Winston's Triple No-Win Situation in Dating: What's the Best Solution?

[Rygar1]

If it's any consolation, tall, good looking white guys struggle with white women, too, though perhaps less so. Yick and I have discussed this at length.

Yeah, some guys are indeed probably meant to be perpetually single, perhaps through no fault of thier own. Attitude can help or hinder. Being in shape def helps. Do you lift? Sometimes the gods of romance and love don't look favorably on you for some reason.

I think men paint the whole half of the population with a broad brush, especially the white ones. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to talk to a woman several states down, but she unfortunately ghosted me because of parents, long distance, who knows what else. It's still consolation that she was initially open to talking in the first place.

White girls are easily the most desirable among races. Even for non white men. Their stock is high. They act accordingly. Black girls and Hispanic girls, and Asians girls tend to be less stuck up, but less attractive, so it's a trade off.

What, specifically, did you mean by 'talk'? Over the phone? Online? Text? How long did it last? Most women tend to be flaky.

Text. I'm not going to jump to conclusions for her flaking.

That's your prerogative. Women are weird, man. I'm not even being sarcastic. Women are fu cking weird. Expecting anything less than a lifetime of weirdness will lead to frustration and disappointment.

[MrMan]

I've always thought this, as well, if I'm reading correctly. Most guys in their 20s, in my opinion, really just 'settle'. They're lonely, horny, or both and some girl shows interest and bam! You got a girlfriend, and it makes you feel good. You fu ck her everyday and, well, sometimes they get pregnant, and like next things you know your 22 and a father, and you're life is never the same. It happened to a couple guys I know. I guess they don't care. We have a strong biological urge to mate.

Me personally, I've always been picky. MR MAN has stated this as well. I just seem to have a very narrow range of girls I'm really attracted to. Both looks and personality. I generally like brunettes over blondes, fit, but not too so, and nice legs and butt. Man, do I love asses. It really is the best imo. Big, round, firm, lifted. And smart too. She doesn't have to be a Rhodes scholar, and I would like it if she weren't, but just...curious, deep, philosophical, engaging. I know it when I see it, but it's rare. I guess for alot of guys they'd rather be with a girl who they aren't necessarily crazy about than be alone. Everyone is different.

I'll share my thoughts on this, since I've gotten some positive feedback, as a man in my 50's coming from my perspective as a Christian of the more conservative traditional perspective.

The desire for sex is real. So is the desire for enjoying the companionship of a woman, the desire to appreciate a woman's beauty. I'm attracted to a relatively small percentage of women, but within that percentage, there was a smaller percentage I would have considered for marriage. If I had had no qualms about fornicating, I might have fornicated more broadly, with girls I thought for 6 or 7s... just for a night... because it would have been fun and felt good. But as a Christian, I considered that a bad thing to do. For one thing, it's fornication and a sin against God, and I'd but be using a girl for a night who might be expecting something else beyond being just a one-night bit of recreation.

I also get appreciating butts. A pretty face is more important to me. I didn't appreciate this as much while dating as I do now. I didn't really want a really big butt on a woman, but a nice round one to look at and something big enough to squeeze is nice, especially unclothed. It's like it's soothing to grab on it. I usually go for a squeeze if my wife is going into or out of the shower. It's really soothing.

I dated a nearly buttless Indonesian girl in Indonesia. She had a pretty face, but was skinny and pretty much buttless, even more buttless than the Koreans there, who tend to be kind of flat-butted compared to Indonesians in general. I just dated the girl for several weeks. But I was trying to avoid fornication and I wanted to marry a virgin. The girl went to church, but some things she said gave me the impression that I could do with her whatever I wanted, and all that was keeping me from it was my self control, which seemed a dangerous place for me. When she confided in me that she'd slept with a boyfriend who'd married some other woman, I looked disappointed. I was thinking I'd better break up with this girl or I'd fall. She could see my disappointment and said I probably wanted a virgin.... uh, yeah I did. We broke it off, remained friendly for the weeks or months I was there. I gave her my VCR and tapes when I left. (They didn't pay her well at the factory.)

I believe sex is for marriage, and if a man steps back from his feelings of horniness and his desire to enjoy a woman's body and get female attention, saving sex for marriage makes sense. Why? It's where the babies come from. As some MRAs point out, research shows that a children raised without a father corresponds with all kinds of an increased chance of problems for the child, things that don't show up statistically even in homes where the child is raised without the mother. Without the father in the home, there are higher chances of low grades, problems with the law, substance abuse problems, and teen pregnancy.

As a Christian I think of 'he that will not provide for his own has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel' and the admonition to fathers (/parents) to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The idea of having a child I didn't know about that I didn't raise would be very unsettling to me. The idea of being a sperm donor at a sperm bank is also unsettling. Why would a man do such a thing, let some lesbians raise his kids and he doesn't even know the kid or act as a father to him? There are men who get blindsided by divorce who are separated from their kids, men separated by military orders, some who die early deaths. But if it's your choice, raise your own kids.

If you want a pretty girl, don't settle. If you don't settle, don't sleep with her. Let's say you date a girl who is just barely 'doable' but not 'marriageable' in your eyes... I mean if you want a pretty woman you can just lay there and feel entertained just looking at her face (and body) if you had to TV or tickets to a ball game hopefully for years to come. But you sleep with this girl you aren't that attracted to because you figure she's pretty enough to bang. You could develop feelings and date her for a long time. It's not wrong if it takes you a while to figure out the whole package is attracted to you, and your ideas of what's attractive change as you get to know her. But if it's just a temporary thing in your mind that will never lead to marriage, you are just using her, taking something that should belong to her husband later. That's a bad thing to do. (Fornication is one thing I know of that the Bible says God will punish/get vengeance on Christians for... it's defrauding a brother as per I Thessalonians 4.)

Condoms are said to be 92% effective. If you did get 'sex every night' or nearly every night, even without periods, it doesn't take the long to rack up 100 times. If a woman is young and fertile, it's possible for her to get pregnant with a condom. Also, if she encourages you to finish, but then it turns out she's on the cusp of an O when you finally get done, and you manage to power through the sensitivity (you young men get) to let her finish at a good stopping point, sloshing all that stuff in the condom on a 90% pitched tent is likely to lead to a leak. If you are a considerate lover, you can end up getting her pregnant.

