Being a woman's "first"

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
On the other hand, being on the receiving end of a spouse who releases 25 or 30 years of pent-up passions on their spouse doesn't sound like a bad thing, does it? :)

I was a virgin at marriage. I can't imagine my wife accusing me of having low sexual desire, though. :) In lots of cultures its the norm for men and women, or just the women, to be virgins until marriage, and some of those countries have couples reproducing like rabbits. I don't think your theory is an accurate one.

A woman having multiple sexual partners before marriage correlates with an increased chance of divorce. There are some statistics available on this issue. It does make sense that a woman who kept herself wilfully from having sex might be less likely to find a boyfriend on the side, to try to get into swinging and weird stuff like that, etc. It's not a guarantee. It makes sense that men would be the same way.

I suppose that's a possibility, sure. :) And if it actually worked out that way - that would be a great thing.

I tend to have a different perspective on human nature, though. My observation of people has always been that they gravitate toward the status quo. People like what's familiar, what they're accustomed to, what they know.

...and in this type of situation with an aging virgin - what they know is a sexless life. They long since learned how to quell the desire and make it somewhat irrelevant in their lives (or at least not a primary motivating factor). So I'd expect someone (once again beyond a certain age) to subconsciously work to maintain that.
 
Upvote 0

HerCrazierHalf

closet atheist
Aug 11, 2014
293
74
SoCal, US
✟29,273.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
On the other hand, being on the receiving end of a spouse who releases 25 or 30 years of pent-up passions on their spouse doesn't sound like a bad thing, does it? :)
I think stuff like this to varying degrees is what side of the posters are worried about our dealt with.
I Regret Remaining A Virgi'n Until I Got Married | Nollywood Magazine | Nollywood Magazine

I was a virgin at marriage. I can't imagine my wife accusing me of having low sexual desire, though. :) In lots of cultures its the norm for men and women, or just the women, to be virgins until marriage, and some of those countries have couples reproducing like rabbits. I don't think your theory is an accurate one.
Great. It worked in part because it's a choice you made due reasons that made sense to you. Not because others said you should. I think that's a key distinction one we all need to make.

Btw, many of the countries you are probably thinking of either do not have widely available contraceptives or they are discouraged.

A woman having multiple sexual partners before marriage correlates with an increased chance of divorce. There are some statistics available on this issue. It does make sense that a woman who kept herself wilfully from having sex might be less likely to find a boyfriend on the side, to try to get into swinging and weird stuff like that, etc. It's not a guarantee. It makes sense that men would be the same way.
Those stats do show those correlations. Women who have no previous partners or only their (future) husbands have lower divorce rates. But this also correlates with religious practice among other factors, imo.

But there are plenty of reasons why marriages make it or don't.
To a great extent, each person needs to decide what works for them as the same path is not viable for everyone.
 
Upvote 0

HerCrazierHalf

closet atheist
Aug 11, 2014
293
74
SoCal, US
✟29,273.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Romans 6, written to believers says, 'what fruit had you then in those things of which you are now ashamed.'

It is appropriate for believers to be ashamed of past sins.
Well, if you feel that way about past sins that's fine I suppose. My disagreement was about the concept that others should feel as you do. But I'll let you have the last word on that point as to not derail this thread.

To the OP,
I get the feeling that you are considering this on the basis of what you perceive to be the expectations of others. It sounds like you have some hesitation. If so, then wait until you are ready (be that your wedding night or not).

Yes, it will shrink your dating pool but so do silly things like hair style or height or college degrees. Perhaps your future husband is one who may actually prefer your "inexperience". As they say "There is a lid for every pot"
 
Upvote 0

leothelioness

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2006
10,306
4,234
Southern US
✟112,055.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Well, if you feel that way about past sins that's fine I suppose. My disagreement was about the concept that others should feel as you do. But I'll let you have the last word on that point as to not derail this thread.

To the OP,
I get the feeling that you are considering this on the basis of what you perceive to be the expectations of others. It sounds like you have some hesitation. If so, then wait until you are ready (be that your wedding night or not).

