Is pre-marital sex degenerate or do you consider it a non-issue?

"pre-marital sex" implies the desire to get married or the eventuality of a marriage between two engaged in intercourse

Correct. Most of what the "enlightened" fornicators on here engage in is just that (fornication) or maybe extramarital sex.

Pre-marital sex is absolutely degenerate and indicates a low IQ and a disregard for the health of one's civilization, people, and community (i.e., a nigger-tier mindset).

The only arguments that fornicators have to justify their degenerate ways are:
>MUH DICK
>cry more, permavirgin incel
>in this moment, i am euphoric

Watch these degenerate hedonists come out of the woodwork to defend themselves and pacify their guilty consciences. Their arguments will invariably fall into one of the above three arguments.

Sorry, meant to say:
*Extramarital sex is absolutely degenerate and indicates ...

This is Cred Forums, everything is degenerate, just like everything is a meme-food on /ck/.

Sex for anything other than procreation is degenerate. Even for pleasure with a married spouse is degenerate.

If you don't have many partners and have safe sex then its a non-issue

The former is due to chemical shit in bodies

>Marriage jew
I only have sex in long-term relationships. Didnt end them by my choice. Avg 2 years per girl. It's worth it to be able to have sex with someone you love and respect. You can throw them down on the bed and fuck them on a hard day, or hold them close when you/they need it. You know exactly what they like, and they know what you like. Not married, but women are commitment shy. Can't change them if they don't want to be with me forever. I can only better myself from the experience and move on. It doesnt seem too degenerate. Why would I get married? Women don't care about marriage either.

So, "muh dick"?

So true. Marriage is said to temper the carnal lust of youth and thereby avoid sin (or in more secular terms the degeneration of one's moral constitution and the collective morality of a society - something which only niggers are indifferent too) only when it co-opts sex for pleasure into sex for procreation.

Christ cucks are so silly

>You can throw them down on the bed and fuck them on a hard day, or hold them close when you/they need it. You know exactly what they like, and they know what you like.
I understand what you're saying and do not judge you for what you do as it isn't my place but surely you see that this boils down to:
>muh dick

If you know women are not interested in begetting children and committing to marriage, why would you engage them in what you call/deem "long-term relationships." You're merely disguising fornication under the flimsy guise of a vowless boyfriend-girlfriend relationship that has gained social legitimacy because of its resemblance (in form but not substance) to the ACTUALLY proper outlet for sexual expression through intercourse - marriage.

As mentioned here , marriage fulfills its tempering and beneficial end through the begetting of children. If you know, a priori, that your sexual involvement outside of marriage will not lead to progeny, you are only doing so for carnal/lustful reasons - hardly something to deem not "too degenerate."

If you don't want to get married, remain chaste and pursue higher callings that will strengthen your virtue and your community.

only meme foods are meme foods

>I under stand what you are saying and do not judge you
>judges him anyway

Why are you people always the first to judge others?, you are trying so hard to make yourself seem superior. I want to get married some day but waiting until then to have sex is fucking stupid, if you want to wait until then go ahead but don't push your dumb shit on others

Well you were referencing sex so I did also. You can't pigeon hole me into a frame of reference then chastise for that frame. We fulfill different roles and support each other through thick and thin. We combine finances, support with work, support eachothers' families. All of the general rigamarole without a paper saying so. Marriage is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The relationship isn't an end either. My relationships were/are a bond. If she no longer wants to participate, she shouldnt have to sign lengthy paper or go through a full lawyer routine. I dont want to lock anyone who does not want to be in a relationship. I want to be connected with my partner, because that's what it is.

Except i lift all the heavy stuff.

degenerate and sinful

acceptable pre-marital sex must happen in a committed relationship that is declared to friends and family.

Marriage is a non-issue. The only important thing about sex is that everyone knows who's fucking who. If you have to keep your sex life a secret, you have an immoral sex life. This includes cheating, one-night stands, fucking a fat girl you don't even like just because it's better than no sex orgies, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.

If you have to conceal it, it's obviously wrong.

Anything that happens between people who are publicly declared as being together is moral.

Still a virgin

since marriage has lost all meaning it's irrelevant no?

I am not a Christian and agree. It is unhealthy. I am not too concerned about people in a long term relationship who aren't married, but hook ups, friends with benefits, etc. fucks with the emotional bonding that goes along with sex.

im 27 and at this point in my life id fuck a hole in the ground

women have proven themselves useless

I only like crunchy tacos. Otherwise everything is all mushy and there is not enough texture.