So then you get this woman pregnant who is a 'second round draft pick' in your eyes-- settling, someone you wouldn't have chosen for looks, maybe even for personality, for values, for being pleasant and not annoying, for being controlling and not submissive, for morality, etc. You could end up with a sub-optimally attractive, controlling, demanding, unreasonable woman, maybe even one who wouldn't make the best mother. Why? Because you were lonely, horny, bored, etc. and didn't exercise some self-control.

I think it's far superior to keep it zipped up until you marry, and marry a woman with the same attitude who appreciates your self control. She may have urges, too, but has self-control that outweighs that. Then you date her.... trying to be fair about not wasting her time or breaking her heart if she isn't what you want. If there is a true deal breaker, you break it off fast so she'll end up less hurt in the long run. You don't date to fulfill emotional needs at the expensive of her long-term needs or marital objectives, or your own. Dating is a tool to find a wife.

For me, the prospective wife has to have her priorities right. Before that, I did. The kingdom of God is first. Eternal things first. My wife had to put God first in her priorities. That means she's not fornicating, and after marriage, she isn't going to do something immoral like commit adultery or leave me over relational issues or because she gets bored. Those were some big things I was looking for. She would need to embrace the Biblical role of a wife, which means she knows going into it that she is supposed to submit to her husband and reverence ('fear') him, as I seek to embrace my role in honoring my wife and loving her as Christ loved the church. That's not something that comes natural to my wife, who is a dynamic and energetic type woman with a lot of ideas. But I do think it has helped settle conflict as she considers this, and helps us get along going forward.

As far as your sexual expectations go-- every night--I don't want to burst your bubble. I mean, you could end up with a girl like this. As a young man, when I read that married couples were only have sex two or three times a week, i was stunned, disappointed, and confused. I mean, you've got this partner there you can and may have sex with... I mean, twice a week? Why starve yourself? But I suspect if you do, that will last for a while if the relationship is new. But aging, childbirth, etc. might mess that up. And let's not forget periods. personally, I don't feel comfortable with period sex for religious reasons. God drove Gentiles out of the land for this and a list of other sexual and idolatrous things. I also read that men who, during certain years of their life ejaculated 21 times a week had the lowest prostate cancer rates (or was it another prostate issue?). I also did some research that I think was about lower cancer corresponding with regular sex, and more sex than the 'target' amount got some of those same benefits.

With my wife, until the first baby or until late in the pregnancy other than a few weeks of sickness and travelling (a rough ordeal in Indonesia, sleeping on the floor in the village or in a human cattle car like environment on a ship) I got some kind of 'release' every night. But for the wife, that was every other night. She'd get sore. I think younger women can be a bit fragile down there and need a rest. (Sample size of one here in my case.) But she would give me 'release' the other nights. Roman Catholics may not have that option, though.

Healing up after the baby is a big ordeal. It's amazing they can heal up downstairs after all that trauma downstairs. I noticed fewer 'ouches' after childbirth had healed up from our intimate activities. But with a baby, a woman can get 'touched out.' And I think craving oxytocin from touch _can_ contribute to a woman's sex drive. But holding a baby isn't going to stave off a man's sex drive.

Ideally, going into marriage with a virgin or repented former fornicator, before getting to a proposal, it is good to talk this stuff out. If you think you will want sex every night (or non-period nights), how is she going to handle that? What's her attitude? I Corinthians 7 says to render what is due our partner, not to defraud one another except by mutual consent for prayer and fasting. The husband has power over the wife's body and the wife has power over the wife's body. My understanding is that each has the right to 'require' sex of the other. Of course, you want that rendered with a good, willful attitude. And then you can talk about marriage roles, submission, the man's role and responsibility in the marriage, how many children to have and how to raise children, how to handle money (joint accounts, what to do with giving, etc.)

If there isn't anything in that either of you can't live with, you have the same faith and you are compatible, then you get parental permission, approval, and blessing, especially from the bride's father, and you can move forward.

Then you have babies in the marriage with someone committed to you for life-- committed to please you, to submit to you, reverence you as a husband, to work through problems to get along with you, to love you, to provide you with sex as you need, with an agreement on trying for kids and how to raise them, and you commit to love her as Christ loves the church, to honor her, to provide for her sexual needs, etc.

In that situation, then you have sex (lots of it if either of you want it that way) and raise the children that result from that.

[MrMan]

I've always thought this, as well, if I'm reading correctly. Most guys in their 20s, in my opinion, really just 'settle'. They're lonely, horny, or both and some girl shows interest and bam! You got a girlfriend, and it makes you feel good. You fu ck her everyday and, well, sometimes they get pregnant, and like next things you know your 22 and a father, and you're life is never the same. It happened to a couple guys I know. I guess they don't care. We have a strong biological urge to mate.

Me personally, I've always been picky. MR MAN has stated this as well. I just seem to have a very narrow range of girls I'm really attracted to. Both looks and personality. I generally like brunettes over blondes, fit, but not too so, and nice legs and butt. Man, do I love asses. It really is the best imo. Big, round, firm, lifted. And smart too. She doesn't have to be a Rhodes scholar, and I would like it if she weren't, but just...curious, deep, philosophical, engaging. I know it when I see it, but it's rare. I guess for alot of guys they'd rather be with a girl who they aren't necessarily crazy about than be alone. Everyone is different.

I'll share my thoughts on this, since I've gotten some positive feedback, as a man in my 50's coming from my perspective as a Christian of the more conservative traditional perspective.

The desire for sex is real. So is the desire for enjoying the companionship of a woman, the desire to appreciate a woman's beauty. I'm attracted to a relatively small percentage of women, but within that percentage, there was a smaller percentage I would have considered for marriage. If I had had no qualms about fornicating, I might have fornicated more broadly, with girls I thought for 6 or 7s... just for a night... because it would have been fun and felt good. But as a Christian, I considered that a bad thing to do. For one thing, it's fornication and a sin against God, and I'd but be using a girl for a night who might be expecting something else beyond being just a one-night bit of recreation.

I also get appreciating butts. A pretty face is more important to me. I didn't appreciate this as much while dating as I do now. I didn't really want a really big butt on a woman, but a nice round one to look at and something big enough to squeeze is nice, especially unclothed. It's like it's soothing to grab on it. I usually go for a squeeze if my wife is going into or out of the shower. It's really soothing.