Yes, it will shrink your dating pool but so do silly things like hair style or height or college degrees. Perhaps your future husband is one who may actually prefer your "inexperience". As they say "There is a lid for every pot"

I'm not talking so much about virginity as I am general inexperience. Virginity is no great issue to me. I've never placed much value on it.

But, I have my answer from reading all the replies. I'll just keep that information to myself and will only admit it if I am asked directly (I might not even then). Otherwise it's not important and will serve no purpose to be honest.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
On the other hand, being on the receiving end of a spouse who releases 25 or 30 years of pent-up passions on their spouse doesn't sound like a bad thing, does it? :)

I think that depends a LOT on exactly HOW they went about accomplishing that.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
To the OP:

Just be sure to discuss this topic AT LENGTH with anyone you are seriously thinking about marrying.

For some guys it could be a total turn-on while for others it could be a deal breaker. Every person comes to the wedding with different expectations and experiences.
 
Upvote 0

Hetta

I'll find my way home
Jun 21, 2012
16,925
4,875
the here and now
✟64,923.00
Country
France
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
To the OP:

Just be sure to discuss this topic AT LENGTH with anyone you are seriously thinking about marrying.

For some guys it could be a total turn-on while for others it could be a deal breaker. Every person comes to the wedding with different expectations and experiences.

I'm sure that was just a mistake on the word, but it's the marriage that matters, not the wedding. I'll remove this if you want me to but I make that correction on the basis that SO many people (not this OP) are focused only on a wedding and the "big day" that they forget the 30-40-50 years that come afterwards. My own son is marrying in May of this year and everything is about the wedding, the wedding, the wedding to where I am tired of hearing about it, and very little on what comes afterwards - the married life. That is where the focus belongs.

One wedding night soon dispatches of virginity on either side. It's over in a moment. The rest of your life with that person is not. (Hopefully)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm sure that was just a mistake on the word, but it's the marriage that matters, not the wedding.
No mistake on the word. I originally had "marriage" and changed it before posting.

You come to the wedding with expectations. In the marriage those expectations hit the cold hard light of reality. Some fly and others crash and burn.

The time to talk about that stuff is BEFORE the wedding; not have to start this conversation after you are already married.
 
Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
4,760
3,103
New England
✟192,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A woman having multiple sexual partners before marriage correlates with an increased chance of divorce. There are some statistics available on this issue.

Statistics 101: correlation does not equal causation. I just read a study that said nearly 100% of mass killers in the US in the last 20 years consumed one or more Coca-Cola drinks per day. By your logic, that would mean that Coca-Cola makes people mass murderers.

Considering north of 95% of people have had premarital sex, the fact that most people who get divorced had premarital sex is kind of a "well no duh." As is the realization that people who abstain from sex willfully most likely are of a conservative faith that also means that divorce is frowned upon and thus, they're less likely to divorce as a whole.

And not divorced doesn't equal happy, successful marriage. It just means they're not divorced.

Objectively speaking, if we were to review how many people attributed multiple pre-marital sex partners as the reason they divorced, you'd be talking single digit percentage of divorces.

I wasn't thinking about that. I didn't say the age of the hypothetical person in question, but let's make it 10 or 15 years of passion.

Regardless of it being 5, 10, or 35 years of pent up sexual passion, I find that idea to not only be not attractive, but also vaguely repulsive. I have no desire to be the person who is on the receiving end of a few decades of pent up sexual feelings or passions for somebody who I have only known maybe a year or two. I find it neither romantic or sweet. Frankly, it sounds like using a person for masturbation than any sort of intimate bond or expression of marital closeness.
 
Upvote 0

Hetta

I'll find my way home
Jun 21, 2012
16,925
4,875
the here and now
✟64,923.00
Country
France
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
No mistake on the word. I originally had "marriage" and changed it before posting.

You come to the wedding with expectations. In the marriage those expectations hit the cold hard light of reality. Some fly and others crash and burn.

The time to talk about that stuff is BEFORE the wedding; not have to start this conversation after you are already married.

So basically we're on the same wavelength. I agree.
 