Huh, I like soft tacos because crunchy ones instantly explode upon biting them and then you just eat a mass of random food off a plate

Is earth fucking degenerate or spiritual???

Where do you see judgement, faggot?
I'm not commenting on his person, I'm commenting on his actions.

Are you "judging someone" if you point out a mistake in their conduct? A mistake in their thinking process? Does a teacher "judge" their students when she points flaws out in their reasoning process?

>waiting until then to have sex is fucking stupid
Why? Lemme guess:
>MUH DICK

I'm not saying that your relationship is entirely carnal/lustful. Far from it, as evidenced by your post. But the topic of this thread is about the sexual aspect. Why do you engage in sexual conduct with these women when you know it won't lead to children? If that much is known, what's stopping you from a chaste partnership with this woman in which you:

>fulfill different roles and support each other through thick and thin. We combine finances, support with work, support eachothers' families

All of the above is good and not something I judge at all. You can't deny, however, that the sexual aspect of your relationships does fall within a certain frame of reference that can be examined and commented on independently of the other frames of reference.

Would you not enjoy all the support roles/love were it not for your dick getting wet? Are you merely supporting her as a means to an end of getting your dick wet? All I'm saying is that there is a carnal aspect to these vowless relationships that is not justifiable for any reason outside the three mentioned here: And for the record, I'm not judging. I've committed my fair share of shameful degeneracy. I can evaluate these degenerate actions without a wholesale condemnation of my person and move forward with a more coherent outlook. I hope you see my comments in that light - I am honestly not trying to put you down or anything.

>euphoric

>v-v-virgin

was a perfect prediction. Got all 3 in this thread.

It's bad for stable families.
Stable families encourage kids to study, work hard, etc. and just produce better people.
But hey who cares at this point.
It's an economic issue at its core.

Degenerate.

Try before you buy.

Sex outside of a committed relationship is degenerate.

treating sex like a drug instead of something you do with a potential life partner is degenerate kike, kill yourself.

>Except i lift all the heavy stuff.
LOL missed this part. Good. Can't let her steal your GAINZ. Don't you realize that sex-cardio also steals gains?

>All of the general rigamarole without a paper saying so.

I sympathize with the whole marriage dynamic without governmental approval. Marriage, however is properly a sacrament in which vows (and commitments/roles/objectives) are set forth between two persons (hopefully with an aim toward fulfilling each others' lives through righteous conduct and the begetting of progeny).

I agree that the government appreciation of the sacrament is not important, but usually in the bf-gf dynamic the sacramental aspect is never performed either, thus making it a parody of a real marriage that has legitimacy only in the eyes of a degenerate society.

>pre-marital sex must happen

>degeneracy is inevitable guys
>don't try to fight it, just rationalize it
oy vey

>Is earth fucking degenerate or spiritual???
degenerate. why u gotta drown those worms in the ground with your stinky incel cum?

>Sex not intended to produce offspring is degenerate.

Fixed.

Not necessarily degenerate (long-term relationships) but my personal belief lies in chastity before marrying for the rest of your life

Pre-marital sex in and of itself is a non-issue. What really is degenerate is sex outside a loving long-term committed relationship, whether in a non-permanent romantic (e.g., boyfriend and girlfriend) relationship or marriage. What is important is the fidelity between the two persons. Marriage is just a status, civilly speaking anyways. Religious people will say otherwise. Anybody can get married provided they voluntarily accept the contract and are of age. Heterosexuals as individuals have been bastardizing marriage before homosexuals by committing adultery and engaging promiscuous sex before they "settle down."

Why shouldn't two people in such a relationship marry? Surely they don't intend to find other partners even during the relationship they already have?

Dating is inexcusable and anti-love. People should have a single partner for life.

>Why shouldn't two people in such a relationship marry?
here if you live together with someone, but are not married, you can still receive certain specific economic supports if unemployed that you would not receive whilst married because during marriage the burden of keeping you alive would shift from the state to your spouse

its really the only case and afaik only applicable in finland
becomes null and void if you do get a job/get a kid though

Those who fucking go asking for advice on sex shouldn't be fucking having it if your state is teaching you how to put it in and what not to do. That is unless your a leaf and Tredeau insists you suck your enemy or they win.

Of course i like sex, she does too. We're biologically programmed to like sex as people. It activates parts of our brain which increase reward center activity, endorphin production, and oxytocin production. My girlfriend and I only enjoy intercourse because we already had a stable relationship, and decided to take that step. I often wait around 6 months to partake. It's a step in a relationship that you partake when you both are ready.

