Happier Abroad Forum Community

This article contains many of the things I have been highlighting in many of my virginity posts. The only difference is that it is written to appeal to the masses and not offend anyone so it has some mild censorship (as in no vehement rhetoric like in my posts).

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... ive-up-sex

Want a Lasting Relationship? Give Up Sex
March 13, 2014
By Leonid Bershidsky

...

Back in 1977, with the sexual revolution in full swing, UCLA's Letitia Anne Peplau and her collaborators established that "women reported significantly more love for a man if he was their first sexual partner. Similarly, men reported greater love for a woman who lost their virginity with him than with a previous partner." People of both genders also thought the probability of marriage was greater if the man was the woman's first sexual partner.

That did not change much in the next quarter-century. In 2003, Jay Teachman of Western Washington University published an article establishing a strong relationship between the variety of a woman's premarital sexual experience and the likelihood that her marriage would break up. "Women with more than one intimate relationship prior to marriage have an elevated risk of marital disruption," Teachman wrote. "The risk of divorce is particularly great for women who cohabited with both their husbands and another man." Having at least one sexual relationship before marriage, Teachman found, increased the probability of divorce 53 percent.

...

Seems like more people are beginning to understand just how important virginity truly is. Will that change anything in the Western World? NO! The Western World is damned and has already crossed the point of no return.

What this article does confirm is that I am a righteous person and a bringer of truth. I am a voice of truth and a person that recognizes the truth. Ever since Autumn of 2012 was when I began my steadfast adherence to posting about my desire for a virgin and passionately describe why it is important for all men to find a virgin girl. I will find my ideal girl. That ideal girl will become my virgin bride. Ever since I was around 18 I began to realize just how important it was for a girl to be a virgin and by 22 I had completely awakened and decided I would only be with a girl if she was an ideal virgin girl.

Refer to my many previous posts on the topic. This only adds to the credibility of my position. This is exactly why I can honestly say I could never be with a slut and would NEVER love a slut. I would instantly reject a girl for not being a virgin no matter how beautiful or how kind she might be (or I should say might appear to be).

The article is a great find, thanks for posting.

You could have left off the last paragraph of your post. Your vehemence is understandable in a young so-far-dateless guy, but calling other women "sluts" because they've had a few bf's is just odd.

While I agree about ideally marrying a virgin (or at least a good widow, depnding on the guy's age and preference), you should begin to learn that for a woman to preserve virginity when out from under male protection is unrealistic. A girl on her own at college or in the big city is going to attach to a male. It's how they are wired. It's normal.

It wasnt always their fault they were on their own. Who let them leave home? Who let them date?

I am not disagreeing that virginity is good. I am saying there is no need to categorize all the other as sluts. It ditracts from your point.

Jester wrote:The article is a great find, thanks for posting.

You could have left off the last paragraph of your post. Your vehemence is understandable in a young so-far-dateless guy, but calling other women "sluts" because they've had a few bf's is just odd.

While I agree about ideally marrying a virgin (or at least a good widow, depnding on the guy's age and preference), you should begin to learn that for a woman to preserve virginity when out from under male protection is unrealistic. A girl on her own at college or in the big city is going to attach to a male. It's how they are wired. It's normal.

It wasnt always their fault they were on their own. Who let them leave home? Who let them date?

I am not disagreeing that virginity is good. I am saying there is no need to categorize all the other as sluts. It ditracts from your point.

I also wouldn't categorize women with 1 or 2 isolated sexual experiences as sluts. A 20-something girl who had sex with her college-boyfriend whom she thought she was "in love" with is not a slut. It's when it gets beyond 4-5 partners that it is clearly evident that it was a pattern, a conscious life style choice. That's where I draw the line between sluts and non-sluts.

Jester wrote:You could have left off the last paragraph of your post. Your vehemence is understandable in a young so-far-dateless guy, but calling other women "sluts" because they've had a few bf's is just odd.