Upvote 0

LinkH

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
8,602
669
✟43,833.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Statistics 101: correlation does not equal causation. I just read a study that said nearly 100% of mass killers in the US in the last 20 years consumed one or more Coca-Cola drinks per day. By your logic, that would mean that Coca-Cola makes people mass murderers.

No, that's not the same logic. There isn't much logical connection between cola and mass murder. But there is a relationship between guarding virginity, valuing marriage, and a lower divorce rate. You can look up the Teachman (1990) study in the journal of marriage and family studies if you want to look at the author's argument. I haven't looked at it for a long time.

As far as statistics go, statistics doesn't prove causation. There is one method that uses the word 'causation' but you can use it to argue for causation for some pretty silly things, too. Arguing for causation requires good theory and reasonable arguments, not just statistics.

I can't remember the source, but I recall reading that virginity before marriage correlates with measures of happiness after marriage as well. But I think it was a blog post about a survey. I don't remember reading about anything peer-reviewed. Not that that means that a survey's results aren't valuable.

I use words like correlate because I'm being careful, and I get into academic mode where you don't 'prove' anything with statistics, though news people might or regular folks might use terms like that.

Considering north of 95% of people have had premarital sex, the fact that most people who get divorced had premarital sex is kind of a "well no duh."

The academic journal articles that deal with these topics are more sophisticated than that. But when they compare virgins (and those who had only slept with their husbands prior to marriage, grouped together) with those who had had multiple partners before marriage, the cases of 'marital disruption' for those in the non-virgin group were much, much higher than for those in the virgin group.

I've seen a blog post by someone with a sociology background that took national data, Australian, I think, and showed a direct relationship between the number of premarital partners a woman had and the divorce rate, but it didn't have a statistical write up with it.

As is the realization that people who abstain from sex willfully most likely are of a conservative faith that also means that divorce is frowned upon and thus, they're less likely to divorce as a whole.

Lot's of people who go to the same churches fall into sin in this area, but profess the same basic beliefs. There could be something to the idea that those who actually keep their faith in one area are more likely to keep it in another area.

And not divorced doesn't equal happy, successful marriage. It just means they're not divorced.

The author of this post about an academic article might disagree.
Waiting Works: Couples Who Wait Report 22% Happier Marriages (and Better Sex!)

Objectively speaking, if we were to review how many people attributed multiple pre-marital sex partners as the reason they divorced, you'd be talking single digit percentage of divorces.

How is that relevant? If people divorce because their spouse is hard to get along with, are they going to be able to identify that this was caused by the way the parents treated the child at 3 years old? You don't always know all the reasons why your spouse is the way your spouse is?

Whatever the case, we should all love God and not sin against Him, and encourage others to do the same.


Regardless of it being 5, 10, or 35 years of pent up sexual passion, I find that idea to not only be not attractive, but also vaguely repulsive. I have no desire to be the person who is on the receiving end of a few decades of pent up sexual feelings or passions for somebody who I have only known maybe a year or two. I find it neither romantic or sweet. Frankly, it sounds like using a person for masturbation than any sort of intimate bond or expression of marital closeness.

I love my wife and I'm attracted to her, so the idea of being on the receiving end of her passion sounds like a good thing to me. It doesn't sound repulsive to me in the least.

You seem to be doing a lot of detailed thinking about my banter with eZoolander.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
4,760
3,103
New England
✟192,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, that's not the same logic. There isn't much logical connection between cola and mass murder. But there is a relationship between guarding virginity, valuing marriage, and a lower divorce rate. You can look up the Teachman (1990) study in the journal of marriage and family studies if you want to look at the author's argument. I haven't looked at it for a long time.

The basis of your argument conlmes from a nearly 30 year old study, featured by a religious conservative organization which is clearly espousing their agenda, not objective data and unbiased logic. The correlation exists because they say it does, not because it really does.

As far as statistics go, statistics doesn't prove causation. There is one method that uses the word 'causation' but you can use it to argue for causation for some pretty silly things, too. Arguing for causation requires good theory and reasonable arguments, not just statistics.