Marriage is a government run institution. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, does it have to sign a contractual obligation defining it's a duck? The government doesn't have the written authority to define a relationship outlined by the constitution or its amendments.

It's only degenerate if you don't get married.

>Why shouldn't two people in such a relationship marry?
Perhaps they aren't 100% sure they want to stick together for the rest of their life. They are humble enough to know that in the present that they complement each more than just sexually, that the person they love today may not be the same tomorrow (e.g, a change of values). For those who do plan to stay with each until death, they may see no need to make it official under the law or under God. It's enough for them to say to each other that they will remain faithful and care for each other, emotionally and physically.

Whatever the reason for them to stay with each other but not finalize their relationship as a marriage, such a relationship is much better than promiscuous sex.

>Dating is inexcusable
How else do you find a partner for life?

If you have sex with a number of people that is not exactly zero or exactly one in your life, you are a degenerate.

This does not exclude you from being a degenerate otherwise, but once you hit two people you cannot be a man of God.

Didnt see this, was walking to car when i made the post. About to drive so: we have personal vows we often affirm for this purpose, thought you meant marriage as an institution-sacrament where it has been worn down to shadow of the intent it originally contained.

That's why do 3x8 ohp, 3x8 squat and 3x8 bench with each other's bodies 30 mins after and ensure we calculate the caloric extent of our 15 second romp

Like I said, I'm sympathetic when it comes to leaving the government out of marital officiation. My real issue is with the lack of sacramental weight put on the bf-gf dynamic.

And the appeal to biology is pretty much "muh dick." Which is fine - no reason to hide it or obscure it.

I think the point of this thread was (I can only speculate, as I'm not OP):

Is a certain action (pre-marital sex) that is done only for the purposes of hedonistic pleasure ("muh dick") an aggravating factor in the degeneration of one's personal moral constitution and the collective morality of a society (or, "degenerate" to be succinct).

I think we're getting a bit off topic, but I'm just curious, are you religious or spiritual in any way? Are you interested in philosophy? If so, is there a school/branch of philosophy that resonates with you in particular?

Just curious because you're actually willing to engage in some introspection, which is beyond what most of the "muh dick" posters in this thread are doing.

>we have personal vows we often affirm for this purpose
Alright that's helpful to know. Like I said, I'm not here to judge, more to try and evaluate. Your arrangement sounds like the least degenerate you can be while operating under the controlling paradigm of "muh dick" or biology or however you want to call it and I commend you for it and for keeping your mad gainz up.

remember, relationships come and go, but a good life has NO BRAKES ON THE GAINS TRAIN

I think about 1 partner for every year after 18 is acceptable desu.

degenerate, but who really cares. marriage is a sham.

>muh dick

Gross.

How about one partner for every serious, loving relationship that is based on more than just physical attraction and sexual intimacy? You have sex not to fulfill lustful desires but as an emotional bonding experience.

Deistic, a bit of Kant in this case for means to and end/end in itself. Socrates for dialectics for introspection purposes. Sex is an important part of a long-term, committed relationship used for bonding with a partner and relating emotions on a level that's beyond what either of us can put into words. Driving senpai desu-ne brb

>sex is an emotional thing that people connect to

for some women, not most men

It's almost like the rules of god are the healthiest life styles.

where are the facts. Those men that don't view sex as emotional have already killed the idea of love in their head, and they're the assholes that never settle down or have a good marriage.

As long as they are faithfully married they can fuck until the sun comes up.

the point where bible/god fuck up in a major manner is when it comes to pride

pride is not a sin, it is a virtue
pride being seen as sinful is why christianity is falling in this day

>Why shouldn't two people in such a relationship marry?
I would like to add that, for me, marriage ought to be performed between any two in a loving, commuted if children are involved as an overbearing contractual reminder to sustain the relationship for the sake of muh children. If children aren't involved, I don't care if any relationship is long-lasting or promiscuous. That said, a long-lasting relationship is the ideal.

I'm being realistic dude. Go outside.

Very cool, thanks for sharing. And keep your eyes on the road user-kun!! Since you're philosophically literate and capable of introspection I look at you behavior with a lot softer eyes because I think you'll learn (and probably have learnt) from all of your experiences instead of mechanically following your dick like most involved in fornication do.

I think you'd really enjoy the Symposium by Plato. Shows the sort of exaltation that love can produce when it is directed toward a pursuit of the absolute good. As for the "emotions on a level that's beyond what either of us can put into words," I think you'll find (upon investigation into the metaphysics detailed in the symposium and other non-dual/monistic texts) that the sort of supra-linguistic experience you have is not something that's exclusively available through sex, and that on top of that the experience of what provides you that ability to communicate and relate on that deep level is actually pretty poorly expressed in sex.

