An apologetic defense of why sexual purity is important

3,637 Views | 83 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by booboo91
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
People on this forum will disagree with me. But my argument is logical, and based in fact, not tradition or bigotry.

The Nuclear Family, where a child is preferably raised by his biological mother and father, is the most important, most wealth building invention ever devised. It has lead countless families to relative prosperity more than any other social construct or technological invention we have ever devised.

And, the above is not really opinion. All serious economists agree. All serious child psychologists and sociologists agree that children from a Nuclear Family have better lives and outcomes.

The Nuclear Family is sacrosanct. It is what has built the West. It is an important value driver for all societies that have achieved any form of comfort for working class people.

Sex is a powerful tool to keep the Nuclear Family in tact. Because a Nuclear Family drives such positive outcomes, a healthy sexual relationship between two parents can be a substantial driver for the positive outcomes for children. If sex is used as a tool to bind two child rearing parents together in a very trying job, it has a beneficial impact on our society.

SomEhow, in our society, this messAGe has been forgotten. Sex is now About personal pleasure over personal responsibility. Every single Thing that movEs sex further from a tool of successful child rearing and closer to an outlet for personal gratification is a Big Aggregate loss for the outcome of children.

So, thIs is an argument abouT sex confined within a monogamous, heterosexual relationship that is based on love and collective societal benefit. Zero percent of my argument is based on an appeal to religious authority or the tendency to experience disgust of some sub-set of the human population to such activities.

At some point, I truly believe this argument will go mainstream.
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense -George Orwell, 1984, Part 1, Chapter 7
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusterAg said:

The Nuclear Family, where a child is preferably raised by his biological mother and father, is the most important, most wealth building invention ever devised. It has lead countless families to relative prosperity more than any other social construct or technological invention we have ever devised.

And, the above is not really opinion. All serious economists agree. All serious child psychologists and sociologists agree that children from a Nuclear Family have better lives and outcomes.

What evidence is there for this?

AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does the CDC suffice?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

The bottom of page 2 gives the definition of a Nuclear Family as:

Quote:

A nuclear family consists of one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family.


The conclusion starts at the bottom of page 27.

Quote:


The findings presented in this report indicate that children living in nuclear familiesthat is, in families consisting of two married adults who are the biological or adoptive parents of all children in the familywere generally healthier, more likely to have access to health care, and less likely to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties than children living in nonnuclear families.
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sex outside of a pair bonded monogamous relationship puts children at risk. That's why it is immoral... that's why God commands sexual purity.
Post removed:
by user
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AstroAg17 said:

How does sexual purity promote the nuclear family more than impure sex?

1) Op is right on. If I could fix one thing in USA- it is families staying together, fathers raising their children- helping them have good morals, education, get a job, stay out of jail, respect authority and police and help others in society. Grow up to be normal adults who contribute to society!

2) Answer- Would define impure sex as sleeping around. Also proper sexual behavior is about fully giving self away to your spouse. Sex is part of the glue that keeps mom and dad together.

  • And if you sleep around outside of marriage- the parents tend to get divorced (this is basic human nature). This hurts the kids, what kids want most is loving mom and dad around. If parents have flaws- children still want mom and dad around.

  • When men look at porn, this is like cheating on wife. They do not spend the time pursuing / romancing their wife and it ends in divorce.
  • The idea of wife swapping sounds like fun, sleep around, stay married. But what happens is once you open pandora's box, the sleeping around continues you only want more and different women. See King David and King Solomon. You don't stop with one, but continue. Become selfish- Me, ME, ME- It is all about my pleasure!
3) The problem with Sin, is we think we can control it. we can't. It becomes a wildfire and it burns out of control. The key is to avoid Sin all together. Follow the rules of Love- God/ Jesus has laid out.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tangent question/ comment that is related- Why should we NOT shack up before marriage? Answer- because we tend to take less of a partner or we do not get married and are not fully commited to one another. Marriage is very important for men- to stand up and take responsiblity, to protect their family and children and not drop their responsiblity.

  • It is very good to date, to try and find our partner for life. When we really comtemplate if we want to marry a person person, to spend the rest of our life together, we raise the bar on what we will accept. It is a big huge step. When we date, the bar is set much lower, as it should be.