Exactly, which is why your insistence on using studies that link causation to statistical findings without good theory and sound arguments somewhat baffling.

I can't remember the source, but I recall reading that virginity before marriage correlates with measures of happiness after marriage as well. But I think it was a blog post about a survey. I don't remember reading about anything peer-reviewed. Not that that means that a survey's results aren't valuable.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

I use words like correlate because I'm being careful, and I get into academic mode where you don't 'prove' anything with statistics, though news people might or regular folks might use terms like that.

Not only does that make no sense, it contradicts what you have been saying to this point.

The academic journal articles that deal with these topics are more sophisticated than that. But when they compare virgins (and those who had only slept with their husbands prior to marriage, grouped together) with those who had had multiple partners before marriage, the cases of 'marital disruption' for those in the non-virgin group were much, much higher than for those in the virgin group.

But even if that were true, that doesn't mean that the issue is sex before marriage, as is evidenced by the inclusion of people who had premarital sex, but only with one person... They are lumped in with the virgins and, according to a blog, still experiencing no "marital disruption." This goes to undermine the idea that premarital sex causes divorces and unhappy marriages.

If the study broke down the number of people who cited premarital sex as a factor in or the cause behind their divorce, you'd have something there. Otherwise, you may as well sort people by who went to kindergarten and who didn't and linking that to marital bliss. You want to see the link, but that doesn't mean it is the link... Considering what goes into a marriage and its success, which is subjective anyway, has far more to do with factors beyond sex, especially past sex, I think it is ignorant to say the smoking gun to not getting divorced is to not have premarital sex.

I've seen a blog post by someone with a sociology background that took national data, Australian, I think, and showed a direct relationship between the number of premarital partners a woman had and the divorce rate, but it didn't have a statistical write up with it.

Who cares about blog posts? It's an editorial by some person who may or may not have any background in the subject writing about their take on a subject they're not involved in. Give me an email and 20 minutes and I can put up a blog that contradicts his blog and the study, and still have time to go and change a Wikipedia article to back my beliefs up. As a blogger myself, I can say for a fact you might as well go ask a random stranger on the street what they think.

Lot's of people who go to the same churches fall into sin in this area, but profess the same basic beliefs. There could be something to the idea that those who actually keep their faith in one area are more likely to keep it in another area.

Of course there is. Hence the "there's a link because I say there is" thing totally ridiculous.

The author of this post about an academic article might disagree.
Waiting Works: Couples Who Wait Report 22% Happier Marriages (and Better Sex!)

95% of people know that 100% of the studies that quantify percentage increases or decreases of subjective and relative information are complete baloney. You cannot quantify degrees of improvement or lack thereof on a subjective medium, especially when the medium is a variable interpretation even with the participants depending on other factors. For example, ask me 2 years after I got married to my first husband, I'd have said the marriage was fine. Ask me the year before we divorced, I'd have said it was a disaster and I can't wait to never see him again. Ask me now, 10 years post divorce, I'll say our marriage was generally happy, save until the end, I have good memories of my ex and hope he's doing well.

Heck, give me the survey today and I'd say we have the perfect marriage. Tell me tomorrow my husband had an affair our whole marriage and stole money to fund a secret drug habit, and even though it's not even 24 hours later, my answer will be different.

In short, there is absolutely no way to say couples are 22% more happy than other couples, and point to one sole factor as to why.

How is that relevant? If people divorce because their spouse is hard to get along with, are they going to be able to identify that this was caused by the way the parents treated the child at 3 years old? You don't always know all the reasons why your spouse is the way your spouse is?

Whatever the case, we should all love God and not sin against Him, and encourage others to do the same

You can't say premarital sex is the cause to divorces, then say the fact that despite there are almost no people who list that as a cause for their divorce isn't relevant because people don't know that's the reason for their divorce. You're basically just saying "it's the reason because I say it is" and proving nothing beyond the fact you personally have a personal issue with premarital sex.


I love my wife and I'm attracted to her, so the idea of being on the receiving end of her passion sounds like a good thing to me. It doesn't sound repulsive to me in the least.