Contemplation and the resultant dissolution of the conditioning of relative/pluralistic/dualistic existence is the fulfillment of the journey that sexual congress hints at and sort of "acts out" by means of physical metaphor.

The primary end of sex is procreation, just as the primary end of eating is nutrition. Using contraception so you can enjoy the pleasure of sex again and again, is like when the Romans intentionally caused themselves to vomit in order to enjoy the taste of food again and again. It is clearly unnatural. When we behave this way we are worse than dogs, because dogs don't know any better.
Nobody wants a whore for a mother, a wife, a sister, or daughter. If you say that you can have as much sex as you like as as long as you contracept or abort all the children that result from it, you're giving your mother, wife, a sister, or daughter to be a total dog. Would you like it if your sister or daughter slept with another men every other day? No, you want a man to respect your sister or daughter and make a vow to stand by her BEFORE he sleeps with her, so that he doesn't sleep with her and dump her, leaving her like a used up rag.

Yes it is. It is way easier to get an STD than most people can think and it can ruin your life. Let alone the issue of committing murder to deal with unwanted children that you create in such depravity.

Get married, don't be a faggot.

degenerate, doesnt stop me though since im a vile sinner

You can be proud of who you are and the like. The only time being proud is bad is when you think of yourself as above God.

> Using contraception so you can enjoy the pleasure of sex
Do you feel this way about non-procreating sex in a marriage?

Very well put. This is a good argument/example to put to those who argue that male promiscuity is acceptable while female promiscuity is deplorable.

Can males exercise their "sanctioned/laudable" promiscuity without necessarily engaging a female to also participate in this animalistic behavior? By refusing to concede the degenerate nature of male promiscuity people delay any hope of solving the problem and fail to appreciate the principle which is violated by fornication.

> single mothers
> r-selection
> literal ooga booga reproduction strategy

Into the oven it goes

Pretty degenerate.

I think sex can be emotional despite being premarital and have experienced that myself. It's only degenerate if you are cold and disconnected about it. I wouldn't even call it degenerate as much as "uncivilized." I'd like to think we can make mistakes in our life so that we eventually can

>My real issue is with the lack of sacramental weight put on the bf-gf dynamic.

It's not a sacrament that the bf-gf relationship primarily lacks, its a contract. Marriage is primarily a contract, an oath, a vow, or, if you want a more poetic term, a "covenant".
bf-gf is a fake marriage, a false marriage; it's a de facto marriage that has no official, public reality; it's a marriage that can be cancelled at any time, so there's no wonder it became popular with the introduction of easy divorce. bf-gf is a marriage for people that can't make up their minds, or who want the pleasures of marriage without the responsibilities; it's the perfect kind of marriage for perpetual adolescents, for manchildren. These false marriages are usually artificially barren, through contraception & abortion, just to make them even more preposterous. Really, there's a wide scale in a bf-gf relationships; some are closer to actual marriage, others are closer to concubinage or prostitution. This is the fundamental problem with it: it's a vague relationship, it has no clear responsibilities other than "don't have sex with anyone else", but even that's going out with "open relationships".

Sex that does not result in conception is not bad; it's contraception itself that is bad, under any circumstances. To use contraception is to pervert the very act itself. The pleasure of sex is not evil, anymore than the pleasure of eating is evil. The problem is when people make pleasure the primary end of the act, which results in degeneracy in the case of sex, or obesity in the case of eating.

>fucking like animals purely for pleasure

what do you think pham

It's degenerate as fuck but if you want to actually have a shot at finding a girl and having white kids with her in this disgusting century then unfortunately you'll have to put up with the fact that she's likely to have multiple cocks inside her already

The best you can pray for is that the dicks were white and boyfriends instead of one night stands

It's a sad time we live in

>Marriage is primarily a contract, an oath, a vow
I totally agree. I've been trying to keep my arguments fairly secular so that people don't just jump out and say "Christ-cuck" and be done with it.

I agree that fidelity and permanence are essential elements of a marriage that can ever hope to reach the fulfillment of its purpose which I believe to be the temperance of carnal desires (lust) and the begetting of progeny.

But in a world where "it's all relative maaaan" I try to use other sorts of rhetoric because I'm a bit tired of the boilerplate responses I get when arguing on more canonical grounds.

Don't even get me started on birth control. Probably the biggest obstacle to tempering the base elements in mankind and there's no future in which I see that genie going back into the bottle.

Very much enjoying your posts btw.