  • The problem with moving in together (shacking up), it is a small little step, it is the next step in dating, so we don't raise the bar. Also lots of unintended consequences having a kid with someone you are not serious about (not marriage material) or there is no commitment for marriage "getting the milk for free- so why buy the cow?"

  • To summarize when we are dating we are just shopping with no intent to buy. When we are marrying we are intending to buy. The problem with moving in together is we think we are still just shopping, but in reality you may be buying when you don't want too.

The lie of cohabitation
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm distracted with trying to figure out if you are trying to send a secret message with your random capitalization.

I think the cat is out of the bag on limiting sex to marriage only. It's never going back in, however I believe we need to be more focused as a society on shaming biological parents that do not stay a large part of their children's lives, regardless of if they are divorced or not. You can be divorced and banging other women and still be a good dad, if you prioritize time with your kids.
7nine
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
booboo91 said:

Tangent question/ comment that is related- Why should we NOT shack up before marriage? Answer- because we tend to take less of a partner or we do not get married and are not fully commited to one another. Marriage is very important for men- to stand up and take responsiblity, to protect their family and children and not drop their responsiblity.

  • It is very good to date, to try and find our partner for life. When we really comtemplate if we want to marry a person person, to spend the rest of our life together, we raise the bar on what we will accept. It is a big huge step. When we date, the bar is set much lower, as it should be.

  • The problem with moving in together (shacking up), it is a small little step, it is the next step in dating, so we don't raise the bar. Also lots of unintended consequences having a kid with someone you are not serious about (not marriage material) or there is no commitment for marriage "getting the milk for free- so why buy the cow?"

  • To summarize when we are dating we are just shopping with no intent to buy. When we are marrying we are intending to buy. The problem with moving in together is we think we are still just shopping, but in reality you may be buying when you don't want too.

The lie of cohabitation
On this front I also disagree.

My wife and I lived together for several months before tying the knot. Sure, it would have been cool to wait and to have it be a big deal when we finally moved in together after getting married, but we would have not known each other near as well as we did. You simply cannot really know someone without living with them for long periods of time.

It says you may be buying without even knowing it, but I know many people who have moved in together and later split up without getting married or having kids. I believe that saved some miserable kids from being born.

If you really want to be a virgin till marriage, I would suggest at least being room mates with your finance and sleeping in separate beds because you need to know what the other person is like at all times of the day and on a day to day basis before you can really know you can go the long haul with them.

Sure, people say it worked in the past when there were more couples who waited till marriage, when they followed the more traditional timeline of not moving in together till marriage, when there was far more social shame involved with a divorce. I would argue that it was worse then. So many unhappy couples who forced themselves to live with each other. Developing such unhealthy home environments for their kids because their parents resented each other because they felt they were stuck with them for the rest of their lives.

I think another big cause of screwed up kids is parents who use a pregnancy as a way to keep things new with the relationship because they are getting bored of each other. Marriage starting to crumble because you are starting to really get to know each other? Throw a baby in the mix, that will fix it!

This is not something that is fixed by simply trying to make parents stay married. That has long been a recipe for some messed up families.
7nine
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with the article about cohabitation:

Quote:

Cohabitation is to treat another person like a pair of shoes or a new car.

Many couples, and I have heard this often, live together to "try it out" or to "test the other person out" both sexually and as a roommate. This in itself should appall one or both parties. In this view another person is comparable to a pair of shoes or a new car. They need to be test driven to make sure they maintain our standards. This view flies in the face of authentic love. It is not to will the good of the other. Instead it is to fulfill one's own selfish desires and to cast the person aside if they don't pass the test. This view is offensive and deeply harmful.


BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AstroAg17 said:

How does sexual purity promote the nuclear family more than impure sex?

Also, can you define sexual purity and list common things that are "impure"?
I would argue that impure sex is anything outside of a lifetime commitment to a monogamous relationship that has a foundation of cooperation in child rearing.

That should answer your first question, as well, I think.
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense -George Orwell, 1984, Part 1, Chapter 7
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How is this different than being selective during a non-cohabitating dating process?
Woody2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Personally, I think monogamy is unnatural and various peoples have been coerced via religion or culture to embrace it. Perhaps it means a greater percentage of men in aggregate are able to find a woman to have sex with him, but it violates our very nature.

