’s an issue with the guy when he doesn’t want anything serious with someone who has bedded more people than he’s shaken hands with.[/quote]

But, like, imagine there was more than one kind of woman. One might like to get to know men before thinking about sleeping with them, while another could be interested in physical pleasure rather than commitment. Wouldn’t that be crazy? Like, ALL DIFFERENT WOMEN.[/quote]

Well played.[/quote]
I have a rebuttal, just to give another perspective based on MY experiences. Having a one night stand is much like everything else, comes down to a numbers game. Quite simple as that, on any given night going out you will have only a small pool of women that will actually be interested in a night of promiscuity with no strings attached. That number also drastically decrease after a woman leaves her college years behind, and starts her journey to adulthood. Being “easy” is no longer something that the majority of woman boast about(at least not publicly, they keep those after work hobbies a bit more discreet). I may be wrong but I went to a large college, and we passed around sorority girls more than we’d probably like to admit.

It’s almost comparable to a perfect storm, certain conditions need to be met for a one night stand with a woman that doesn’t make you question your standards, and your existence the next morning. You know? That feeling you get when you take a shower the next morning, you scrub and scrub hoping that you can cleanse yourself. Sometimes hoping you can scrub your memories as well…

Anyways…you only have a small pool of women that will be attractive (I understand this is subjective, but there are certain standards that exemplify beauty), choose to go out to the same place and same time as you, and find you attractive as well. I’m sure there are others conditions (I.e alcohol, drunkenness and game level, previous experiences…)but these are the ones that I deemed necessary. Most productive, available and attractive males will only have two nights to go out and go “play” per week. Friday and Saturday night, this isn’t everyone but once again it’s a majority and I play percentages not those one in thousand hands that you need the planets to align. Finding those attractive, willing women that you posted about, isn’t easy. In college it was like shooting fish in a barrel (based on my experience) but the “real” world mandates a new style of game. There are less and less women that are looking for that specific type of relationship. That woman you speak of, searching for a physical release solely, is much rarer than the woman seeking a previous relationship before “sealing the deal”. Just my two cents but I understand your point. This is all excluding relationships that you “pay” for, as that is not only pathetic but I think cheating. [/quote]

If the women willing to engage in NSA sex disappear after college then I would say a good number of them found someone with whom they wanted to have a relationship, rather than that they suddenly took a frank look at their Sexual Market Value and abruptly changed course. Why are they different from men? Fooling around while they look for someone special, then settling down when they find him.

Remember that not all men care that women have been sexually active. I would assume that the ones left mouldering on the shelf into their late 20s and early 30s have something wrong with them, e.g. unpleasant to be in a relationship with.

Or, could all be a diabolically well-thought scam, played out on a global scale. Hard to say.[/quote]

Promiscuous women have a notorious ability to present themselves as being upstanding, when in fact they were gagging on another man’s cock just a night earlier.

It’s not so much a problem until the common “OMG I don’t know what’s wrong with me, I’m never like this” comes out of their mouth. She does not need to admit she is a whore, but not present herself as a nun.[/quote]

Question: when she says that, do you say to her “Hey, it really doesn’t matter, I’m only after getting laid. I honestly don’t care about you as a person.”

If not, pot/kettle and all that. God, I hate hypocrisy. [/quote]

I don’t bother responding at all, as I know that when she says it, it is pure and utter horseshit.

I simply nod as if I care, which I don’t. But seeing how she is trying to minimize her sluttiness, I figure the best I can do is humor her with this foolish idea.

I would rather she not saying anything and just let the encounter happen on it’s own.

Silyak · January 22, 2015, 2:46pm

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

A virgin bride has an 80%+ chance of staying married. That drops to around 50% if she has had sex with even one man before marriage other than her eventual husband (pre-marital sex with the eventual husband does have a negative effect but it is small). A woman who has had 5+ sexual partners before getting married has a greater than 70% chance of getting divorced.

Most men (almost all) care about how number of past partners when considering a long term partner (per above, the ones that don’t probably should). Most women instinctively know this and thus try to hide their partner count. Obviously, for some men it’s a much bigger deal than for others. That’s different than not caring. [/quote]

Could this be a symptom more than a cause. Girls who hold on to their virginity are more likely to be heavily religious (the most common reason for remaining a virgin till marriage) so maybe its their religion that makes them more likely to stay married. Same as it makes them more likely to remain virgins. [/quote]

According to these articles, divorce rates among atheists are actually lower. Of course, this is probably based on self-reported religious affiliation and so it could be that maintaining her virginity is simply a litmus test to determine if a young lady is actually devoutly religious or just giving lip service to the idea. Even if that is the case, I don’t think it matters much from a male perspective. Either a girl is a virgin because she has strong family values and thus will make a wife that won’t lead to divorce or a girl is a virgin because she chose to be for some other reason and that inherently makes her less likely to lead to divorce. The conclusion is that virgins are likely to make wives that don’t lead to divorce. That’s not the only key to a successful marriage, but it’s certainly an important cornerstone.

