Video: 10 arguments against pre-marital sex

or fornication, if you dislike PC terms.

Pleasantly surprised by this logic.

Yes, promiscuity x divorce risk must be studied more, actually. Much more. One major issue mathematically is how few promiscuous marry AT ALL to even qualify for the studies so marital rate too (since that’s important information for people). Then psychological issues round out the methodology for the ones that predispose to those behaviors in the first place (not a free choice, a compulsion) and muddy the waters in the non-pathological population (i.e. not personality disorders).

It seems to operate by weakening pair bonds until the person is incapable of making them.

I know AC would agree with me that an amygdala atrophy study in the promiscuous and also divorced groups would be illuminating. Imagine if you can check divorce risk with a brain scan before marriage!

And once developed, can it ever shrink or is gain permanent?

comment

This is an old truth that has been only relatively recently abandoned. The reasons for all Christian principles are entirely practical. There is a saying ‘you are not punished for your sins, but by them

The big lie spoken by manwhores in particular is that ruining themselves emotionally (and physically) will make them better husbands for the right woman. The feminists carbon copied that rationalization, it’s still bullshit. How does adding psychological issues make you better in any way? And why should your spouse have to clean up the messes left by a trail of people who hurt you? And if you were remorseless and mistreated, abandoned them, what’s to stop you doing it to your spouse? Why reward that with love and fidelity?

Some people are incapable of loving and therefore don’t deserve to be loved.

Unequal yokes are abusive.

In romantic/sexual relationships, what doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.

“Muh Experience” is the idiot’s way of claiming that learning everything wrong will make them right. It’s insanity. This isn’t a pop quiz you can redo, it’s your life; it isn’t a game you can respawn into ad nauseum, you are learning patterns and reactions and if they don’t work, you’re far, far worse off than the person with NO “experience” – this is Dunning-Kruger.

Experience of failure means you’re wrong. You’re the common denominator.

The definition of insanity is the man who fucks around and wonders why he can’t find marriage material.

Hook-up culture has trained men into being useless husbands, they have the opposite required qualities.

To put it crassly, they’re saying “I shit in the pool, why is the water brown?”

Where have all the good women gone? Well, how many women have you slept with? Subtract those from the communal pool. Now extrapolate.

No, you can’t Have It All. You never could, it was a Boomer marketing gimmick. But the economy (and GDP) make more money from cads than dads. The politicians are playing them. They don’t care about you. They don’t care if you’re a genetic dead-end.

These useful idiots would literally argue the man who fucks 100 women and finds no love (0/100) is better husband material than a man who fucked zero women and also found no love yet, the unproven quantity. Narcissists lie.

Lust doesn’t lead to love, it leads to personal disgust. Hollywood lied so you’d sell your soul buying their stuff to fill the emptiness of your single life. They can’t admit it without the self-loathing attacking them so they blame the “thots” in standard projection and denial of agency. If you’re so easily led into temptation, you’re too weak to call yourself a man.

If you treat your love life like a game, women will see you as a joke.

Sexual immorality in the Bible

Just a reminder for the PUAs lurking. You are not traditional and certainly not Christian. You’re not even cucks, you’re not right-wing at all, let alone Alt Right.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+6&version=NIV

Sexual Immorality

12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]

If degenerate, if r-selected, not right-wing!

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. 

Louder for the fake Bible-thumpers at the back.

Therefore honor God with your bodies.”

No fornication. It’s a hard rule. An absolute.

You don’t get to play Call out the Degenerate, when you are one.

Consent is religious, not individual

reposting a thing I explained elsewhere

smug

sexual consent does have a standard – the marriage signature, so the feminist permission slip is trying to replace the marital one
and arguably that’s why premarital sex is rape, or at least not actually sex – because there’s no such thing as consensus morality, people think they can make up their own rules
two people can agree to kill and cannibalize one of them, it’s consensual by modern legal standard but it isn’t moral in the spiritual sense
but consent isn’t verbal, it’s always been witnessed like the marriage contract, by the church
so consent to fornication is a nonsense
because consent is granted legitimacy by god via the church ceremony, specifically
you don’t have permission to give away your body, except in marriage

“You do not belong to yourself.” 1 Cor 6:19

consent without religious jurisdiction is given in bad faith, they promise to take one another without taking responsibility, rendering it legally null and void aka rape

another reason church and state cannot be separated
it’s a myth
such a place does not exist
every state has an official religion
atheists want to live in a Christian state surrounded by Christian people
the state’s law depends on the moral absolutes (good, evil, guilty, innocent) of religion

what’s the use of swearing to tell the truth in court, in an atheist state?
a vow of what? an oath to what?

Lock/key is a poor analogy

It doesn’t prove anything.

Except the degeneracy of fornication.

The premise is unintentionally hilarious. What’s the prior here? Logically?