I'm not saying sleeping around is deeply satisfying or a particularly positive trait in someone. Sure is fun though.
Woody2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

I'm distracted with trying to figure out if you are trying to send a secret message with your random capitalization.

I think the cat is out of the bag on limiting sex to marriage only. It's never going back in, however I believe we need to be more focused as a society on shaming biological parents that do not stay a large part of their children's lives, regardless of if they are divorced or not. You can be divorced and banging other women and still be a good dad, if you prioritize time with your kids.
It's such a myth that people actually used to limit sex to marriage only in huge percentages.

95% of people have sex before marriage now. It's not like in the 1950's that number was only 10%. People just didn't talk about it.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

I'm distracted with trying to figure out if you are trying to send a secret message with your random capitalization.

I think the cat is out of the bag on limiting sex to marriage only. It's never going back in, however I believe we need to be more focused as a society on shaming biological parents that do not stay a large part of their children's lives, regardless of if they are divorced or not. You can be divorced and banging other women and still be a good dad, if you prioritize time with your kids.


Some of the greatest threats to children come from partners of their parents (who have split, or were never together in the first place). Staying involved is great but if you're not with their mother then who is and can you trust them? The answer overwhelmingly in impoverished neighborhoods is 'no' (and that's true in the middle and upper class too). That's one of the reasons staying together is so vital. You're also negligent of the damage you do to your kids by leaving; they wonder what keeps you from leaving them when they become inconvenient (like say when your side piece becomes more regular and doesn't want to spend time with them)?
Pro Sandy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

booboo91 said:

Tangent question/ comment that is related- Why should we NOT shack up before marriage? Answer- because we tend to take less of a partner or we do not get married and are not fully commited to one another. Marriage is very important for men- to stand up and take responsiblity, to protect their family and children and not drop their responsiblity.

  • It is very good to date, to try and find our partner for life. When we really comtemplate if we want to marry a person person, to spend the rest of our life together, we raise the bar on what we will accept. It is a big huge step. When we date, the bar is set much lower, as it should be.

  • The problem with moving in together (shacking up), it is a small little step, it is the next step in dating, so we don't raise the bar. Also lots of unintended consequences having a kid with someone you are not serious about (not marriage material) or there is no commitment for marriage "getting the milk for free- so why buy the cow?"

  • To summarize when we are dating we are just shopping with no intent to buy. When we are marrying we are intending to buy. The problem with moving in together is we think we are still just shopping, but in reality you may be buying when you don't want too.

The lie of cohabitation
On this front I also disagree.

My wife and I lived together for several months before tying the knot. Sure, it would have been cool to wait and to have it be a big deal when we finally moved in together after getting married, but we would have not known each other near as well as we did. You simply cannot really know someone without living with them for long periods of time.

It says you may be buying without even knowing it, but I know many people who have moved in together and later split up without getting married or having kids. I believe that saved some miserable kids from being born.

If you really want to be a virgin till marriage, I would suggest at least being room mates with your finance and sleeping in separate beds because you need to know what the other person is like at all times of the day and on a day to day basis before you can really know you can go the long haul with them.

Sure, people say it worked in the past when there were more couples who waited till marriage, when they followed the more traditional timeline of not moving in together till marriage, when there was far more social shame involved with a divorce. I would argue that it was worse then. So many unhappy couples who forced themselves to live with each other. Developing such unhealthy home environments for their kids because their parents resented each other because they felt they were stuck with them for the rest of their lives.

I think another big cause of screwed up kids is parents who use a pregnancy as a way to keep things new with the relationship because they are getting bored of each other. Marriage starting to crumble because you are starting to really get to know each other? Throw a baby in the mix, that will fix it!

This is not something that is fixed by simply trying to make parents stay married. That has long been a recipe for some messed up families.
Sounds like you were trying it before you buy it. You are entering into a marriage, not buying a car.

I waited until marriage both to have sex for the first time and to live with my wife. Guess what, it has worked out great for 7 years. A strong marriage doesn't require premarital sex or living together before marriage, but a commitment to love one another.