I dated a nearly buttless Indonesian girl in Indonesia. She had a pretty face, but was skinny and pretty much buttless, even more buttless than the Koreans there, who tend to be kind of flat-butted compared to Indonesians in general. I just dated the girl for several weeks. But I was trying to avoid fornication and I wanted to marry a virgin. The girl went to church, but some things she said gave me the impression that I could do with her whatever I wanted, and all that was keeping me from it was my self control, which seemed a dangerous place for me. When she confided in me that she'd slept with a boyfriend who'd married some other woman, I looked disappointed. I was thinking I'd better break up with this girl or I'd fall. She could see my disappointment and said I probably wanted a virgin.... uh, yeah I did. We broke it off, remained friendly for the weeks or months I was there. I gave her my VCR and tapes when I left. (They didn't pay her well at the factory.)

I believe sex is for marriage, and if a man steps back from his feelings of horniness and his desire to enjoy a woman's body and get female attention, saving sex for marriage makes sense. Why? It's where the babies come from. As some MRAs point out, research shows that a children raised without a father corresponds with all kinds of an increased chance of problems for the child, things that don't show up statistically even in homes where the child is raised without the mother. Without the father in the home, there are higher chances of low grades, problems with the law, substance abuse problems, and teen pregnancy.

As a Christian I think of 'he that will not provide for his own has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel' and the admonition to fathers (/parents) to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The idea of having a child I didn't know about that I didn't raise would be very unsettling to me. The idea of being a sperm donor at a sperm bank is also unsettling. Why would a man do such a thing, let some lesbians raise his kids and he doesn't even know the kid or act as a father to him? There are men who get blindsided by divorce who are separated from their kids, men separated by military orders, some who die early deaths. But if it's your choice, raise your own kids.

If you want a pretty girl, don't settle. If you don't settle, don't sleep with her. Let's say you date a girl who is just barely 'doable' but not 'marriageable' in your eyes... I mean if you want a pretty woman you can just lay there and feel entertained just looking at her face (and body) if you had to TV or tickets to a ball game hopefully for years to come. But you sleep with this girl you aren't that attracted to because you figure she's pretty enough to bang. You could develop feelings and date her for a long time. It's not wrong if it takes you a while to figure out the whole package is attracted to you, and your ideas of what's attractive change as you get to know her. But if it's just a temporary thing in your mind that will never lead to marriage, you are just using her, taking something that should belong to her husband later. That's a bad thing to do. (Fornication is one thing I know of that the Bible says God will punish/get vengeance on Christians for... it's defrauding a brother as per I Thessalonians 4.)

Condoms are said to be 92% effective. If you did get 'sex every night' or nearly every night, even without periods, it doesn't take the long to rack up 100 times. If a woman is young and fertile, it's possible for her to get pregnant with a condom. Also, if she encourages you to finish, but then it turns out she's on the cusp of an O when you finally get done, and you manage to power through the sensitivity (you young men get) to let her finish at a good stopping point, sloshing all that stuff in the condom on a 90% pitched tent is likely to lead to a leak. If you are a considerate lover, you can end up getting her pregnant.

So then you get this woman pregnant who is a 'second round draft pick' in your eyes-- settling, someone you wouldn't have chosen for looks, maybe even for personality, for values, for being pleasant and not annoying, for being controlling and not submissive, for morality, etc. You could end up with a sub-optimally attractive, controlling, demanding, unreasonable woman, maybe even one who wouldn't make the best mother. Why? Because you were lonely, horny, bored, etc. and didn't exercise some self-control.

I think it's far superior to keep it zipped up until you marry, and marry a woman with the same attitude who appreciates your self control. She may have urges, too, but has self-control that outweighs that. Then you date her.... trying to be fair about not wasting her time or breaking her heart if she isn't what you want. If there is a true deal breaker, you break it off fast so she'll end up less hurt in the long run. You don't date to fulfill emotional needs at the expensive of her long-term needs or marital objectives, or your own. Dating is a tool to find a wife.

For me, the prospective wife has to have her priorities right. Before that, I did. The kingdom of God is first. Eternal things first. My wife had to put God first in her priorities. That means she's not fornicating, and after marriage, she isn't going to do something immoral like commit adultery or leave me over relational issues or because she gets bored. Those were some big things I was looking for. She would need to embrace the Biblical role of a wife, which means she knows going into it that she is supposed to submit to her husband and reverence ('fear') him, as I seek to embrace my role in honoring my wife and loving her as Christ loved the church. That's not something that comes natural to my wife, who is a dynamic and energetic type woman with a lot of ideas. But I do think it has helped settle conflict as she considers this, and helps us get along going forward.

As far as your sexual expectations go-- every night--I don't want to burst your bubble. I mean, you could end up with a girl like this. As a young man, when I read that married couples were only have sex two or three times a week, i was stunned, disappointed, and confused. I mean, you've got this partner there you can and may have sex with... I mean, twice a week? Why starve yourself? But I suspect if you do, that will last for a while if the relationship is new. But aging, childbirth, etc. might mess that up. And let's not forget periods. personally, I don't feel comfortable with period sex for religious reasons. God drove Gentiles out of the land for this and a list of other sexual and idolatrous things. I also read that men who, during certain years of their life ejaculated 21 times a week had the lowest prostate cancer rates (or was it another prostate issue?). I also did some research that I think was about lower cancer corresponding with regular sex, and more sex than the 'target' amount got some of those same benefits.

With my wife, until the first baby or until late in the pregnancy other than a few weeks of sickness and travelling (a rough ordeal in Indonesia, sleeping on the floor in the village or in a human cattle car like environment on a ship) I got some kind of 'release' every night. But for the wife, that was every other night. She'd get sore. I think younger women can be a bit fragile down there and need a rest. (Sample size of one here in my case.) But she would give me 'release' the other nights. Roman Catholics may not have that option, though.

Healing up after the baby is a big ordeal. It's amazing they can heal up downstairs after all that trauma downstairs. I noticed fewer 'ouches' after childbirth had healed up from our intimate activities. But with a baby, a woman can get 'touched out.' And I think craving oxytocin from touch _can_ contribute to a woman's sex drive. But holding a baby isn't going to stave off a man's sex drive.

Ideally, going into marriage with a virgin or repented former fornicator, before getting to a proposal, it is good to talk this stuff out. If you think you will want sex every night (or non-period nights), how is she going to handle that? What's her attitude? I Corinthians 7 says to render what is due our partner, not to defraud one another except by mutual consent for prayer and fasting. The husband has power over the wife's body and the wife has power over the wife's body. My understanding is that each has the right to 'require' sex of the other. Of course, you want that rendered with a good, willful attitude. And then you can talk about marriage roles, submission, the man's role and responsibility in the marriage, how many children to have and how to raise children, how to handle money (joint accounts, what to do with giving, etc.)