>This is the fundamental problem with it: it's a vague relationship

And this is why bf-gf relationships are intolerably cruel. They are pervaded by a fundamental vagueness which causes anxiety, which leads to fear and jealousy. Because there is no real commitment, there is always the fear that the other person might leave you at any time and for any reason. One partner might be planning to marry, the other might be planning to move on as soon as they graduate or get a new job or move to a new town or find someone more attractive. Therefore, because there is always doubt of where the relationship stands, of how the other stands in relation to you, there is always anxiety. The only way to avoid this anxiety is to train yourself to have a hard heart and not fall in love with the person you are sleeping with, and be ready to dump or be dumped at any time - but this solution is even worse than the problem, in fact, you can almost say that the bf-gf relationship is made for the very purpose of causing people heartbreak and eventually hardened and bitter hearts.

Christfags definetly lower the intelligence of this board by a good margin.

>bf-gf relationships are intolerably cruel
I would say that is the fault of not being clear on the limitations of the relationship are. You can save a lot of heart ache by stating that you aren't looking for anything long-term and that the relationship could end without notice. After that, any emotional damage is on the person who fails to keep this in mind.

How do you find your significant other without dating / being in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship?

you always buy a car without a test drive before?

>euphoric

>Jumps in thread
>it's the christfags
>ad hominem it up

I wouldn't marry someone for sex.

>Actually caring about """"degeneracy""""" or not

Get a fucking life

Do what you want OP. It's not my dick.

Sex going south is the #1 destroyer of marriages

You better be damn sure you enjoy sex with a woman before you marry her

>I would say that is the fault of not being clear on the limitations of the relationship are. You can save a lot of heart ache by stating that you aren't looking for anything long-term and that the relationship could end without notice.

But think what this amounts to in fact. It can be phrased like this: "be with me, love me with your whole heart, love nobody else but me, spend your time with me, share your life with me - BUT, I have the permission to abandon you at any time." How is that not cruel? I no most people don't really perceive it as cruel or have cruel intentions, but the structure of the relationship ITSELF is cruel, even if the people participating in that structure are not aware of this cruelty and seek to avoid it. For example, most of the time when people "break up" they try to be very apologetic, and they umm and ahh, "I don't want to break your heart" - well, the relationship was set up in the first place in such a way that it would lead to heartbreak.

>How do you find your significant other without dating / being in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship?

By dating, in the old sense of meeting up with them on a semi-formal basis and getting to know them. This does not involve sleeping with them, or living with them, or promising to be with them and nobody else, or promising to love them.

Its just a fact. Just like blacks are on average more violent.

My wife has had only 5 partners before me and they were all long term relationships. I've have had many girlfriends as well. I think it's fair and it isn't an issue. She's a good mother and wife. Plus, she's really experienced in bed, and she really knows what she's doing.

>5 long term relationships
did you marry her at 45

I invite you to not think of it as so... Carnal and degenerate. It is indulging to biology, but for what I've found to be healthy reasons. A strengthing of a bond. I was made like this for a reason. My biology was created this way purposely. Deism is generally congruent with my actions. I have to come up with my own truth. I have the tools, I make it material. I have to strive to become the most moral person I can. I don't insult and am open to discussion. I learn more about self this way by affirming/breaking down my beliefs. I am my own person. While I don't really care about what someone else thinks, if they're open to discussion it's worth it for the affirmation of my own self via dialectic questioning.

Plato is too much of an idealist for me. Aristotle is too degenerate. Both are a extreme of a spectrum. Plato lived "in the clouds". He lived on a planet of forms. He was too involved in metaphysics. He did not live in the moment.

Introspection is done from a point of serfdom. You have to know you can be wrong. Plato never could after he began his university. Utopia is a shining example of telling "How it should be." He wrote a book essentially saying he should be in charge of the world because everyone is a fucking moron. He didn't live in the moment. He was too extreme in his belief of metaphysics and his discounting of earth lead to a flawed sense of betterment. He was not happy.

Aristotle is worse though. He was overly concerned with self, and dressed like a flaming faggot. He pranced around in the nicest clothes. He was so concerned with the world itself he lost what things should be. He did not solve anything, only listed what is. He was happy, but vapid.

Converting this to modern times it's the same and lacks juxtaposition. Siddhartha lived in both worlds and decided to accept that life itself is suffering and not worth it. There is a harmony in balance. Biology and metaphysics can coexist. Thats why im deist and the way i am.

>This does not involve ... living with them

I don't see how living with them could be a problem with the proper understanding that the relationship could end. In my mind, living with someone is what "testing the car before you buy it" metaphor should really be about. You will find out whether or not this person is a mature person who could share in providing for the household. You will also see this person is as true to who they project themselves to be on dates as they are in private.