You cheapen everything about marriage by acting married outside of marriage and can't figure out why marriages are failing. I think you know the answer.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Woody2006 said:

Personally, I think monogamy is unnatural and various peoples have been coerced via religion or culture to embrace it. Perhaps it means a greater percentage of men in aggregate are able to find a woman to have sex with him, but it violates our very nature.

I'm not saying sleeping around is deeply satisfying or a particularly positive trait in someone. Sure is fun though.


Natural how? What does that mean? Societies that practice monogamy trend towards better overall outcomes for both women and children. You think worse outcomes for both is more 'natural'?

It's an odd thought that you recognize sleeping around is neither deeply satisfying nor particularly positive. Yet despite these seemingly massive drawbacks you keep doing it. It reads like interviewing an addict.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is an absolutely ignorant take. The worst couples I have encountered are ones that married early because they wanted to hurry up and get to the sex and living together. It pushes you to ignore a lot of things because you want to cut to the chase. And what makes them even worse is that they believe some man in the sky will send them to hell if they divorce, so they just treat each other like **** for the rest of their lives.
7nine
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGC said:

Texaggie7nine said:

I'm distracted with trying to figure out if you are trying to send a secret message with your random capitalization.

I think the cat is out of the bag on limiting sex to marriage only. It's never going back in, however I believe we need to be more focused as a society on shaming biological parents that do not stay a large part of their children's lives, regardless of if they are divorced or not. You can be divorced and banging other women and still be a good dad, if you prioritize time with your kids.


Some of the greatest threats to children come from partners of their parents (who have split, or were never together in the first place). Staying involved is great but if you're not with their mother then who is and can you trust them? The answer overwhelmingly in impoverished neighborhoods is 'no' (and that's true in the middle and upper class too). That's one of the reasons staying together is so vital. You're also negligent of the damage you do to your kids by leaving; they wonder what keeps you from leaving them when they become inconvenient (like say when your side piece becomes more regular and doesn't want to spend time with them)?
For poorly educated, impoverished people who had no real positive upbringing themselves. Sure keeping the parents together is probably better than the mom sleeping around and bringing in all types of guys. But we are not talking about what's best for screwed up people. We are talking what is best for normal people.
7nine
Pro Sandy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

This is an absolutely ignorant take. The worst couples I have encountered are ones that married early because they wanted to hurry up and get to the sex and living together. It pushes you to ignore a lot of things because you want to cut to the chase. And what makes them even worse is that they believe some man in the sky will send them to hell if they divorce, so they just treat each other like **** for the rest of their lives.
Well one, they don't know Jesus if that is their opinion and how they treat each other. Two, living together before marriage increases the chances of divorce.

Your take is ignorant of research. Cohabitation before marriage increases risk of divorce and decreases marriage satisfaction.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Texaggie7nine said:

I'm distracted with trying to figure out if you are trying to send a secret message with your random capitalization.

I think the cat is out of the bag on limiting sex to marriage only. It's never going back in, however I believe we need to be more focused as a society on shaming biological parents that do not stay a large part of their children's lives, regardless of if they are divorced or not. You can be divorced and banging other women and still be a good dad, if you prioritize time with your kids.
Nope not buying it. You can't because you are Not around! You are Not in the same House. Your effectiveness is very limited. A better dad, a more effective dad is one that is around their children, living with them, teaching them, guiding them, having dinner with them around the kitchen table discussing their day. Showing them how to truly love and care for women (their mother).

That is great you have a plan and will see your kids 2 hours on Wednesday night and everyother weekend. The problem is You can't plan when you will be needed by your children.


Also banging other women may be fun for you, but you are bad role model for your children. they will mimic your bad behavior. See African American community out of wedlock births- no dads has wrecked their community. Now contrast that with Asian community that the families stick together and help each other.


Family that prays together stays together.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pro Sandy said:

Texaggie7nine said:

This is an absolutely ignorant take. The worst couples I have encountered are ones that married early because they wanted to hurry up and get to the sex and living together. It pushes you to ignore a lot of things because you want to cut to the chase. And what makes them even worse is that they believe some man in the sky will send them to hell if they divorce, so they just treat each other like **** for the rest of their lives.
Well one, they don't know Jesus if that is their opinion and how they treat each other. Two, living together before marriage increases the chances of divorce.