If there isn't anything in that either of you can't live with, you have the same faith and you are compatible, then you get parental permission, approval, and blessing, especially from the bride's father, and you can move forward.

Then you have babies in the marriage with someone committed to you for life-- committed to please you, to submit to you, reverence you as a husband, to work through problems to get along with you, to love you, to provide you with sex as you need, with an agreement on trying for kids and how to raise them, and you commit to love her as Christ loves the church, to honor her, to provide for her sexual needs, etc.

In that situation, then you have sex (lots of it if either of you want it that way) and raise the children that result from that.

[Rygar1]

I've always thought this, as well, if I'm reading correctly. Most guys in their 20s, in my opinion, really just 'settle'. They're lonely, horny, or both and some girl shows interest and bam! You got a girlfriend, and it makes you feel good. You fu ck her everyday and, well, sometimes they get pregnant, and like next things you know your 22 and a father, and you're life is never the same. It happened to a couple guys I know. I guess they don't care. We have a strong biological urge to mate.

Me personally, I've always been picky. MR MAN has stated this as well. I just seem to have a very narrow range of girls I'm really attracted to. Both looks and personality. I generally like brunettes over blondes, fit, but not too so, and nice legs and butt. Man, do I love asses. It really is the best imo. Big, round, firm, lifted. And smart too. She doesn't have to be a Rhodes scholar, and I would like it if she weren't, but just...curious, deep, philosophical, engaging. I know it when I see it, but it's rare. I guess for alot of guys they'd rather be with a girl who they aren't necessarily crazy about than be alone. Everyone is different.

I'll share my thoughts on this, since I've gotten some positive feedback, as a man in my 50's coming from my perspective as a Christian of the more conservative traditional perspective.

The desire for sex is real. So is the desire for enjoying the companionship of a woman, the desire to appreciate a woman's beauty. I'm attracted to a relatively small percentage of women, but within that percentage, there was a smaller percentage I would have considered for marriage. If I had had no qualms about fornicating, I might have fornicated more broadly, with girls I thought for 6 or 7s... just for a night... because it would have been fun and felt good. But as a Christian, I considered that a bad thing to do. For one thing, it's fornication and a sin against God, and I'd but be using a girl for a night who might be expecting something else beyond being just a one-night bit of recreation.

I also get appreciating butts. A pretty face is more important to me. I didn't appreciate this as much while dating as I do now. I didn't really want a really big butt on a woman, but a nice round one to look at and something big enough to squeeze is nice, especially unclothed. It's like it's soothing to grab on it. I usually go for a squeeze if my wife is going into or out of the shower. It's really soothing.

I dated a nearly buttless Indonesian girl in Indonesia. She had a pretty face, but was skinny and pretty much buttless, even more buttless than the Koreans there, who tend to be kind of flat-butted compared to Indonesians in general. I just dated the girl for several weeks. But I was trying to avoid fornication and I wanted to marry a virgin. The girl went to church, but some things she said gave me the impression that I could do with her whatever I wanted, and all that was keeping me from it was my self control, which seemed a dangerous place for me. When she confided in me that she'd slept with a boyfriend who'd married some other woman, I looked disappointed. I was thinking I'd better break up with this girl or I'd fall. She could see my disappointment and said I probably wanted a virgin.... uh, yeah I did. We broke it off, remained friendly for the weeks or months I was there. I gave her my VCR and tapes when I left. (They didn't pay her well at the factory.)

I believe sex is for marriage, and if a man steps back from his feelings of horniness and his desire to enjoy a woman's body and get female attention, saving sex for marriage makes sense. Why? It's where the babies come from. As some MRAs point out, research shows that a children raised without a father corresponds with all kinds of an increased chance of problems for the child, things that don't show up statistically even in homes where the child is raised without the mother. Without the father in the home, there are higher chances of low grades, problems with the law, substance abuse problems, and teen pregnancy.

As a Christian I think of 'he that will not provide for his own has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel' and the admonition to fathers (/parents) to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The idea of having a child I didn't know about that I didn't raise would be very unsettling to me. The idea of being a sperm donor at a sperm bank is also unsettling. Why would a man do such a thing, let some lesbians raise his kids and he doesn't even know the kid or act as a father to him? There are men who get blindsided by divorce who are separated from their kids, men separated by military orders, some who die early deaths. But if it's your choice, raise your own kids.

If you want a pretty girl, don't settle. If you don't settle, don't sleep with her. Let's say you date a girl who is just barely 'doable' but not 'marriageable' in your eyes... I mean if you want a pretty woman you can just lay there and feel entertained just looking at her face (and body) if you had to TV or tickets to a ball game hopefully for years to come. But you sleep with this girl you aren't that attracted to because you figure she's pretty enough to bang. You could develop feelings and date her for a long time. It's not wrong if it takes you a while to figure out the whole package is attracted to you, and your ideas of what's attractive change as you get to know her. But if it's just a temporary thing in your mind that will never lead to marriage, you are just using her, taking something that should belong to her husband later. That's a bad thing to do. (Fornication is one thing I know of that the Bible says God will punish/get vengeance on Christians for... it's defrauding a brother as per I Thessalonians 4.)

Condoms are said to be 92% effective. If you did get 'sex every night' or nearly every night, even without periods, it doesn't take the long to rack up 100 times. If a woman is young and fertile, it's possible for her to get pregnant with a condom. Also, if she encourages you to finish, but then it turns out she's on the cusp of an O when you finally get done, and you manage to power through the sensitivity (you young men get) to let her finish at a good stopping point, sloshing all that stuff in the condom on a 90% pitched tent is likely to lead to a leak. If you are a considerate lover, you can end up getting her pregnant.

So then you get this woman pregnant who is a 'second round draft pick' in your eyes-- settling, someone you wouldn't have chosen for looks, maybe even for personality, for values, for being pleasant and not annoying, for being controlling and not submissive, for morality, etc. You could end up with a sub-optimally attractive, controlling, demanding, unreasonable woman, maybe even one who wouldn't make the best mother. Why? Because you were lonely, horny, bored, etc. and didn't exercise some self-control.

I think it's far superior to keep it zipped up until you marry, and marry a woman with the same attitude who appreciates your self control. She may have urges, too, but has self-control that outweighs that. Then you date her.... trying to be fair about not wasting her time or breaking her heart if she isn't what you want. If there is a true deal breaker, you break it off fast so she'll end up less hurt in the long run. You don't date to fulfill emotional needs at the expensive of her long-term needs or marital objectives, or your own. Dating is a tool to find a wife.