The frequent counterpoint to this is that some virgins are just women who don’t like sex. I don’t have any data on this point, but I’m skeptical since in 2015 a woman who isn’t interested in men can just choose to not get married. Of course, you may encounter a woman who doesn’t like sex but still wants to get married and otherwise have a family. But are the odds of that greater than 70%?

From a female perspective, it may be more important to understand whether virginity is the cause or rather a conveniently measurable side effect of a woman that is likely to not get divorced. This would be important to a young lady making the decision of whether or not she cared to maintain her virginity. However, any woman who is invested enough in the eventual success of her family to ask this question probably has the family values in question and will thus find success in maintaining her virginity until marriage. Once again, if nothing more, virginity is a litmus test.

The final question that might be relevant is whether we should expect to see women who are sufficiently invested in family values/spirituality etc. such that they will make good and faithful wives even if they have a slutty past. In essence, this question is really one of whether the correlation between virginity and lack of divorce is caused by biology or society/culture. I don’t have an answer to that, but given that we can’t conceivably change either one, it’s not a practical distinction. From the data, we can clearly see that if such women exist, they are rather uncommon.

jbpick86 · January 22, 2015, 3:28pm

As you said, self-reporting as religious is far and away from making you devout. And a girl that has chosen to hold on to her virginity for religious reasons is more than likely very devout. Cant remember exactly, but its something like 85% report as religious, 40% report having attended church recently, and only 20% say that their attendance would be classified as regular (not that church attendance guarantees devotion to the faith or irregular attendance guarantees a person is not devoted).

The second graph is kind of misleading as it is simply drawing a correlation between divorce and faith because a higher percentage of divorces occur in the heart of the bible belt. If you will notice, that increased level of divorce also coincides with the poorest states which I would think would be the more likely cause. Also, the protestant faiths most common in these areas fall way below the US average in income and atheists is slightly above the US average. Plus, there are other cultural issues at play in these areas that are highly misleading about those statistics that have nothing to do with religion but have a lot to do with making those statistics extremely believable.

Silyak · January 22, 2015, 5:12pm

You bring up a lot of important issues with regards to the correlation between religion and divorce.

However, an important question remains unanswered: If virginity at marriage is only a co-symptom of some other underlying cause for a stark reduction in divorce risk, what is that cause and what is the best way to test for it?

Religious devoutness is rather hard to measure, as you point out, mostly because it’s rather hard to define. If there really is an underlying cause other than virginity, it should be a better predictor of divorce risk than virginity, provided that measuring it is reasonably straight forward. If there isn’t a better way to measure it, then marrying a virgin seems like a good idea.

Of course, even if studying and measuring such a factor on a statistical scale were difficult, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify it as a relationship litmus test that could be implemented on a personal level. However, I believe the answer has to go much deeper than religious devoutness simply because that means so many different things to different people and religions.

Testy1 · January 22, 2015, 6:33pm

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:

the small handful I dated casually.

[/quote]

Freudian slip?

jbpick86 · January 22, 2015, 7:19pm

[quote]Silyak wrote:
You bring up a lot of important issues with regards to the correlation between religion and divorce.

However, an important question remains unanswered: If virginity at marriage is only a co-symptom of some other underlying cause for a stark reduction in divorce risk, what is that cause and what is the best way to test for it?

Religious devoutness is rather hard to measure, as you point out, mostly because it’s rather hard to define. If there really is an underlying cause other than virginity, it should be a better predictor of divorce risk than virginity, provided that measuring it is reasonably straight forward. If there isn’t a better way to measure it, then marrying a virgin seems like a good idea.

Of course, even if studying and measuring such a factor on a statistical scale were difficult, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify it as a relationship litmus test that could be implemented on a personal level. However, I believe the answer has to go much deeper than religious devoutness simply because that means so many different things to different people and religions. [/quote]

No doubt, and virginity (if it is being held because the woman is saving herself for one lifetime partner) is probably a much better indicator of the value she places on the institution of marriage than religion. As time passes many of your Protestant faiths have become more and more lax in regards to the hard truths and the things that are supposed to set them apart from the non-believers. So “religious” peoples’ moral compasses can run a wide spectrum of ideas and many, many of them are not any more conducive to long term marriage than anyone else.

Another interesting point in one of the sources you posted earlier. It blames some of the increased divorce rate on conservative Christians devaluing women in their partnerships. Although this perception of the “submissive” wife in Christianity by the outside world is always some bastardized version the reality of what scripture says, that’s beside the point. Women raised in Christian homes have frequently seen strong men who commanded the respect of the strong women that they were married too. That is the perception that these women have of how a man should act and what they should be getting from a spouse. Then they get married and find out that the man they married doesn’t know how to command that respect and “submission” (I hate using that word because it brings inaccurate connotations with it). These modern men either act like asses and childish bullies, revert to the submissive role themselves, or try to play totally equal co-pilot which is a farce and ultimately always means that someone is the submissive no matter what anyone says otherwise. The women that grew up around what a man should become frustrated by the lack of a dominant male presence in their marriage and either seek it elsewhere (infidelity), assume the dominant role (creating resentment in the man and woman both), or say to hell with it and leave. Just my .02

Derek542 · January 23, 2015, 1:31pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
You bring up a lot of important issues with regards to the correlation between religion and divorce.