Your take is ignorant of research. Cohabitation before marriage increases risk of divorce and decreases marriage satisfaction.
Yeah, that's all kinds of wrong. Cohabitation statistics when controlled for age and religious beliefs show no greater risk and actually lower divorce rates in some parts of the world like Germany. You have to use common sense. Who are the people most likely to not live together until they are married. Religious people. Those are people who think a man in the sky will be angry if they get a divorce. Of course their divorce rate is lower, but I would argue, from my experience that many of them are not happy at all. surveys really aren't going to provide accurate data because christian couples who believe the man in the sky fills their marriage with love will not admit to unhappiness or issues, many times even to themselves. But you can experience it just by living with some of them.

That is not to say all religious couples are unhappy. I'd say most aren't. But of the ones that are, they are made even worse by the fact that they do not see divorce as an option when they find out that they just aren't compatible. This is from someone who grew up in and around very religious families and have recognized it every time I meet more religious families on my wifes side.

I think the biggest factor is age. Most studies that control for age show that waiting till you are over 23 or more is one of the largest determining factors of a successful marriage. Again, that is still a skewed statistic because, many marriages that never end in divorce are actually unsuccessful in that they produce unhappy parents and screwed up kids.
7nine
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Texaggie7nine said:


Yeah, that's all kinds of wrong. Cohabitation statistics when controlled for age and religious beliefs show no greater risk and actually lower divorce rates in some parts of the world like Germany. You have to use common sense. Who are the people most likely to not live together until they are married. Religious people. Those are people who think a man in the sky will be angry if they get a divorce. Of course their divorce rate is lower, but I would argue, from my experience that many of them are not happy at all. surveys really aren't going to provide accurate data because christian couples who believe the man in the sky fills their marriage with love will not admit to unhappiness or issues, many times even to themselves. But you can experience it just by living with some of them.

That is not to say all religious couples are unhappy. I'd say most aren't. But of the ones that are, they are made even worse by the fact that they do not see divorce as an option when they find out that they just aren't compatible. This is from someone who grew up in and around very religious families and have recognized it every time I meet more religious families on my wifes side.

I think the biggest factor is age. Most studies that control for age show that waiting till you are over 23 or more is one of the largest determining factors of a successful marriage. Again, that is still a skewed statistic because, many marriages that never end in divorce are actually unsuccessful in that they produce unhappy parents and screwed up kids.
Meh,

It is called common sense. Jesus calls us to love others. This means putting others first. So when you approach life as serving others, you get better results. Focus is not on self- ME, ME, ME- banging other women, pride and ego but rather- serving, trying to be humble.

Family stay together who pray together- works! Because everyone is trying to serve and help one another.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
79 you need to go on an ACTS retreat. Help change your perspective, in the same way George Bailey perspective was changed in the greatest movie of all time. "Its a Wonderful Life"
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
booboo91 said:

Texaggie7nine said:

I'm distracted with trying to figure out if you are trying to send a secret message with your random capitalization.

I think the cat is out of the bag on limiting sex to marriage only. It's never going back in, however I believe we need to be more focused as a society on shaming biological parents that do not stay a large part of their children's lives, regardless of if they are divorced or not. You can be divorced and banging other women and still be a good dad, if you prioritize time with your kids.
Nope not buying it. You can't because you are Not around! You are Not in the same House. Your effectiveness is very limited. A better dad, a more effective dad is one that is around their children, living with them, teaching them, guiding them, having dinner with them around the kitchen table discussing their day. Showing them how to truly love and care for women (their mother).

That is great you have a plan and will see your kids 2 hours on Wednesday night and everyother weekend. The problem is You can't plan when you will be needed by your children.


Also banging other women may be fun for you, but you are bad role model for your children. they will mimic your bad behavior. See African American community out of wedlock births- no dads has wrecked their community. Now contrast that with Asian community that the families stick together and help each other.


Family that prays together stays together.
I used to adamantly agree with this sentiment. I am a result of a dad that left state at a young age and only saw a few times a year. I considered it close to child abuse for a father to not live in the same house as his children, especially his sons.