For me, the prospective wife has to have her priorities right. Before that, I did. The kingdom of God is first. Eternal things first. My wife had to put God first in her priorities. That means she's not fornicating, and after marriage, she isn't going to do something immoral like commit adultery or leave me over relational issues or because she gets bored. Those were some big things I was looking for. She would need to embrace the Biblical role of a wife, which means she knows going into it that she is supposed to submit to her husband and reverence ('fear') him, as I seek to embrace my role in honoring my wife and loving her as Christ loved the church. That's not something that comes natural to my wife, who is a dynamic and energetic type woman with a lot of ideas. But I do think it has helped settle conflict as she considers this, and helps us get along going forward.

As far as your sexual expectations go-- every night--I don't want to burst your bubble. I mean, you could end up with a girl like this. As a young man, when I read that married couples were only have sex two or three times a week, i was stunned, disappointed, and confused. I mean, you've got this partner there you can and may have sex with... I mean, twice a week? Why starve yourself? But I suspect if you do, that will last for a while if the relationship is new. But aging, childbirth, etc. might mess that up. And let's not forget periods. personally, I don't feel comfortable with period sex for religious reasons. God drove Gentiles out of the land for this and a list of other sexual and idolatrous things. I also read that men who, during certain years of their life ejaculated 21 times a week had the lowest prostate cancer rates (or was it another prostate issue?). I also did some research that I think was about lower cancer corresponding with regular sex, and more sex than the 'target' amount got some of those same benefits.

With my wife, until the first baby or until late in the pregnancy other than a few weeks of sickness and travelling (a rough ordeal in Indonesia, sleeping on the floor in the village or in a human cattle car like environment on a ship) I got some kind of 'release' every night. But for the wife, that was every other night. She'd get sore. I think younger women can be a bit fragile down there and need a rest. (Sample size of one here in my case.) But she would give me 'release' the other nights. Roman Catholics may not have that option, though.

Healing up after the baby is a big ordeal. It's amazing they can heal up downstairs after all that trauma downstairs. I noticed fewer 'ouches' after childbirth had healed up from our intimate activities. But with a baby, a woman can get 'touched out.' And I think craving oxytocin from touch _can_ contribute to a woman's sex drive. But holding a baby isn't going to stave off a man's sex drive.

Ideally, going into marriage with a virgin or repented former fornicator, before getting to a proposal, it is good to talk this stuff out. If you think you will want sex every night (or non-period nights), how is she going to handle that? What's her attitude? I Corinthians 7 says to render what is due our partner, not to defraud one another except by mutual consent for prayer and fasting. The husband has power over the wife's body and the wife has power over the wife's body. My understanding is that each has the right to 'require' sex of the other. Of course, you want that rendered with a good, willful attitude. And then you can talk about marriage roles, submission, the man's role and responsibility in the marriage, how many children to have and how to raise children, how to handle money (joint accounts, what to do with giving, etc.)

If there isn't anything in that either of you can't live with, you have the same faith and you are compatible, then you get parental permission, approval, and blessing, especially from the bride's father, and you can move forward.

Then you have babies in the marriage with someone committed to you for life-- committed to please you, to submit to you, reverence you as a husband, to work through problems to get along with you, to love you, to provide you with sex as you need, with an agreement on trying for kids and how to raise them, and you commit to love her as Christ loves the church, to honor her, to provide for her sexual needs, etc.

In that situation, then you have sex (lots of it if either of you want it that way) and raise the children that result from that.

There is certainly alot to digest here, with these kinds of issues, and we could analyze them for days on end, and I like IT! It's never gonna be a a substitute for action, but it certainly can be a good framework for one's life.

For me personally, I've been blessed(or cursed!) with above average looks for pretty much my whole life. Even as a toddler, relatives would fawn on how I 'gorgeous'i was. It was kinda embarrassing. Fast forward to high school and the girls came a coming, not surprisingly. I don't think i was the most popular, but i held my own. It came easily, effortlessly. But for some reason, I just...never did anything with it, I don't even know why. Hot girls throwing themselves at you, and I just ghost them. I was well behind my peers and was a virgin until 19 or 20. Though I did hookups up with a handful of girls.

I dunno...I just never really placed a high priority on it, I guess. Hb2345 was correct in saying there is indeed a lot of stress and drama that comes along with dating/hooking, and some guys just don't want to be bothered with it. It does indeed take a lot of strength to be with a woman, and it definitely isn't for everybody, he would lament. Fair enough.

Personality wise, I'm pretty introverted. It doesn't mean shy, it means 'this person tends to get worn out quicker than extroverts when socializing', so that probably plays a part as well.

Even with all that, when you're in your 20s, those urges can be overwhelming, and I came out of my shell. Hooking up with strangers, getting, bjs, occasional piv, even massage parlors and sex toys. It was normal. Most of these girls were average looking at best, so I never really felt an emotional reaction to seriously pursue a relationship.

Yeah, girls are definitely beautiful. Man, that's a big part. Even at my age, I still look at social media profiles of the 'hot' girls from high school, and many of them still look good, even in thier 40s. I mean they're still hot. I'd be lying if I didn't say some nights I lay in bed feeling empty and depressed longing for a particular girl, but deep down knowing it will NEVER happen. I guess you just learn to live with this disappointment.

Funny you say that about fornication. I was just reading an article last week saying two priests beleived the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid pre marital sex, and that fornication in Biblical times didn't mean sex in general, but rather IMMORAL sex(men sleeping with men, animals, sodomy, etc) but it's debatable.

[Shemp]

fornication in Biblical times didn't mean sex in general, but rather IMMORAL sex(men sleeping with men, animals, sodomy, etc) but it's debatable.

@MrMan is invited to comment.

The Old Testament specifically allows men to have sex with whores, but prohibits adultery (sex with married women). By extension, it is okay to have sex with an unpaid whore, which is what the typical modern woman is, but prohibited to go after virgins unless you plan to marry them (or they make it clear they plan on a life of whoring, paid or otherwise, but that's a gray area since young virgins are probably not ready to make such momentous decisions).

