Unchaste Marriages?

[Queen B]

It's a bit hypocrite to ask you wife be virgins if on your side you had sex with several women before.

Of course it is hypocritical. But its only unworthy. If a man thinks that its okay for him to screw around but the woman should stay chaste then he is not worthy any of your time.

[Harley]

That's the capitalistic approach to marriage. It reminds me of prostitution, trading sex for money. Marriage should be about family-building IMO.

Family building is one end goal, but not all people who are married want to have children. I think it would be disastrous for one person who wanted to have children as a priority who marries another who does not want to have children. Those end goals would be hard to compromise and stressful overall.

I do not consider it prostitution if a person chooses one out of two suitors because one has more like goals as self. It would be prostitution if one married for benefits, rather than similar lifestyle and beliefs.

It's the duty and responsibility of your biological father to protect your virginity until marriage.

But yes, I believe even rape ought to exclude young women from traditional marriage.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is or who's to blame.

I simply disagree with your opinion and do not seek to change your mind or persuade you otherwise, as it would be pointless unless I wanted to enter into a marriage with you. I am sure we are agreeable on the fact that we do not harbor any intentions to be married or in a relationship.

If the wife is barren then she is still the husband's responsibility.

I meant she is still a virgin and he has not broken her hymen. It would be difficult to see if she can have children if they haven't done the deed fully yet.

[Also]

Marriage can still happen if the female is not a virgin, but ideally she'd be a virgin yeah. It's funny that while I am conservative on plenty of things, and broadly perceived as a "mysoginistic" here I find myself more liberal on that than the majority of males.

I was on the minority of males who voted they could marry an ex-porn star on LBM's thread.

[Longbowman]

No, the two sexes are not made to operate in the same way. A woman already invaded is virgin soil turned.

What're you afraid of, not plumbing to the deepest depths she's ever been plumbed? Chances are she's had a tampon in her, even if she is a virgin, bro. Either way, stuff's been up there. The fact a flesh and blood cock might have been one of those things is ultimately irrelevant unless you're poorly equipped or it left a li'l sum'n sum'n in the way of a baby or an STD but it should be pretty easy to check for those.

Your idea of the two sexes is - heh - mid to late Neolithic, my swarthy friend. Evidence from early Neolithic and Mesolithic sites yields no strong evidence for 'traditional gender roles.' They would have come gradually with farming anyway.

The Bible is aight with marrying non-virgins as long as they lost their virginity to previous husband or some such. In fact Judaism is all about marrying your brother's widow, and that's from the Old Testament on which all religion is ultimately based. Plus, the Catholic Church says you can absolve your sins by telling them to a priest, so Unome's grasp on tradition and religion is once again inherently flawed. Whilst, of course, the number of 'eligible non-virgins' under a strict interpretation of the Bible is small, the fact that the Bible is a-ok with it in principle. The historical record is chock-a-block full of it too, from King David to Henry VIII to Edward VII to the Marquis du Sade to Christ to Mohammed. Shit dude, fucking Mohammed thinks you're being too conservative.

The idea of women as property is pretty recent and not even universal, quite a lot of cultures (including Rabbinical Jewish, holla) base their idea of citizenship around women, and some, such as Tibetan, go even further, allowing women to marry multiple men but not vice versa - some cultures in India and elsewhere are the same. What is traditional for these cultures, which form a significant minority of the world's population, and are representative of older, more ancient, more primitive, less degenerate traditions, is clearly anathemic to what Unome believes is 'universally traditional' even if what he believe is traditional really were traditional, which is isn't.

Anyhow, the both of you clearly have your little insecurities, but please don't step up with your misguided beliefs about the rest of humanity and our sacred ancestors, who would be looking at you all squinty eyed, except one or two. The only people who have ever insisted on virginity as a prerequisite for marriage have been insecure individuals.

[Sockorer]

In one word. Unideal.