But that's not what you said. You said you think it's great to be the release to a spouse's decades-long pent up passion. I find zero atteactive, intimate, or appealing about the idea that decades before I came around my husband got hot and bothered by a girl and he put that arousal into a passion piggyback for me to answer instead.

I love my husband and I enjoy his passion and love cultivated by and for me. Being on the receiving end of that is awesome. Being on the receiving end of "I didn't have sex and now we are married so I'm making up for lost time and all of those instances where I wanted to before but didn't because it has been building in me for all this time, " yeah... No. Gross.

You seem to be doing a lot of detailed thinking about my banter with eZoolander.

Meaning what, Link?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LinkH

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
8,602
669
✟43,833.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The basis of your argument conlmes from a nearly 30 year old study, featured by a religious conservative organization which is clearly espousing their agenda, not objective data and unbiased logic.

I've seen Teachman mentioned in several places, including academic articles.

The correlation exists because they say it does, not because it really does.

You should read the study before forming an opinion, and if you understand the methodology and can point out a solid problem with it, go ahead. Otherwise, it made it past some kind of peer-reviewed process. I think it was in the main journal of its field.

Exactly, which is why your insistence on using studies that link causation to statistical findings without good theory and sound arguments somewhat baffling.

It makes perfect sense that women who sleep around before marriage when compared with a virgin would be more likely to value marry less, or have some relationship rekindled with an old boyfriend, have some kind of emotional issues that could cause problems in marriage, and any other number of things that could cause problem.


Actually, that's exactly what it means.

That's totally illogical. All studies whose results appear in peer-reviewed journals started out as studies whose results did not appear in peer-reviewed journals. Journals reject articles if they don't think they contribute enough new information to the theory, if they upset the apple-cart of theory too much and the reviewers don't like the content or the editor doesn't want to take the risk, if the don't fit the journal well, and for many other reasons like that. Some of the top papers in various fields took a very, very long time to get in. I know a professor who had a theory that was somewhat paradigm shifting, and he waited 7 years to get his paper published, and finally got it published in a lesser ranked journal, but with a huge impact. The editor of the other journal eventually admitted it was a big mistake not to publish it.

As far as statistics go, a survey conducted with good methodology that is not published is as good as one that is not published.

Not only does that make no sense, it contradicts what you have been saying to this point.

No it doesn't. I'm just trying to be careful not to misstate what an academic study claims. Using 'correlate' also keeps me from having to look up the exact wording and constructs.

But even if that were true, that doesn't mean that the issue is sex before marriage, as is evidenced by the inclusion of people who had premarital sex, but only with one person... They are lumped in with the virgins and, according to a blog, still experiencing no "marital disruption." This goes to undermine the idea that premarital sex causes divorces and unhappy marriages.

Biblically, it makes sense. The man who seduced an unbetrothed virgin was required to marry her if her father would give him to her in marry. It may be fornication, but it doesn't violate 'two shall be one flesh' like those do who have multiple sex partners.

If the study broke down the number of people who cited premarital sex as a factor in or the cause behind their divorce, you'd have something there.

I think that's a silly requirements unless the researchers are studying those who think premarital sex is a factor. If you have only been married once and don't have experience being married to a person who had premarital sex and with one who hasn't how are you going to identify this as a factor leading to divorce? Besides, the study also showed couples who stayed together. Who is going to say premarital sex with multiple partners is the reason they stayed together?

[quote
Otherwise, you may as well sort people by who went to kindergarten and who didn't and linking that to marital bliss. You want to see the link, but that doesn't mean it is the link..[/quote]

If a good study shows a relationship, then it's reasonable to conclude that there may be a relationship. It could be a third factor that contributes to both kindergarten attendance and marital bliss.

Of course, the researcher can invalidate the results of the research by finding patterns in his data before formulating a hypothesis. If it's a sample rather than the whole population, that violates the assumptions of statistics. Bayseian approaches may be an exception to that. I'm not really into that branch of statistics and neither are the journals I'm interested in.