>or promising to be with them and nobody else, or promising to love them
This last part ties in with living with them as insurance.

I would replace "love" with care as you wouldn't really know if you really love them until the relationship has matured.

Sex is nearly always a reflection of the marital relationship, not the other way around, barring a medical issue. If you have a good relationship, you'll have good sex. Sex certainly contributes to a good relationship, but it will follow from intimacy.

t. Marriage and family therapist

That's not always true, some men and women are just good sexual partners despite your feelings for them.

>t. Marriage and family therapist

What is your professional opinion on premarital sex? Does it make a difference in a "long-term, committed relationship" or is it all premarital sex degenerate?

It is impossible to avoid attachment in such relationships, and attachment requires commitment in order to avoid heartbreak. You say you can live with someone and have sex with someone regularly to "test the car". But do you honestly believe that people can just switch off their hearts and avoid all attachments in order to have a "test run". It's impossible for most people. Our nature leads us to love and attach ourselves to those we sleep with.

I admire your willingness to scrutinize and open yourself up to scrutiny.

I do not doubt that your deistic worldview allows a belief that the sexual impulse is pleasurable and does all that reward center stuff with bonding hormones.

I agree that there is a purpose to your biology, but argue that purpose is one that is violated by pre-marital sex.

My question is this: if the woman with whom you seek to create and strengthen a bond with is not the same woman with whom you beget progeny, to what end have you fulfilled the "purpose" of your biology? Is the purpose of your biology to wantonly create bonds with every skirt with a nice smile?

I won't comment on your estimation of Plato/Aristotle. I think that their mental disposition was similar despite potentially differing outward manifestations/acts (the latter of which I think you are giving too much importance to - when we speak of Plato and Aristotle we refer to their works and philosophical contribution, not their personalities or acts).

I think we can safely discuss Siddhartha because I think you might be misinterpreting the degree to which Hesse was familiar with non-dual Indian metaphysics. The conclusion that Siddhartha reaches at the end of the book when he's living with Vasudeva on the river is that the paths of transcendence and extroversion are unified by a common substratum - the non-dual One. It is a sophisticated conclusion which hinges on the recognition that what is absolute cannot be found in the realm of the relative (which negates both the ascetic and worldly lifestyles that he had to experience before he could comment on their insufficiency).

He did not accept that "life itself is suffering and not worth it." This is the fatalistic conclusion of the Buddhists that Siddhartha did not accept (but his friend Govinda did).

Unless you're talking about the literal Buddha and not the novel by Hesse lol. I might be responding to an argument you didn't make!

BUMP

>How else do you find a partner for life?
Arranged marriages between families that have ties to each other and a common moral/cultural outlook. Compatibility in worldview and consequently the view of the purpose of marriage is ensured by such a union.

This just shows you have barely any understanding of the concept of pride or when and why it is a sin.

>since marriage has lost all meaning it's irrelevant no?

if you don't have a real marriage premarital sex is not the problem

for example if you practice contraceptive sex you are just as degenerate as having premarital sex

Just like atheists are vastly more liberal marxists? Just like pagans are vastly more faggot hippies? If you don't like Christians then go associate with your own kind, the two mentioned above.

Absolutely degenerate. Only whores will say other wise, this includes whore-men in denial.

Well I reckon it's degenerate, but I'd still like to have some. Getting lonely at night senpai.

Of course it's degenerate. Now we shouldn't make laws against it, but cultural norms should be against it. The best society is both non-degenerate and also free

I want it to be. I can't be sure it is. I try but I can't change others. I can only be at my best and pick one that is true to me, and to be true to. I can only make a vow to one i believe in and hold steadfast. Personalities and acts are how one is seen. Their personality is integral in defining why they believed they way they did to create their philosophical works. That's general psychology. Buddhism in general has so many interpretations. I can't really comment viably on what buddhists think since I am not one. Some think all life is suffering and swear off all worldly desire. Some follow the 8fold path in their daily life. It's difficult to define buddhism as a single entity with a single belief system other than the noble truths and the 8fold path. But in the novel he found nothing and their end was the same, regardless of both means and thought lines

>shouldn't make laws against it
cultural norms will always inevitably degrade over time especially when your country is full of jews trying to overthrow those norms. the cultural norms that prohibited adultery and fornication were always the Law of God, without it you receive what we have now.

Spotted the roleplayer!

