Men prefer not to tread on already treaded territory, if you catch my drift. That’s not to say a body count is an instant no, but it makes us think a bit. I tend to say that 0-3 is fine, but more than that tends to get egregious. We don’t want someone like Bonnie Blue or whatever her name was
Mainly want someone who treats sex seriously, as in only for long term relationships after we bonded and trust each other enough. Higher body counts tend to mean they don’t in this view point, so I wouldn’t date them. Virgins specifically though I like more cause I am one, so being the first for both of just feels a bit more special and less pressure to be good at it.
body count means nothing to me. i lowkey had a hoe phase in my early years of college. how am i gonna look down on somebody with a body count when i went and did the same thing lmao. i don’t think sex should be a consensus for what the relationship will turn out to be. i care more about how the person acted in previous relationships, to me THATS what’ll tell me what the relationship could be, idc about how much sex they’ve had
this is honestly really surprising to hear/ see in these comments. i guess we’re in very different social circles. i don’t think anyone has ever asked me my body count as like a serious judge of character to decide if they wanted to date me. my # is high and ive dated everyone i’ve ever wanted.
There are reasons deeper than petty power dynamics/and inexperience that makes relationships between two virgins most desirable, primarily that those relationships tend to last longer and have a much greater degree of stability. Why is it's own discussion but either way it is an observable fact of relationships.
lower divorce rates don’t necessarily equal happier or more stable/ functional relationships. they may just reflect cultural or religious pressure to remain married no matter what. i mean isn’t it kind of obvious that these numbers among virgin couples might be shaped by religious beliefs about divorce?
I'm not. Catholism being your background is definitely makes a lot of sense. Obviously sexual purity culture has had it's consequences within the Catholic church. I ask you this, if you think the church wasn't so strict abt purity culture do you think they wouldn't have all those scandals involving young boys? I'm all for waiting for whenever your ready, but supressing sexual desires never leads to a healthy relationship with sex.
I think it’s very hard to narrow it down, but there are aspects of it that can be considered “gross”. If I know my partner has had several sexual partners, it’s going to feel weird being “just another on the list” y’know? And that also leads into relationship issues, because if she’s had all these men and broken up with (or not pursued past sexual intent) all of them, then I would struggle to guess why I’d be different.
I am not here you shame you, however when you insinuate premarital sex is at all compatible with the established Christian sexual morality that has existed since jesus was still on earth, such heresy is unacceptable. You can sin in this way if you choose to, but at the very least recognize it for what it is instead of twisting it into something good. To repent you must first recognize your sin.
i never said premarital sex wasn't a sin. i said that you shouldn't shame others Christians and think of them of less of a Christian because they have premarital sex. You literally said the oldest Christian traditions would disagree implying that someone having premarital sex would make them less Christian even if they repented and sought forgiveness. That's not what I was thought. I was thought God loves us, and Jesus died for our sins. He understands we aren't perfect and will forgive us
if we repent, regardless of what the sin is. It's only human to shame others for sinning and thinking of them as less of a Christian. It's exactly why so many Christians like what hellrasier said don't get divorces, because of the stigma, that Christians like you uphold of the judgment of their faith.
Now I'm confused as to why you are trying to justify premarital sex with this second line if you agreed it was sinful. Me saying that the oldest Christian traditions disagree was to say that they disagree with a conception of moral sex that includes premarital sex or even sex between spouces for any end other than conception. If you are going to apparently try and justify immoral sex in this way I feel it natural that I would come to the conclusion you do not believe it is sinful.
Cyan: I never once said sin makes someone less Christian, the implication was the the traditional conception of moral sex within the church is incompatible with both premarital sex and sex for any end but conception. Red: I know you were not taught these things if you are nondenominational. As Christians even though it is true our sins are to be forgiven we should strive to live holy lives free from sin (or as best as we can do with our fallen nature) Yellow: You are putting words in my mouth.
Okay, so this is just wrong. 1 Corinthians 7:4, states that a husband and wife have the right to each other's bodies and shouldn't stray away from sexual relations. Only to give time to pray, but they should came back together as a marital unit to avoid infidelity. So it's not a sin to have sex for pleasure as a married couple. I'm also not "justifying" premarital sex. It's a sin, but like all sins it can be forgiven, so that's why i don't see it as a problem if someone wants to have sex
and i don't respect others who do have premarital sex or sin in other ways that don't hurt anyone else and aren't affecting my life directly. such as being openly queer. im not reading all the stuff you highlighted bc it isn't worth my time. it's probably the same "holier than thou" crap you've been spewing abt your strict Christian ideology. I've said it multiple times, that I believe in a God who forgives, and if that isn't good enough for you then I don't really care.