Women are supposed to limit themselves, as if reproduction is a sin (Bible says No) and men can do what they want (Bible says No). Angels fell for fornication. It’s up there with rape. In fact…

If women are supposed to keep their legs shut for their ‘owners’ (husbands), any man who beds a woman and doesn’t marry her is a rapist.

The Bible does imply this too.

It used to be on the law books as things like Breach of Promise. Aka it used to be illegal to defraud/lie to get sex historically too. Rape by fraud would be traditional to reinstate.

She is incapable of consenting except to be wed, in a church, with her previous owner’s (father’s) permission.

They’re implicitly arguing against the Sexual Revolution. A feminist event that allows them to sleep around. Because they defend their ‘right’ to sleep around… (not endogenous, not a right).

Fallacy of Poor analogy.

They’re implicitly saying that all fornication is rape and sex is otherwise stolen from women by criminal men. We’re helpless. As in, we can’t consent to the guy using the metaphor either. It’s an argument to female hypoagency. Also sexist to men, as all rapists and aggressors who only want one thing.

The sexist bias of infidelity stats

I wanted to post this.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/percent-of-female-infidelity-based-on-number-of-premarital-partners/

Alongside the male counterpart, which would be scientific.

One problem.

The male data doesn’t exist. Making the entire concept worthless for discussion. That isn’t science. That’s a tally chart. Numbers of douchebags in a club. Not science. No wider implication or logical meaning.

SMG understands the pain of women in STEM watching feminists talk about STEM

I wanted to study this. I wanted to compare this. Anyone discussing this subject based on that data isn’t even wrong.

You cannot claim anything about a population when you only study half of it.
Much medical data is based on male-only clinical trials. Also false. You can’t say anything about studying the female body – when you neglect to study the female body. redpills should know people are different (HBD), it would be like saying all men are Jack the Ripper, for an extreme example

Applied to this case, you cannot claim anything about the variables ‘studied’ (infidelity, premarital sex – a thing that requires two people) when the methodology wouldn’t be accepted in a science fair project.

I love this suit and everything about this demeanour

Does ANYONE have this data? 

ANYONE?

I’m not just bellyaching pointlessly, I really wanted the data and it pisses me off there are (((People))) who dare insult women and draw specious conclusions about avoiding us (MGTOW is male feminism, fish meet bicycle), on the basis of something that has been covered up in men, by other men*. They have combined statistics of temptation elsewhere, but NOTHING on the consequences of male, pre-marital sex. 

If the topic is ridiculous, you shouldn’t have studied it in anyone.

Science requires a balanced standard. Balanced = both.
If you studied bee stings, that doesn’t qualify you to say wasps don’t sting or that wasps are somehow better in light of a study that …doesn’t study them. Non sequitur. Deliberate fraud.

Oh what, do you think they just happened not to ask any men? By complete coincidence? But sex was a variable in report of this tally chart? [Literally if you look it’s just a tally chart, but I’ve seen the manosphere treat this one biased data collection with the reverence of scientism**, so I checked it out to learn something… Tally charts are not science. You need to do more calculations with the data e.g. significance, but those cannot be done without a sound method. Numbers don’t make it good math, and they bang on about superior male IQ too, Jesus…. no wonder they’re a laughing stock.]

inb4 triggered at a word feminists also use because they colonized simple English

Sexist because it blames one sex but acts like the other, also complicit in said act, is blameless. Pretty straight definition there.

** behold idiots of reddit and the people beaten by their experience

“A man’s sexual history has no effect on his marital happiness” he claims baselessly. No effect, the title says. No study though, meaning it’s your opinion.

A selection of comments.

I love how it’s always a fault with the women.
There are two people in every relationship, but the men aren’t to blame for any problems? They don’t have to take responsibility for how it turns out? Their sex lives “have no effect” on how happy their marriages are (even though the studies prove otherwise)? Nah… just the women. Those bitches are all the same, and they’re the ones who fuck it up.”
“Also “practice makes perfect” is a fallacy when it comes to sex. You don’t need a ton of partners to be good at sex, in fact some of the sluttiest girls I’ve fucked were the worst. Everyone’s body is different. Knowing what the average person will like because you’ve practiced with many can make you pretty good in bed, but nothing like learning how to fuck one person really well.”
People are different ~ HBD, common sense, reality.
“… No? Cocks don’t leach potential from women like vampires. Sleeping with people does not limit your ability to love.” They claim this about women implicitly, as a sexual purity – moral purity argument, but not about men, because male sexual misdeeds are twisted as ‘experience’ and ‘prowess’.
Ultimate point: “One could ask the exact same question of men.”
“Where is the proof that man’s sexual history has no effect on his martial happiness?”