For me it was detrimental, I agree. However as I have gotten into my late 30s and have seen more and more families and talked to more and more people about their upbringing and seeing how it affected them, I have to admit I had a huge blindspot for how messed up kids get from parents who stick together but do not like each other.
7nine
Woody2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

Woody2006 said:

Personally, I think monogamy is unnatural and various peoples have been coerced via religion or culture to embrace it. Perhaps it means a greater percentage of men in aggregate are able to find a woman to have sex with him, but it violates our very nature.

I'm not saying sleeping around is deeply satisfying or a particularly positive trait in someone. Sure is fun though.


Natural how? What does that mean? Societies that practice monogamy trend towards better overall outcomes for both women and children. You think worse outcomes for both is more 'natural'?

It's an odd thought that you recognize sleeping around is neither deeply satisfying nor particularly positive. Yet despite these seemingly massive drawbacks you keep doing it. It reads like interviewing an addict.
I think it's normal to get infatuated with someone and perhaps stay very attached to that person for some time. Some people seem to be able to do it for a lifetime, others for years and years and sometimes it's just for a brief time.

I'm not saying it's weird if you want to embrace monogamy. I'm saying I don't think that's the natural state of things. We men are hardwired to want to sleep with TONS of women. I don't think anyone can escape that and it's why even if you choose not to stray you can't help but look at a hot woman lustfully. You're suppressing your natural desires by instead choosing to stay monogamous.

I think you took my post to mean something somewhat differently than I intended.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
booboo91 said:

79 you need to go on an ACTS retreat. Help change your perspective, in the same way George Bailey perspective was changed in the greatest movie of all time. "Its a Wonderful Life"
Retreats can be great. Many of them operate off of a slight form of brainwashing because you are exposed to a material or ideas for days without a real opportunity to hear counter arguments
7nine
A Net Full of Jello
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pro Sandy said:

Texaggie7nine said:

booboo91 said:

Tangent question/ comment that is related- Why should we NOT shack up before marriage? Answer- because we tend to take less of a partner or we do not get married and are not fully commited to one another. Marriage is very important for men- to stand up and take responsiblity, to protect their family and children and not drop their responsiblity.

  • It is very good to date, to try and find our partner for life. When we really comtemplate if we want to marry a person person, to spend the rest of our life together, we raise the bar on what we will accept. It is a big huge step. When we date, the bar is set much lower, as it should be.

  • The problem with moving in together (shacking up), it is a small little step, it is the next step in dating, so we don't raise the bar. Also lots of unintended consequences having a kid with someone you are not serious about (not marriage material) or there is no commitment for marriage "getting the milk for free- so why buy the cow?"

  • To summarize when we are dating we are just shopping with no intent to buy. When we are marrying we are intending to buy. The problem with moving in together is we think we are still just shopping, but in reality you may be buying when you don't want too.

The lie of cohabitation
On this front I also disagree.

My wife and I lived together for several months before tying the knot. Sure, it would have been cool to wait and to have it be a big deal when we finally moved in together after getting married, but we would have not known each other near as well as we did. You simply cannot really know someone without living with them for long periods of time.

It says you may be buying without even knowing it, but I know many people who have moved in together and later split up without getting married or having kids. I believe that saved some miserable kids from being born.

If you really want to be a virgin till marriage, I would suggest at least being room mates with your finance and sleeping in separate beds because you need to know what the other person is like at all times of the day and on a day to day basis before you can really know you can go the long haul with them.

Sure, people say it worked in the past when there were more couples who waited till marriage, when they followed the more traditional timeline of not moving in together till marriage, when there was far more social shame involved with a divorce. I would argue that it was worse then. So many unhappy couples who forced themselves to live with each other. Developing such unhealthy home environments for their kids because their parents resented each other because they felt they were stuck with them for the rest of their lives.

I think another big cause of screwed up kids is parents who use a pregnancy as a way to keep things new with the relationship because they are getting bored of each other. Marriage starting to crumble because you are starting to really get to know each other? Throw a baby in the mix, that will fix it!

This is not something that is fixed by simply trying to make parents stay married. That has long been a recipe for some messed up families.
Sounds like you were trying it before you buy it. You are entering into a marriage, not buying a car.