Considering what goes into a marriage and its success, which is subjective anyway, has far more to do with factors beyond sex, especially past sex, I think it is ignorant to say the smoking gun to not getting divorced is to not have premarital sex.

It's only one factor. Some in the virgin category divorced. Some in the non virgin category stayed married. But many, many more in the virgin category stayed married than in the non-virgin category.

Who cares about blog posts? It's an editorial by some person who may or may not have any background in the subject writing about their take on a subject they're not involved in. Give me an email and 20 minutes and I can put up a blog that contradicts his blog and the study, and still have time to go and change a Wikipedia article to back my beliefs up. As a blogger myself, I can say for a fact you might as well go ask a random stranger on the street what they think.

I think the blogger may be a sociology student or PhD, but I'm not sure. He had some results he showed. I may have seen a reference to an actual study about the topic as well. My memory is a bit fuzzy on that.

95% of people know that 100% of the studies that quantify percentage increases or decreases of subjective and relative information are complete baloney. You cannot quantify degrees of improvement or lack thereof on a subjective medium,

Basically, it sounds like you don't believe in much of the social science research that goes on in Psychology and other fields, because they quantify things like this all the time. You can look at the studies and see how they define their constructs and how they do their measurements. But unless you have been trained to interpret regression and other statistical tools, it's a bunch of gobbledygook.


especially when the medium is a variable interpretation even with the participants depending on other factors. For example, ask me 2 years after I got married to my first husband, I'd have said the marriage was fine. Ask me the year before we divorced, I'd have said it was a disaster and I can't wait to never see him again. Ask me now, 10 years post divorce, I'll say our marriage was generally happy, save until the end, I have good memories of my ex and hope he's doing well.

Heck, give me the survey today and I'd say we have the perfect marriage. Tell me tomorrow my husband had an affair our whole marriage and stole money to fund a secret drug habit, and even though it's not even 24 hours later, my answer will be different.

You can look at an individual study and if there is a measure of happiness, you can critique that study on an individual basis. They don't all use the same measurements.

There is a national study that measures happiness using certain values that are popular in the west, e.g. individual freedom, not harmony, etc. So Sweden ranks high and Japan ranks low. I've also seen a presentation of a paper on individual happiness that I thought had a cheesy definition of happiness. But the author's explain their definition in the paper and you can see what the results are and form your own opinions when you read this stuff.

In short, there is absolutely no way to say couples are 22% more happy than other couples, and point to one sole factor as to why.


You can within the limitations of how the constructs are defined and how the measurements are conducted.

You can't say premarital sex is the cause to divorces,

I didn't say that, but it does appear that women who engage in it with multiple partners are more likely to get divorced. I've seen a later study that tried to explain why non-virgins were more likely to divorce that tried to control for a long list of variables. The more variables you throw in, though, the more likely you'll account for some of the variance.

then say the fact that despite there are almost no people who list that as a cause for their divorce isn't relevant because people don't know that's the reason for their divorce. You're basically just saying "it's the reason because I say it is" and proving nothing beyond the fact you personally have a personal issue with premarital sex.

No, I'm not. I referred to a couple of academic studies, and you basically are saying you don't agree with them because you don't agree with them.

But that's not what you said. You said you think it's great to be the release to a spouse's decades-long pent up passion. I find zero atteactive, intimate, or appealing about the idea that decades before I came around my husband got hot and bothered by a girl and he put that arousal into a passion piggyback for me to answer instead.

EZoolander seemed to think if a potential partner were a virgin for too long, she'd be too sexually bored or uninterested. I was presenting an alternative explanation. I didn't say anything about a partner being hot and bothered by other women and directing that toward the spouse, and that's not what I had in mind.

Being on the receiving end of "I didn't have sex and now we are married so I'm making up for lost time and all of those instances where I wanted to before but didn't because it has been building in me for all this time, " yeah... No. Gross.

The idea of having a wife who directs lust for other men toward me isn't appealing, but the idea of having a wife who has been saving herself for her husband who wants to unleash the floodgates sounds fine to me.
 
Upvote 0