Nowhere. In fact, the opposite.

eyeroll jessica jones omg wtf shut up

If they ignore Burden of Proof, it goes away!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201304/the-lingering-psychological-effects-multiple-sex-partners
The available data does link marital unhappiness with male pre-marital sex but I was looking for infidelity risk or marital stability data.
It’s all about WOMEN.
family-studies.org/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
Evil demon Liliths! Vagina magic making men propose!
It isn’t even linear! There isn’t even a clear correlation here! In a female-only sample?
“previously, women with two partners prior to marriage had the highest divorce rates.”
Less =/= better. aka redditfags are wrong and cannot read data as well as space memes
It’s really about an extraneous variable, religiosity.
How ironic that atheist men are rubbing this in the nose of Christian women… while claiming Original Sin (which is really Adam’s fault for not warning Eve, as previously covered).

So much category error, very wrong.

Women do this, THEREFORE Men blah blah blah.
Yet they’re also saying men and women are utterly, completely different ,polar really, which you’d think makes a category error impossible…. sure, if you have a brain.

re female promiscuity, as the only one studied:
“Having two partners may lead to uncertainty, but having a few more apparently leads to greater clarity about the right man to marry. The odds of divorce are lowest with zero or one premarital partners, but otherwise sowing one’s oats seems compatible with having a lasting marriage.”
“This is the result most readers of this brief probably expected: a lot of partners means a lot of baggage, which makes a stable marriage less tenable. It’s also entirely likely that the correlation is spurious, the product of certain personal characteristics. For instance, people who suffered childhood sexual abuse are more likely to have extensive sexual histories. Childhood abuse also increases the odds of a problematic marriage.”
These variables also apply to men. Someone, please study them.
It’s about marital stability, not blaming the women before you’ve even married Ms Imaginary in your head.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/sex-marriage-premarital-sex-divorce-rate-sex-partners-first-comes-loves-then-390269
*Nicholas H. Wolfinger, a professor in the University of Utah’s Department of Family and Consumer Studies and an adjunct professor in the Department of Sociology, in a statement.
Wolfinger looked at the five-year divorce rate for over 10,000 women, and took into consideration how many sexual partners the women reported having prior to the marriage. ”
Sociology, men as nameless (partner???) victim. A man only studying the blame of women. Not biased at all.
As the science publications overtly finger-points;
So, what does this all mean?

Wolfinger’s study has several limitations. It did not take into account the sexual behavior of men in marriages, and its effects on divorce.

Rather [they are being sarcastic there], women’s sexual behaviors were closely observed, and linked to high or low divorce rates. This can portray women’s premarital sexual behaviors as solely responsible for helping or harming a marriage.”
It goes on to connect ‘experience’, as in prowess, with marital unhappiness. That or fear of commitment.

To take another topic, both the unattractive and attractive are studied and COMPARED.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/attractive-people-success-statistics/
lookism has more data than this topic

Academese translation.

limitations – it’s bullshit folks
into account – no science here
men – also involved
effects – causes
rather – to cover his own fuck-ups
closely observed – blamed for everything
portray – lie and gaslight, frame
solely responsible – the problem and let people like him off completely

I’m tired of adults blaming other adults for their mistakes.

If the woman was Satan you shouldn’t have married her.
Nobody is forcing you to marry.
How you behave counts, marriage isn’t the finish line but the starting one.

Video: Muslim immigrants demanding sex now (what religion?)

I wanna heave.

Everytime I see genetics and brain studies

It’ll be like that GOT meme: Too old. Too old. Too old.
They’ll be wanting a virgin each time, I suppose. We’ll literally be expected to sacrifice virgins to these slime. This is what happens when you apply any sort of entitlement to sex, it becomes a demand at the expense of others. Like a girl is simply disposable as a razor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrBB1FTb5VY

h/t: https://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/muslim-migrants-demand-sex-problem-problem-problem-here-points-to-groin-balls-is-very-big/

The magical disappearing religion. Schrodinger’s pre-marital sex. Allah can’t see when it’s White Meat apparently. We’re supposed to give up our little girls for a monstrous voracious satyr because he asked us nicely, because he doesn’t believe in consent, condoms or that women are people too. Blue balls are actually pelvic congestion, both sexes get that and it resolves itself in your sleep, fucking taqiyya filth.

“Make sex with anyone – or anything.”

Then fuck off in the direction of where you came from and marry one of your own women, Europe isn’t your brothel.

i hope you fucking choke love heartbreak

Study: Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract

h/t http://socialpathology.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

Teachman didn’t plot the risk by the number of sexual partners, merely that more than one and in different relationship contexts, so I have simply marked the range of his findings. Note, the really disturbing one still holds. A soon as a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50%.

What man would take those odds?

Update: you know this isn’t scientific, right?

They only studied women. There’s no smoke without fire?

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/hatefacts-to-trigger/

Eventually we’ll be able to arrest people for malicious disease transmission via their tinder account. STDs can be traced.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/the-sexist-bias-of-infidelity-stats/

Your fetishes are already in their database.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/28/someone-scraped-40000-tinder-selfies-to-make-a-facial-dataset-for-ai-experiments/