Why are you here if you don't care about fighting socially degenerate behavior? That's *the* reason to subscribe to right-wing, socially conservative views: you feel that the government should enforce moral standards.

the fuck are you doing on Cred Forums?

degeneracy matters because pic related

>Cred Forums is one person

Nobody said that. The subjects discussed here appeal to those who put stock in certain ideologies. Why would people who don't subscribe to those ideologies be here, if not to roleplay and post that "Cred Forums is le ebin nazi satire xDDDD".

I think it depends. I was with my girlfriend (now wife) for six months before we actually fucked. We always knew that we'd be getting married, it was just due to circumstances that we had to wait a bit longer. Just picking up some random bird and shagging her in a back alley is a bit different, though.

>Pre-marital sex is DEGENERATE!
>Getting married in 2016 is a scam!

sweatingpol.jpg

non-issue

Agreed. IDK why you're quoting me in that post.

>but I'd still like to have some.
>muh dick

>That's general psychology
And it also has no place in philosophy. It opens up matters of reason to attacks from grounds that are lower than reason.

Example:
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively about the teachings of Aristotle and was a lion in his fearless exegesis of the christian texts and unpacking of the consequent metaphysics.

But if we lower the level of discourse to include attacks of his teachings based on his personality traits, you'll get people saying "haha all of that's bullshit because he was a tryhard virgin with nothing better to do" or "lol he personally believed in literal demons so that invalidates everything he says about the unity of god." It just doesn't belong.

I understand the appeal of taking personalities into account but I hope at some point you take off those lenses when you interact with philosophical texts.

>But in the novel he found nothing and their end was the same, regardless of both means and thought lines
Assuming you're talking about "both" being Siddhartha and Govinda. If so, this is patently false. It is Govinda who found his life of austerity following Buddha to be utterly meaningless and an experience that paled in comparison to the blissful realized state in which Siddhartha abided.

Siddhartha recognized the non-dual Absolute which pervaded all modes of life - be it the sacred or degenerate (which he rightly recognized as degenerate, ultimately - evidenced by his aversion to the avarice and greed of the trader who enriched him and allowed him to fuck the courtesan). He realized the futility of searching for the absolute in the realm of duality and understood that the underlying unity of unconditioned existence was what he was actually seeking - this was conveyed to him by Vasudeva, the ferryman who ostensibly abided in this state as well.

Anyways, good luck!

It's absolutely degenerate, but women shot themselves in the foot with that one. For men it's not such a big deal since historically we were always the ones getting the short end of the stick with marriage.

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

>degeneracy

Fuck off Cred Forums, idiot.

And lol at your unquoted bullshit pic.

Cred Forums BTFO

>Is pre-marital sex degenerate

Of course not. Only if you're a supercuck.

>m-muh DICK

Wonderful argument, Ivan.

>Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Because male promiscuity is just as degenerate and destructive to the morality of a society. You cannot have your cake and eat it too in this case. How are males going to have pre-marital sex without roping women into losing their virginity at some point outside of marriage?

This is a thinly veiled "MUH DICK"

>Agreed. IDK why you're quoting me in that post.
I'm not quoting you dumbfuck I'm quoting myself. You replied to my post with some bullshit strawman so I had to spell it out for you retard.

Muhdick is a more valid argument than muhdeg(neracy)

How do I find a decent wife to love and reproduce with?

You fucking silly retards. This isnt a christian board, of course pre-marital sex isnt degenerate. Stop asking stupid fucking questions, get educated, and stop being beta faggots.

Sincerely,
actual Cred Forums

I'm here for the shitposting and memes

>pre-marital sex isnt degenerate.
But muh Natural Law!

Penis shoots out sperms and vagina has eggs and when these two meet they create baby. Thus the purpose of sex is to create baby. Anything other kind that doesn't fulfill this purpose is degenerate. Q.E.D.

Itself, not exactly leading your people and nation to greatness, but ultimately not terribly important.

Now, doing so without taking proper precautions, that brings some ruin. Also more of a personal gripe, but the culture surrounding casual sex is pretty offputting; you could argue it's inherent to casual sex itself, but I think the nightclub element makes it seedier.

Basically, pre-marital sex is OK if it's like one of my warm and fuzzy mangoes.