I will admit that I could have left out the last paragraph. It might be a little harsh for me to call all the other women sluts but the virtue of chastity is a white and black matter. 1 or 100, it makes no real difference. A woman with 0 previous partners has somewhere like an 80%-95% chance of remaining with her husband. A girl that slept with 1 man reduces the odds to 53%, maybe 55% chance at best. From 0 previous partners to 1 previous partner has the greatest single drop in probability. Does being second really matter being more than one hundred? I think that being the first is the only thing that truly counts, and that being second or being one hundred is only a matter of how much pride a man is willing to swallow to accept a girl with "history." They might not all be sluts but all girls that sleep with a man are fornicators. There is no real difference between a slut and a fornicator.

There is the old saying "You can't turn a whore into a housewife" and the modern saying "Once a slut, always a slut."

Two articles worth reading:
http://elitedaily.com/dating/gentlemen/ ... housewife/
http://elitedaily.com/dating/sex/slut-slut/
http://wallstreetinsanity.com/once-a-sl ... ys-a-slut/

fightforlove wrote:A 20-something girl who had sex with her college-boyfriend whom she thought she was "in love" with is not a slut.

Ignorance or being blinded by infatuation or being weak willed to give into one's desire is not an excuse for committing a crime. It is also not an excuse for committing one of the gravest of sins and essentially saying she doesn't care enough about the man that would truly love her.

Jester wrote:A girl on her own at college or in the big city is going to attach to a male. It's how they are wired. It's normal.

I agree. A normal girl should always want to attach to a male. However, throughout most of history they practiced etiquette and so did the men. There was no fornication because it reflected poorly on the male if he corrupted the girl, and the girl would be considered shameful and a harlot and be an outcast on society and likely never be married or find another man (or at least a respectable and good man). There was consequences, especially for the girls. Today many girls can get away with anything and do whatever they want and still get a man.

In history many women were what could be called Ladies. A Lady is a more accurate term for describing respectable and proper woman.

Read http://www.dailywritingtips.com/is-she- ... r-a-woman/ to see how the sexual revolution and feminism subtly altered some of the traditional vocabulary of society.

Jester wrote:It wasnt always their fault they were on their own. Who let them leave home? Who let them date?

Everyone has to leave home eventually. In the past many women would remain in the home until they were married. Almost everyone has some blame. The government, organized religion, the parents, and most of all the girl. Responsibility and the realization that there are consequences for one's actions are important.

I'd be curious to see what the 21 and up female virgin pool looks like in certain countries compared to the virgin pool in America. I think a few American women I have gone out with were virgins, and if my sketchy and limited experiences are any indicator, virgin women in America tend to be at least 2 of the following 3 things:

1) very conservative and religious
2) introverted/wallflower/socially awkward
3) not very attractive

There may be some rare attractive-looking virgins, but common sense also tells me that it most likely takes all three of these factors to keep a woman a virgin beyond her 21st birthday in America.

Tsar wrote:

fightforlove wrote:
A 20-something girl who had sex with her college-boyfriend whom she thought she was "in love" with is not a slut.

Ignorance or being blinded by infatuation or being weak willed to give into one's desire is not an excuse for committing a crime. It is also not an excuse for committing one of the gravest of sins and essentially saying she doesn't care enough about the man that would truly love her. ........Almost everyone has some blame. The government, organized religion, the parents, and most of all the girl. Responsibility and the realization that there are consequences for one's actions are important.

Women are generally weak-willed. Made to obey. If they obey what society teaches, parents are cool with, boyfriend expects and girlfriends encourage, that is not a "crime". It is unfortunate but quite natural given the environment.

It's time for you to stop judging and issuing pronouncements about things you have no experience of.

Jester wrote:Women are generally weak-willed. Made to obey. If they obey what society teaches, parents are cool with, boyfriend expects and girlfriends encourage, that is not a "crime". It is unfortunate but quite natural given the environment.

It's time for you to stop judging and issuing pronouncements about things you have no experience of.

It may not be the fault of Western females that they are worthless sluts, but the fact remains that they are in fact worthless sluts and should be dealt with accordingly. It is not the fault of a rabid dog that it has rabies, but that doesn't stop you from shooting it.