what porn has done to millennials

nerd wrote

Aniki wrote

It doesn't, but I'm not really trying to convince you of anything.  Your view seems very grounded in this belief that sex is the be all end all, as if virginity has any value in regards to a person's character, and I disagree.  Sex is sex, and it really only has as much value as you put on it.  I think, that it had sanctity at all was solely a societal thing, but it's just a natural process and that humans can have fun with it gives context to why people are having it so much.  I see no problem with that, nor do I think it degrades character.

After all, considering in most places women were pretty much viewed as possessions during the time where sex did have that sanctity, I vastly prefer the freedom they have now by comparison, so I see this as a non-issue.

(hyperbole, in case you didn't know what that was.)

Huh.

Yup.

Had a serious response to the rest of the post.

RX14 wrote

nerd wrote

RX14 wrote

nerd wrote

I'm legitimately being 100% serious.

That's fucked up man, requiring your wife to be a virgin is some 1800s shit.

so you're just fine with your wife having had intercourse with numerous other men? it's like letting those men into your marriage.

The main problem I have with this sentiment is that it implies that you own your wife, and you get to control who she has sex with. You don't. Relationships should be equal.

Given the point of marriage is (legally substantiated) mutual emotional investment consolidated via physical intimacy, surely extending that physical intimacy to other individuals would detract from that. It's not a matter of ownership, or control (as contemporary feminism would have you believe), but one of mutual respect, and hence equality.
If you want to fool around, or engage in cuckoldry you really oughtn't get married. Unless both parties are entirely in favour, and one has not bullied the other into submission, it's simply unethical and ridicules the idea of the emotional investment.
You mustn't forget as well that marriage exists to create an environment for reproduction, and child rearing. A delicate situation, that this would very likely complicate.
The control of either party's interactions prior to the relationship is bogus, but not what is being referred to. What @[deleted] is referring to is the selection of a wife based on personal preferences, which is harmful to nobody, besides perhaps @[deleted] himself, given the reduction of his choice in partners.

pixelwitch wrote

RX14 wrote

nerd wrote

RX14 wrote

That's fucked up man, requiring your wife to be a virgin is some 1800s shit.

so you're just fine with your wife having had intercourse with numerous other men? it's like letting those men into your marriage.

The main problem I have with this sentiment is that it implies that you own your wife, and you get to control who she has sex with. You don't. Relationships should be equal.

Given the point of marriage is (legally substantiated) mutual emotional investment consolidated via physical intimacy, surely extending that physical intimacy to other individuals would detract from that. It's not a matter of ownership, or control (as contemporary feminism would have you believe), but one of mutual respect, and hence equality.
If you want to fool around, or engage in cuckoldry you really oughtn't get married. Unless both parties are entirely in favour, and one has not bullied the other into submission, it's simply unethical and ridicules the idea of the emotional investment.
You mustn't forget as well that marriage exists to create an environment for reproduction, and child rearing. A delicate situation, that this would very likely complicate.
The control of either party's interactions prior to the relationship is bogus, but not what is being referred to. What @[deleted] is referring to is the selection of a wife based on personal preferences, which is harmful to nobody, besides perhaps @[deleted] himself, given the reduction of his choice in partners.

I agree with you for the most part, that it's @[deleted]'s buisness what criteria he selects his wife with, but I think that @[deleted] should also respect other people's choices as to what they do with their bodies.

The most important part of marriage varies between people, for me the emotional relationship is much, much more important than the physical relationship, so as long as we both agree I wouldn't mind a non-monogamous relationship.

pixelwitch wrote

RX14 wrote

nerd wrote

RX14 wrote

That's fucked up man, requiring your wife to be a virgin is some 1800s shit.

so you're just fine with your wife having had intercourse with numerous other men? it's like letting those men into your marriage.

The main problem I have with this sentiment is that it implies that you own your wife, and you get to control who she has sex with. You don't. Relationships should be equal.

Given the point of marriage is (legally substantiated) mutual emotional investment consolidated via physical intimacy, surely extending that physical intimacy to other individuals would detract from that. It's not a matter of ownership, or control (as contemporary feminism would have you believe), but one of mutual respect, and hence equality.
If you want to fool around, or engage in cuckoldry you really oughtn't get married. Unless both parties are entirely in favour, and one has not bullied the other into submission, it's simply unethical and ridicules the idea of the emotional investment.
You mustn't forget as well that marriage exists to create an environment for reproduction, and child rearing. A delicate situation, that this would very likely complicate.
The control of either party's interactions prior to the relationship is bogus, but not what is being referred to. What @[deleted] is referring to is the selection of a wife based on personal preferences, which is harmful to nobody, besides perhaps @[deleted] himself, given the reduction of his choice in partners.

I'd assumed you were going in a different direction, but the ending actually rounded itself out quite nicely.

That in mind, I don't know if I necessarily think that her having had sex with other men (or, going the other way, him having had sex with other women/men, her with women) necessarily detracts from the emotional investment that is present in marriage.  I feel that, that she chose to have sex with only you for the rest of her life despite already having experienced the joy that is sex with other men they be more physically fit to please her better says a lot more about her choice than the simple promise of sex.  

Because the way I see it, it's not that that physical intimacy is being extended to other individuals, it's that the intimacy is being retracted to just you, and I think that carries an incredible amount of weight, certainly moreso for someone who isn't a virgin than someone who is.  It shows conviction to one's partner.

nerd wrote

it means she's already given her body to someone else, and ultimately, any dignity she may have had previously.

Thought I'd pitch in. I believe that statement to be completely ridiculous by any standards.

First, not trying to strawman you but actually curious as to your response, would you marry someone who hasn't had consensual sex, but that has been raped?

And what I wanted to say, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to state that a woman's dignity is purely based on her virginity. Do you believe the same holds for men? Again, I don't mean to assume an answer, I'm just curious.

Whoever someone ends up dating has probably dated somebody else before. Does that mean they've been 'used up' and are now unworthy of further relationships? No! Almost nobody ever gets married with the first person they dated. It's normal to have had a life before marrying someone.

Still, what @[deleted] said's right - you can choose your life parner however you like.

I guess I'll try to elaborate further on the topic in a bit, since I feel like my input has been lackluster.

Internet is still welcoming us. World-wide. Hurah!

Edit:
No joke/kidding.

There's an interesting video series that describes the effects of watching large amounts of porn on a person's psychology that I think might explain some of the article's claims about the dating behavior of Millennials.  If you're interested, you can watch it here:
http://yourbrainonporn.com/your-brain-on-porn-series

As far as a significant other's sex with prior partners goes, consider the fact that any given individual's personality is in a constant state of flux.  That is, you aren't exactly the same person that you were a week ago, or a month ago, or six months ago, etc. because you're steadily and continually changing as a person with the passage of time.

Similarly, just because my hypothetical partner had sex with someone else in the past doesn't mean that they're somehow less committed to me or anything of that sort.  Their motivations and thought patterns have changed since then; that much is obvious, since they'd otherwise still be with their old partner, or at the very least would be too interested in them to be pursuing me.

Because of that, it doesn't bother me when a romantic interest of mine (potential or otherwise) has been sexually active in the past, since that was during a different period in their life and thus isn't particularly relevant to the present.  Given how much I change and how relatively quickly said changes tend to occur, how can I look at others and expect that they've somehow remained static?

FukuchiChiisaia wrote

Casual sex is declining of human civilization.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. The Romans and Greeks had tons of lewd, casual sex, and word on the street is they did some pretty neato things back in the day.

Turned me into a raging homo, desu.

I think a important thing to remember is that its a article based on a qoura thread and the opinions of a gay man over 40 on vice.