In a long term relationship. Not married and have been having intercourse for years.... I don't see why that's a problem. I wouldn't personally want to raise children out of wedlock but sex in an intimate relationship in my opinion's healthy.

its degenerate but i cant not do it

You have autism

Well if somethings untrue you kinda have to deny it don't ya dumb ass?

degenerate

>people will say having sex with a woman you love before a man wearing black, and white has a say in it is degenerate
Jesus christ

>doesn't understanding how quoting posts works
>i'm the dumbfuck
wew

>Muhdick is a more valid argument than muhdeg(neracy)
moral relativism wew

>variant of "cry harder, permavirgin"
I bet you're an enlightened atheist aren't you who slays puss on the reg aren't you? Man I wish I was as cool as you

>not exactly leading your people and nation to greatness, but ultimately not terribly important.
>yeah, let's turn america into africa by adopting nigger-tier mindset/logic
>let someone else strive toward greatness
this is how civilizations die

>Basically, pre-marital sex is OK if it's like one of my warm and fuzzy mangoes.
>MUH DICK

>MUH DICK

>MUH DIIIIIIICK

Would you say relationships last longer the less sex you have?

If you're asking about personal experience and the state of affairs right now, I'd say that delaying sex in the beginning allows the relationship to mature in ways that it often doesn't when you start out with a bang.

There are other ways to show affection/love in the meanwhile that aren't degenerate or at least as degenerate as pre-marital penetrative sex.

In the long term, if both people are well equipped to seek higher ideals and help each other in the process, I think the amount of sex that is had is irrelevant to the longevity of the marriage. It naturally declines because your focus shifts to either raising children or pursuing those higher callings (in the case of infertility).

Did that answer your question? Not sure what your personal context is.

>ITT: Christian virgins telling other Christian virgins they aren't allowed to have sex
God forbid you have a bit of pleasure in your life, you'd be struck dead in an instant.

Marriages between people with a common moral /cultural outlook should be what happens, but how do those families know whether, or not their children will love each other?I think its too much control.

MUUUHHHH DIIIIIIICK

I understand what you're saying but the perception of love as being this fickle flame that is either there or not and can vanish at a moment's notice is a pretty modern notion.

With a common cultural/moral outlook, each of the participants will have a love of virtue (in their own cultural context) and a love for family and a sense of duty toward one another (again, as prescribed by any civilized culture).

Love will emerge out of understanding as each of the marriage participants fulfills their duties and the common loves (for virtue/family) will bring them even closer.

And on more practical terms, the parents can do vetting and have semi-supervised dates or whatever. Hell the potential couple can even cohabitate for a while without sex if necessary. We are too used to the idea that sex is inevitable whenever a man and women interact on a romantic level and that the only way to evaluate compatibility is to go around dicking bimbos until you find one who tickles your fancy more than the others.

Also it helps if marriage happens early. The two can grow up together and have a deep friendship based on common experiences and formative bonds. But no, we like to get married when our personalities are all hardened up and we're basically strangers to our potential partners with completely different lives.

>Is pre-marital sex degenerate
Only when it's with women.

Boys are still fair game.

How does this make you feel Abraham? Are you feeling sinful yet?

Stop embarrassing us please/ si vout plait

amazing arguments man i am undeniably BTFO

keep posting japanese cartoon child pornography, that's the best way to show the world you're not a degenerate

Yes it's degenerate. Men can handle it but women can't.
It fucks them up, damages their ability to pair bond and ruins them for LTRs. "Alpha Widows" in PUA parlance.
The ideal is objectively virgins marrying each other when they are young.
This notion that you must "Try before you buy" is a Jewish fable.
We have stats on this - less sex partners makes for more stable marriage.

If you are not advocating this ideal or something like it you are not red-pilled. The foundation of our civilization is stable family units and fewer sex partners is an important part of that.

Right to own and carry firearms, right to defend your life and property, low taxation, keeping out browns, good schools, fewer wars etc. It's all tied in with restoring families.

>moral relativism

Still better than morals based on Islamic bullshit or Christian cuckoldry.

>the implications
Are you saying there are no non-Christian or non-Islamic civilizations/nations in which the citizens weren't profligate fornicators?

Are you saying it's impossible to reach moral conclusions without relying on the texts of jewish desert religions?

WEW lad you've got all the answers today

>Fantasy adhom the post

>literally ignored the substantive questions and went straight for critiquing the bantz

you're a master of persuasion. i've been living my whole life in darkness, but you've shown me the light

>The only arguments that fornicators have to justify their degenerate ways are:
>>MUH DICK
>>cry more, permavirgin incel
>>in this moment, i am euphoric
So this prediction turned out to be true.

Thread will be slid soon. Any fornicators want to try any other arguments out? Or is this all you've got?

Won't someone please respond?

see
>Arranged marriage
good luck

That's a good start. If that's not possible go to places where you can find women with a similar moral outlook to you (religious institutions/clubs might be a good place to start depending on what your beliefs are).

strange isn't it?