The New Testament encourages sexual abstinence, for those who can live with abstinence and that appears to describe you. For those who can't, it recommends marriage. If a married couple outlives their youthful sex drive, the New Testament once again encourages abstinence. The New Testament also suggests demoting sex and other carnal appetites to low priority in life. We all have to eat, sleep, shit, bathe, etc and nothing wrong with enjoying the satisfaction of such bodily desires, but such animal desires shouldn't be the primary focus of your life. Nor should sex with women nor masturbatory sex with yourself become the focus of your existence. If you have to pay whores or masturbate to keep a raving sex drive under control, that's better than marrying a women you don't really love just to gratify your sex drive (and she'll cut you off from sex anyway, so bad idea) or going after virgins you dont plan to marry and spoiling them for other men or going after unpaid whores who make you behave like a clown for their amusement in lieu of money payment.

Another option, that I can highly recommend, is to go after debauched older women, especially divorcees in their 40s or 50s trying to relive their youth. These are effectively unpaid whores, but the amount of BS they dish out is trivial compared to younger women. I'm not sure what Jesus and Paul would say about old unpaid whores versus young paid whores, thought I'm sure both would agree that young unpaid whores are an abomination and deserving of several thousand years of roasting in hellhire.

[Rygar1]

fornication in Biblical times didn't mean sex in general, but rather IMMORAL sex(men sleeping with men, animals, sodomy, etc) but it's debatable.

@MrMan is invited to comment.

The Old Testament specifically allows men to have sex with whores, but prohibits adultery (sex with married women). By extension, it is okay to have sex with an unpaid whore, which is what the typical modern woman is, but prohibited to go after virgins unless you plan to marry them (or they make it clear they plan on a life of whoring, paid or otherwise, but that's a gray area since young virgins are probably not ready to make such momentous decisions).

The New Testament encourages sexual abstinence, for those who can live with abstinence and that appears to describe you. For those who can't, it recommends marriage. If a married couple outlives their youthful sex drive, the New Testament once again encourages abstinence. The New Testament also suggests demoting sex and other carnal appetites to low priority in life. We all have to eat, sleep, shit, bathe, etc and nothing wrong with enjoying the satisfaction of such bodily desires, but such animal desires shouldn't be the primary focus of your life. Nor should sex with women nor masturbatory sex with yourself become the focus of your existence. If you have to pay whores or masturbate to keep a raving sex drive under control, that's better than marrying a women you don't really love just to gratify your sex drive (and she'll cut you off from sex anyway, so bad idea) or going after virgins you dont plan to marry and spoiling them for other men or going after unpaid whores who make you behave like a clown for their amusement in lieu of money payment.

Another option, that I can highly recommend, is to go after debauched older women, especially divorcees in their 40s or 50s trying to relive their youth. These are effectively unpaid whores, but the amount of BS they dish out is trivial compared to younger women. I'm not sure what Jesus and Paul would say about old unpaid whores versus young paid whores, thought I'm sure both would agree that young unpaid whores are an abomination and deserving of several thousand years

[Rygar1]

Well, i dont really beleive in that stuff, so it's a moot point. I mean, what's the difference between a long term girlfriend and a wife? It's semantics. I've probably masterbated at least 10000 times as well, so there's that. I've never had a girlfriend, but I've cheated with girls who had boyfriend's (usually kissing and fingering their twats)

But I do like the teachings and philosophy of Jesus christ. Following his advice is good. Nobody a perfect person, certainly not Ole rygar1.

FUnny you say that about older women. Just last week I was at my local Cafe, and an older lady who weighed 300 pounds was laying it on thick. This was during the daytime. We just talked for 30 minutes and I swear I heard her say something like ...."filthy ass". I swear it sounded like she said my filthy ass or someone else's filthy ass. I was like Wtf? But I could be wrong.

Why do you think I want abstinence?

[MrMan]

Funny you say that about fornication. I was just reading an article last week saying two priests beleived the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid pre marital sex, and that fornication in Biblical times didn't mean sex in general, but rather IMMORAL sex(men sleeping with men, animals, sodomy, etc) but it's debatable.

That's definitely not a standard view. The New Testament, in I Thessalonians 4, tells believers to abstain from fornication, and not to defraud a brother in that way... brother in the masculine singular. In the plural, it might have the sense of 'brothers and sisters' or 'brothers'... but this is singular. Now what brother are you going to cheat by sleeping with a prostitute? But if you sleep with a single woman, you are taking something. Either you are taking the honor of the father, the daughter in his household, or the brother she eventually she ends up married, since he was supposed to have all of her sex, and her not be one flesh with you first, you defiling his future wife. It says God gets vengeance/punishes those who do such things.

The word 'porneia' in Greek, translated 'fornication' in the KJV and 'sexual immorality 'in some translations is a word that might be translated 'whoring around.' In fact, those who do it are called 'whoremongers' in a one off translation in the KJV. But even in English, 'prostitution' used to be a word for sex outside of marriage. When they started passing laws outlawing prostitution for money, it got specialized to mean women who do that for pay, as opposed to women who just sleep around outside of marriage.

If you pick up a woman at a sleazy bar and negotiate a price of $100 bucks to have sex with her, that's fornication, and you are paying her. But if you go to the sleazy bar, and she just agrees to have sex with you for free, then she's just a really cheap whore. She only charges zero dollars. It's the same sin, since she isn't your wife.

Now the Old Testament required a death penalty for adulterers (if they were caught with two or three witnesses, the criteria for execution if there were a capital crime). Also, men who had sex with animals, or other men, and various forms of incest were capital crimes. Now if a woman fornicated and then was married off as if she were a virgin, she could be executed for that? It doesn't say anything about a death penalty for prostitutes, though. That doesn't mean it was okay, just that it wasn't an executable offense. And a man who had sex with a virgin was obligated to pay the dowry and also to marry her if her father agreed to the marriage.

The Proverbs say to men to drink water out of your own well... in context it's talking about having sex with your own wife and not someone else's. It says to rejoice with the wife of your youth. Let her breasts always satisfy you.

[MrMan]

fornication in Biblical times didn't mean sex in general, but rather IMMORAL sex(men sleeping with men, animals, sodomy, etc) but it's debatable.

@MrMan is invited to comment.

The Old Testament specifically allows men to have sex with whores, but prohibits adultery (sex with married women).

No, it doesn't. It doesn't have a penalty for sex with prostitutes, as far as I know, specifically laid out... at least not a death penalty like for adultery. If a girl prostituted herself out... money changing hands or not... then got married off as a virgin, there was a penalty for that. And a prostitute's wages couldn't go into the temple treasuring. It was a low thing, but not something that the death penalty was prescribe for-- like sex with another man's wife, certain forms of incest, male homosexual sex, sex with animals, idolatry, blasphemy, etc.