However, an important question remains unanswered: If virginity at marriage is only a co-symptom of some other underlying cause for a stark reduction in divorce risk, what is that cause and what is the best way to test for it?

Religious devoutness is rather hard to measure, as you point out, mostly because it’s rather hard to define. If there really is an underlying cause other than virginity, it should be a better predictor of divorce risk than virginity, provided that measuring it is reasonably straight forward. If there isn’t a better way to measure it, then marrying a virgin seems like a good idea.

Of course, even if studying and measuring such a factor on a statistical scale were difficult, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify it as a relationship litmus test that could be implemented on a personal level. However, I believe the answer has to go much deeper than religious devoutness simply because that means so many different things to different people and religions. [/quote]

No doubt, and virginity (if it is being held because the woman is saving herself for one lifetime partner) is probably a much better indicator of the value she places on the institution of marriage than religion. As time passes many of your Protestant faiths have become more and more lax in regards to the hard truths and the things that are supposed to set them apart from the non-believers. So “religious” peoples’ moral compasses can run a wide spectrum of ideas and many, many of them are not any more conducive to long term marriage than anyone else.

Another interesting point in one of the sources you posted earlier. It blames some of the increased divorce rate on conservative Christians devaluing women in their partnerships. Although this perception of the “submissive” wife in Christianity by the outside world is always some bastardized version the reality of what scripture says, that’s beside the point. Women raised in Christian homes have frequently seen strong men who commanded the respect of the strong women that they were married too. That is the perception that these women have of how a man should act and what they should be getting from a spouse. Then they get married and find out that the man they married doesn’t know how to command that respect and “submission” (I hate using that word because it brings inaccurate connotations with it). These modern men either act like asses and childish bullies, revert to the submissive role themselves, or try to play totally equal co-pilot which is a farce and ultimately always means that someone is the submissive no matter what anyone says otherwise. The women that grew up around what a man should become frustrated by the lack of a dominant male presence in their marriage and either seek it elsewhere (infidelity), assume the dominant role (creating resentment in the man and woman both), or say to hell with it and leave. Just my .02[/quote]

Spot-on, in my opinion.[/quote]
Agreed

EmilyQ · January 24, 2015, 1:25am

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
You bring up a lot of important issues with regards to the correlation between religion and divorce.

However, an important question remains unanswered: If virginity at marriage is only a co-symptom of some other underlying cause for a stark reduction in divorce risk, what is that cause and what is the best way to test for it?

Religious devoutness is rather hard to measure, as you point out, mostly because it’s rather hard to define. If there really is an underlying cause other than virginity, it should be a better predictor of divorce risk than virginity, provided that measuring it is reasonably straight forward. If there isn’t a better way to measure it, then marrying a virgin seems like a good idea.

Of course, even if studying and measuring such a factor on a statistical scale were difficult, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify it as a relationship litmus test that could be implemented on a personal level. However, I believe the answer has to go much deeper than religious devoutness simply because that means so many different things to different people and religions. [/quote]

No doubt, and virginity (if it is being held because the woman is saving herself for one lifetime partner) is probably a much better indicator of the value she places on the institution of marriage than religion. As time passes many of your Protestant faiths have become more and more lax in regards to the hard truths and the things that are supposed to set them apart from the non-believers. So “religious” peoples’ moral compasses can run a wide spectrum of ideas and many, many of them are not any more conducive to long term marriage than anyone else.

Another interesting point in one of the sources you posted earlier. It blames some of the increased divorce rate on conservative Christians devaluing women in their partnerships. Although this perception of the “submissive” wife in Christianity by the outside world is always some bastardized version the reality of what scripture says, that’s beside the point. Women raised in Christian homes have frequently seen strong men who commanded the respect of the strong women that they were married too. That is the perception that these women have of how a man should act and what they should be getting from a spouse. Then they get married and find out that the man they married doesn’t know how to command that respect and “submission” (I hate using that word because it brings inaccurate connotations with it). These modern men either act like asses and childish bullies, revert to the submissive role themselves, or try to play totally equal co-pilot which is a farce and ultimately always means that someone is the submissive no matter what anyone says otherwise. The women that grew up around what a man should become frustrated by the lack of a dominant male presence in their marriage and either seek it elsewhere (infidelity), assume the dominant role (creating resentment in the man and woman both), or say to hell with it and leave. Just my .02[/quote]

Spot-on, in my opinion.[/quote]
Agreed [/quote]

Even I largely agree.

Topic		Replies	Views
My Self Esteem Has Never Been Lower Off Topic	222	25685	September 29, 2015
Keeping a Girl from Saying 'Well Expect to Pay for It' Off Topic	366	22158	October 6, 2012
American Sugar Daddy Convention Off Topic	171	12682	September 3, 2013
Call Girls/Dating Sites/Ashley Madison etc. Off Topic	61	15093	May 24, 2012
Girl Attempts To Sleep With 100,000 Men Off Topic	95	22865	February 4, 2017

Related topics