[Dylan]

"The Internet"

[Memes123]

Yes, I believe chastity is extremely important for woman and men. There are some women out there that are willing to do this today. But what about men? Why are men brainwashed that if they don't have sex with a million girls, they are losers

I value chastity a lot! And I want to let men know that it isn't only loser, weird, obese men that chose to be virgin till marriage, attractive and normal men can too. Has anyone heard of Sean Lowe, he is the cutest Virgin out there .., Men and women: please choose to a virgin !! It makes you look like a good and descent person. I choose to be a virgin till marriage... I want my husband to do the same

Sean Lowe (isn't he sooo adorable )

[Herr Abubu]

I think any marriage will fail unless the marriage partners have similar end goals.

Marriage to some degree is also like a business partnership. There are expectations for either partner and hopefully they can come to an agreement on the direction of the relationship before marrying.

In terms of the marriage itself, my virginity was taken by force. That means any marriage I had or will engage in will be uneven, according to you. I disagree with that notion.

What do you think of marriages in which they've been married for years(maybe like 2-3 years) and they haven't fully copulated? Is that considered an uneven foundation?

Virginity is more of a mental state of being than a physical state of being; a victim of rape is not impure of mind.

[Also]

Yes, I believe chastity is extremely important for woman and men. There are some women out there that are willing to do this today. But what about men? Why are men brainwashed that if they don't have sex with a million girls, they are losers

I value chastity a lot! And I want to let men know that it isn't only loser, weird, obese men that chose to be virgin till marriage, attractive and normal men can too. Has anyone heard of Sean Lowe, he is the cutest Virgin out there .., Men and women: please choose to a virgin !! It makes you look like a good and descent person. I choose to be a virgin till marriage... I want my husband to do the same

Sean Lowe (isn't he sooo adorable )

That's interesting and rare.

If you don't mind aswering questions. How old are you?

[Sockorer]

What're you afraid of, not plumbing to the deepest depths she's ever been plumbed? Chances are she's had a tampon in her, even if she is a virgin, bro. Either way, stuff's been up there. The fact a flesh and blood cock might have been one of those things is ultimately irrelevant unless you're poorly equipped or it left a li'l sum'n sum'n in the way of a baby or an STD but it should be pretty easy to check for those.

Your idea of the two sexes is - heh - mid to late Neolithic, my swarthy friend. Evidence from early Neolithic and Mesolithic sites yields no strong evidence for 'traditional gender roles.' They would have come gradually with farming anyway.

The Bible is aight with marrying non-virgins as long as they lost their virginity to previous husband or some such. In fact Judaism is all about marrying your brother's widow, and that's from the Old Testament on which all religion is ultimately based. Plus, the Catholic Church says you can absolve your sins by telling them to a priest, so Unome's grasp on tradition and religion is once again inherently flawed. Whilst, of course, the number of 'eligible non-virgins' under a strict interpretation of the Bible is small, the fact the Bible is a-ok with it in principle. The historical record is chock-a-block full of it too, from King David to Henry VIII to Edward VII to the Marquis du Sade.

"We should adopt the gender roles of Early Neolithic and Mesolithic savages"

"Chaste marriages aren't ideal because muh bible"

The idea of women as property is pretty recent and not even universal, quite a lot of cultures (including Rabbinical Jewish, holla) base their idea of citizenship around women, and some, such as Tibetan, go even further, allowing women to marry multiple men but not vice versa - some cultures in India and elsewhere are the same. What is traditional for these cultures, which form a significant minority of the world's population, and are representative of older, more ancient, more primitive, less degenerate traditions, is clearly anathemic to what Unome believes is 'universally traditional' even if what he believe is traditional really were traditional, which is isn't.

The idea of well defined property norms is very recent. And again
"We should adopt the gender roles of savages"

Anyhow, the both of you clearly have your little insecurities, but please don't step up with your misguided beliefs about the rest of humanity and our sacred ancestors, who would be looking at you all squinty eyed, except one or two. The only people who have ever insisted on virginity as a prerequisite for marriage have been insecure individuals.

Implying feeling insecure is a bad thing.

Is feeling insecure when there is a shark in the water a bad thing?