[quote]on edge wrote:
Does anyone really believe they could have sex with someone and not even remember it?
[/quote]
Pre-marriage, marriage and extra-marital = yes.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Yogi wrote:
do you guys remember what age you got to when getting laid just became part of your life and not something you felt the need to subtly brag about?[/quote]
I was 9. [/quote]
Age not length you stallion.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
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]
Jesus I hate coming out of a blackout to find you’ve stopped sucking my cock to run off and rant on the interwebz!
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
semi-related… every girl ive dated initiated ‘the number’ conversation. [/quote]
6,000
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Even YOU?
[/quote]
I’m way to durnk to read all the prior posts…will agreeing help me get some EmilyQ Va Jay Jay?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Even YOU?
[/quote]
EVEN ME.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Even YOU?
[/quote]
EVEN ME.[/quote]
Loud and monotone. Perfect!
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Even YOU?
[/quote]
EVEN ME.[/quote]
Loud and monotone. Perfect![/quote]
Actually, I think it should properly have been “EVEN I.”
[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]
I think it’s a very good .02 cents, and I especially agree with the last portion of your statement. These “modern” men/women that you speak of are a completely different breed of human than the norm of 40-30 years ago. As a society we have progressed into a direction of diversity, and pro choice. Which I think comes with new successes (women are making more progress in their careers, more choice…etc. etc.) but with new failures as well (An increase in divorce rate, domestic bliss ignorance…) The question is whether or not this is towards the right direction, “right” already being a subjective manner. A question which everyone will have their own opinion of. I say if it works for you it works, if it does not find out why and make it work