[quote[
By extension, it is okay to have sex with an unpaid whore, which is what the typical modern woman is, but prohibited to go after virgins unless you plan to marry them (or they make it clear they plan on a life of whoring, paid or otherwise, but that's a gray area since young virgins are probably not ready to make such momentous decisions).
[/quote]

The New Testament forbids fornication, and specifically speaks out against Christians having sex with prostitutes in I Corinthians 6. Fornication is among the sins committed by those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." He that fornicates sins against his own body.

The chapter, chapter 7, that endorses celibacy also recommends marriage to prevent fornication.

The New Testament encourages sexual abstinence, for those who can live with abstinence and that appears to describe you. For those who can't, it recommends marriage.

That's true, but the reason for it is that the single man, or woman, doesn't have to please husband or wife and can dedicate their life to pleasing to the Lord. So someone who spends a lot of time in prayer instead of listening to the wife talk about her day or doing evangelism or missionary work, etc. as a single man who has self control and doesn't marry.... he's making a sacrifice and doing something noble by not marrying. And for some men, it might not even feel like much of a sacrifice.

But if a man goes around occasionally fingering girls, getting bjs, and occasionally having full-blown sex from time to time, but doesn't marry.... that's not noble. That sinful, and he isn't even getting a supply of regular sex, which he ___ might___ get if he marries, and marries well.

[qutoe]
If a married couple outlives their youthful sex drive, the New Testament once again encourages abstinence.[/quote]

Absolutely not. That's not in there. That might be the thinking of some monastic types after the second or third century where husband and wife went to a monastery or convent in old age... which I gather was an extremely rare thing. Maybe some guy becomes bishop and his wife goes into the convent or something like that in the middle ages or leading up to it might have happened a few times. They developed a tradition over time that the bishop be celibate, even though 'being the husband of one wife' was a Biblical requirement for bishops.

The New Testament also suggests demoting sex and other carnal appetites to low priority in life. We all have to eat, sleep, shit, bathe, etc and nothing wrong with enjoying the satisfaction of such bodily desires, but such animal desires shouldn't be the primary focus of your life. Nor should sex with women nor masturbatory sex with yourself become the focus of your existence.

I would agree that nothing, sex included, should be too much a focus. The Bible doesn't directly address it that way. We are to love the LORD our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and if you love sex more than God, that's a problem. Also, husband and wife are to abstain from sex and fast from time to time...with mutual consent only.. and have sex again so that Satan not tempt them due to a lack of self control.

I don't know where the Bible directly addresses masturbation. It got named after Onan, but that passage is about a man who pulled out rather than have sex with his late brother's wife to let her have children in his brother's name to inherit his estate. That's coitus interruptus... and there was a particular context to it of his not raising up seed to his brother, not just not finishing in the right place. It doesn't say he did a few strokes to finish off either. In the Old Testament, if a man had an emission at night, he was unclean and had to do some ceremonial washing. But that happened every time he ejaculated, including with his wife, that he was unclean. Women would get unclean from having their periods. Touching a dead body made people unclean. So unclean isn't the same as sinful.

If you have to pay whores or masturbate to keep a raving sex drive under control, that's better than marrying a women you don't really love just to gratify your sex drive (and she'll cut you off from sex anyway, so bad idea)

I dont' see where that has much to do with the teachings of the New Testament. The New Testament says 'husbands love your wives.' It doesn't say 'only marry them if you are in love with them. Some people might have been matched up for marriage back then. The husband still had to love his wife.

Personally, I wouldn't have wanted to marry a woman I didn't love, or one who would have just cut me off from sex. Waiting for periods, healing after chidlbirth, and sometimes aches and pains is bad enough. Especially for a young man.

But no, no whores. That's specifically forbidden in the New Testament. Christians are not to be joined with a harlot.

or going after virgins you dont plan to marry and spoiling them for other men or going after unpaid whores who make you behave like a clown for their amusement in lieu of money payment.

Spoiling virgins is an evil thing. Sex with your own virgin wife is fine. It's fun, too.

Another option, that I can highly recommend, is to go after debauched older women, especially divorcees in their 40s or 50s trying to relive their youth. These are effectively unpaid whores, but the amount of BS they dish out is trivial compared to younger women. I'm not sure what Jesus and Paul would say about old unpaid whores versus young paid whores, thought I'm sure both would agree that young unpaid whores are an abomination and deserving of several thousand years of roasting in hellhire.

Jesus said that he that married her that is divorced commits adultery, and Paul said if she departs let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. Spoiling a divorced woman is a nasty thing to do, also. I'm in my 50's, and my wife is exceptionally nice looking for a woman almost 50. Even at my age, the idea of going after 'women in their 40s and 50s' doesn't sound particularly appealing. If I were a single man in my 40's, which I am guessing what Rygar1 is, and I were wanting to go after a woman, I'd be looking at 30's down. At 37 or so, a woman might still look young. But it is rare for them to look young in their 40's. And a woman's sex drive in her 30's is probably going to be stronger than one in her 40's. And at that age, I wouldn't have minded having a baby. If I were single, though, I'd be looking for virgins and faithful virtuous widows, though, not women who had slept around, the type who wouldn't be sleeping around with other men after marriage either.

[Rygar1]

Funny you say that about fornication. I was just reading an article last week saying two priests beleived the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid pre marital sex, and that fornication in Biblical times didn't mean sex in general, but rather IMMORAL sex(men sleeping with men, animals, sodomy, etc) but it's debatable.

That's definitely not a standard view. The New Testament, in I Thessalonians 4, tells believers to abstain from fornication, and not to defraud a brother in that way... brother in the masculine singular. In the plural, it might have the sense of 'brothers and sisters' or 'brothers'... but this is singular. Now what brother are you going to cheat by sleeping with a prostitute? But if you sleep with a single woman, you are taking something. Either you are taking the honor of the father, the daughter in his household, or the brother she eventually she ends up married, since he was supposed to have all of her sex, and her not be one flesh with you first, you defiling his future wife. It says God gets vengeance/punishes those who do such things.

The word 'porneia' in Greek, translated 'fornication' in the KJV and 'sexual immorality 'in some translations is a word that might be translated 'whoring around.' In fact, those who do it are called 'whoremongers' in a one off translation in the KJV. But even in English, 'prostitution' used to be a word for sex outside of marriage. When they started passing laws outlawing prostitution for money, it got specialized to mean women who do that for pay, as opposed to women who just sleep around outside of marriage.