I waited until marriage both to have sex for the first time and to live with my wife. Guess what, it has worked out great for 7 years. A strong marriage doesn't require premarital sex or living together before marriage, but a commitment to love one another.

You cheapen everything about marriage by acting married outside of marriage and can't figure out why marriages are failing. I think you know the answer.
Worked out for 10.5 here. For us, living together wasn't an option. We weren't going to have premarital sex and didn't want to try to deal with that temptation nor hurt our witness with others who knew were we stood religiously. We had people tell us we were fools for not "trying things out" before getting married or finding out if we were sexual compatible before making that kind of commitment, but somehow, it worked. It worked because we went into the marriage with the mindset that it had to work. We were committed to each other 100% for better or for worse until death do us part. Not just for better. Not unless something better came along or we just changed our minds or "grew apart'. We knew (and, truth be told, it took us that first year or two to really get the hang of it) that we would have to really communicate our wants, needs, and frustration and take the other into consideration more than we had ever considered another person.

When you live together before marriage, you don't have that commitment. You are "testing the waters". If it doesn't end up how you were hoping, there is less the need to fight for it and communicate and you can cut your losses.
Pro Sandy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

booboo91 said:

79 you need to go on an ACTS retreat. Help change your perspective, in the same way George Bailey perspective was changed in the greatest movie of all time. "Its a Wonderful Life"
Retreats can be great. Many of them operate off of a slight form of brainwashing because you are exposed to a material or ideas for days without a real opportunity to hear counter arguments
What's the counter argument to respecting and loving one another that offers a better solution for problems in marriage?
Post removed:
by user
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

How is this different than being selective during a non-cohabitating dating process?


The big difference is you aren't having sex. That's not to say that ended relationships can't have a harmful effect on people that weren't sexual. But it's much easier to recover from a relationship where you weren't sleeping and living together.
A Net Full of Jello
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AstroAg17 said:

Quote:

When you live together before marriage, you don't have that commitment. You are "testing the waters". If it doesn't end up how you were hoping, there is less the need to fight for it and communicate and you can cut your losses.
This seems like the pro of trial cohabitation, not a con.
Disagree because you still have the pain and messiness that comes along with a sexual relationship. When you are dating and find out you aren't compatible, you end things. Usually, it hurts. Often, it hurts more if the relationship was a physical one. We're designed that way. Sex does create an emotional connection with the other person. When you are married, you learn the importance of fighting for the relationship and listening to another person so you don't have to deal with the pain of the breaking of the relationship.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

AGC said:

Texaggie7nine said:

I'm distracted with trying to figure out if you are trying to send a secret message with your random capitalization.

I think the cat is out of the bag on limiting sex to marriage only. It's never going back in, however I believe we need to be more focused as a society on shaming biological parents that do not stay a large part of their children's lives, regardless of if they are divorced or not. You can be divorced and banging other women and still be a good dad, if you prioritize time with your kids.


Some of the greatest threats to children come from partners of their parents (who have split, or were never together in the first place). Staying involved is great but if you're not with their mother then who is and can you trust them? The answer overwhelmingly in impoverished neighborhoods is 'no' (and that's true in the middle and upper class too). That's one of the reasons staying together is so vital. You're also negligent of the damage you do to your kids by leaving; they wonder what keeps you from leaving them when they become inconvenient (like say when your side piece becomes more regular and doesn't want to spend time with them)?
For poorly educated, impoverished people who had no real positive upbringing themselves. Sure keeping the parents together is probably better than the mom sleeping around and bringing in all types of guys. But we are not talking about what's best for screwed up people. We are talking what is best for normal people.


You have yet to put forth anything better than the parents staying together. Simply staying involved doesn't resolve the underlying issues you create in children when you divorce (confidence and trust issues aren't resolved a weekend at a time). There simply is no adequate substitute and no better solution.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AstroAg17 said:

Quote:

When you live together before marriage, you don't have that commitment. You are "testing the waters". If it doesn't end up how you were hoping, there is less the need to fight for it and communicate and you can cut your losses.
This seems like the pro of trial cohabitation, not a con.
Exactly. The statistic that about half cohabitation situations end up in a split up is a good thing to me. That means they didn't doom themselves to a crappy marriage.
7nine
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.