If you pick up a woman at a sleazy bar and negotiate a price of $100 bucks to have sex with her, that's fornication, and you are paying her. But if you go to the sleazy bar, and she just agrees to have sex with you for free, then she's just a really cheap whore. She only charges zero dollars. It's the same sin, since she isn't your wife.

Now the Old Testament required a death penalty for adulterers (if they were caught with two or three witnesses, the criteria for execution if there were a capital crime). Also, men who had sex with animals, or other men, and various forms of incest were capital crimes. Now if a woman fornicated and then was married off as if she were a virgin, she could be executed for that? It doesn't say anything about a death penalty for prostitutes, though. That doesn't mean it was okay, just that it wasn't an executable offense. And a man who had sex with a virgin was obligated to pay the dowry and also to marry her if her father agreed to the marriage.

The Proverbs say to men to drink water out of your own well... in context it's talking about having sex with your own wife and not someone else's. It says to rejoice with the wife of your youth. Let her breasts always satisfy you.

But does fornication mean something different back then than it does today? If not, why would those priests make such a claim? I really and truly fail to see any immorality if two consenting parties (male and female) agree to have sex, with protection. I hate to break it to you, but if it were a sin to bang before marriage, many, many, people, including some guys on this forum, would be guilty. I mean honestly, it would be like 40
-50 percent of American highschoolers, at least. Also shemp, and winston.

This is precisely one of the main reasons that gives me reservations about Christianity, and religion in particular. Why does God care so much if we get laid? Of all the bad things to do to another human being, giving them an orgasm is pretty good. God made man, we're led to believe, and the sexual organs that go with it. Why design something and then punish people for using something YOU designed in the first place?

What exactly constitutes fornication anyway? Are blowjobs allowed? Kissing with tongue? George from Seinfeld beleived kissing was sex. Is it just strictly PIV? (penis in vagina)?

And what difference, if any, is there between a wife and a long term girlfriend?

[MrMan]

But does fornication mean something different back then than it does today? If not, why would those priests make such a claim?

I don't know the priests and did not hear them make their claim. Are these RCC priests? Why would the other 400K priests in the world disagree with this small number of priests?

I really and truly fail to see any immorality if two consenting parties (male and female) agree to have sex, with protection.

Being from a Roman Catholic background, doesn't 'with protection' make it sound worse to you.

I mentioned this earlier, but sex is where babies come from. Children raised without a father in the home are more likely to have problems with substance abuse, crime, lower grades, dropping out of high school, teen pregnancy, etc. Also, from creation God ordained that two should be one flesh, not become one flesh with one girl one week, another the next week, and another for six months, then another.

I hate to break it to you, but if it were a sin to bang before marriage, many, many, people, including some guys on this forum, would be guilty. I mean honestly, it would be like 40
-50 percent of American highschoolers, at least. Also shemp, and winston.

So are you under the impression that Shemp and Winston never sinned? I don't think either of them claim to be Christians, but I don't think either of them have claimed they have never sinned.

This is precisely one of the main reasons that gives me reservations about Christianity, and religion in particular. Why does God care so much if we get laid? Of all the bad things to do to another human being, giving them an orgasm is pretty good. God made man, we're led to believe, and the sexual organs that go with it. Why design something and then punish people for using something YOU designed in the first place?

Designed for use in marriage. Orgasm encourages reproduction. Reproduction makes sense in marriage. But just look at the chaos created by men having multiple baby mammas and kids having siblings with different daddies.

What exactly constitutes fornication anyway? Are blowjobs allowed? Kissing with tongue? George from Seinfeld beleived kissing was sex. Is it just strictly PIV? (penis in vagina)?

BJs would have been on the menu for Grecco-Roman era prostitutes, and the New Testament forbids sex with prostitutes.

And what difference, if any, is there between a wife and a long term girlfriend?

In general, the father gives the wife away in marriage. The girlfriend relationship lasts until either of you decide to break up. Marriage is __supposed to be__ a life long commitment.

[MrMan]

But does fornication mean something different back then than it does today? If not, why would those priests make such a claim?

I don't know the priests and did not hear them make their claim. Are these RCC priests? Why would the other 400K priests in the world disagree with this small number of priests?

I really and truly fail to see any immorality if two consenting parties (male and female) agree to have sex, with protection.

Being from a Roman Catholic background, doesn't 'with protection' make it sound worse to you.

I mentioned this earlier, but sex is where babies come from. Children raised without a father in the home are more likely to have problems with substance abuse, crime, lower grades, dropping out of high school, teen pregnancy, etc. Also, from creation God ordained that two should be one flesh, not become one flesh with one girl one week, another the next week, and another for six months, then another.

I hate to break it to you, but if it were a sin to bang before marriage, many, many, people, including some guys on this forum, would be guilty. I mean honestly, it would be like 40
-50 percent of American highschoolers, at least. Also shemp, and winston.

So are you under the impression that Shemp and Winston never sinned? I don't think either of them claim to be Christians, but I don't think either of them have claimed they have never sinned.

This is precisely one of the main reasons that gives me reservations about Christianity, and religion in particular. Why does God care so much if we get laid? Of all the bad things to do to another human being, giving them an orgasm is pretty good. God made man, we're led to believe, and the sexual organs that go with it. Why design something and then punish people for using something YOU designed in the first place?

Designed for use in marriage. Orgasm encourages reproduction. Reproduction makes sense in marriage. But just look at the chaos created by men having multiple baby mammas and kids having siblings with different daddies.

What exactly constitutes fornication anyway? Are blowjobs allowed? Kissing with tongue? George from Seinfeld beleived kissing was sex. Is it just strictly PIV? (penis in vagina)?

BJs would have been on the menu for Grecco-Roman era prostitutes, and the New Testament forbids sex with prostitutes.

And what difference, if any, is there between a wife and a long term girlfriend?

In general, the father gives the wife away in marriage. The girlfriend relationship lasts until either of you decide to break up. Marriage is __supposed to be__ a life long commitment. The modern girlfriend concept might be just about 120 years old.

[Rygar1]

Your rebuttals were reasonable. I may not agree per se, but it's fair and balanced. It's pretty much a standard view in Christianity, including Roman catholiscim (which I was raised )

Ill see if I can link you to that site about the two priests who made such a claim. I think, however, I just simply Googled "biblical views on premarital sex" and one link led to that one. I'm sure it's not a widely held claim, but nonetheless is a different perspective.

The raw fact is that marriage(relationships in general) aren't for everyone. It takes a lot of willpower to spend every day with a modern woman and not every guy is cut out for it. Your needs have to be met some other way. If not, then how?