http://jezebel.com/5946349/8-reasons-premarital-boning-is-good-for-both-you-and-society Fascinating study on the positive aspects of premarital sex, both for mental health and relationships.
While pre-marital sex is of course good for you (as long as you aren't an idiot), I have it on good authority from my wife that extra-marital sex is quite deadly.
Pre-marital sex implies that all human beings at some point in their life will get married. In this day and age, it's just sex...especially after marriage when sex stops.
The "article" such that it is one, is complete BS. It is written basically as a parody article with no evidence and no sound arguments. There is not a single good thing in the long run from premarital sex.
Learning how to have sex isn't a long term good? More stable marriages aren't good either? Figuring out sexual incompatibility prior to entering into marriage isn't good? Face it, fucko, you just wish you'd gotten more tail. Now you're stuck with your battered-wife-syndrome wife.
You're an idiot. there is no evidence whatsoever that you can determine sexual compatibility (if such a thing exists) by having sex before marriage. It can takes literally YEARS before two people get on the same page sexually. For that matter. Say sexual compatability exists. What if you have a great sex life with someone you know. The sex is great, intense, outstanding. But you don't want to marry them because they are simply not someone you love or simply have too many undesirable qualities. You start seeing someone and fall in love with them.......but the sex is no better than average. Certainly not as good as the earlier partner. What do you do? Say goodbye to someone you love just because they don't measure up in that one respect? So. What good does the mythical "sexual compatibility" do for you then?
You're fucking serious aren't you? You're really this stupid. You can't device a way to figure out if two people are sexually compatible prior to getting married. Your brain is really too small, huh? What a sheltered world you live in.
I'm sure they have some strong arguments. It's just that they just realize you cannot debate on their level given your limited life experiences and myopic worldview.
"Premarital sex", or "sex" as I like to call it, is not only magically delicious, it's fortified with 9 essential vitamins and minerals conducive to a healthy, growing body.
Jezebel links now? It's shit like this that removes doubt you've been no less than an absolute crushing disappointment to your parents. As for pre-marital sex, I have it - lots! This is one thing me and a lesbian site can agree on.
The list reflects that there's more than a bit of humor in the article. Doubt anyone disagrees with 8,7,5,4, or 1. That leaves 6,3, and 2. Not convinced that's true. Here's the articles explanation: "A society that encourages women to prioritize participation outside of the home leads to more women choosing to go to college, to build a stable career before they focus on partnering up and settling down. Because sexuality is a human need, it stands to reason that during that time they're focused on being things other than wives and mothers, they'd be enjoying several feet (or miles — no judgment!) of cock. Which is fine! Because after they get married, women who got their ya-ya's out earlier in life tend to stay married, tend to raise more successful children, and tend to be happier." Yeah, that's kinda weak. What? Americans are nothing if not self-indulgent. While there's a bit more than simply inserting tab A into slot B, we're all sexually compatible. And the whole penis/vagina combo is undeniably awesome, for obvious reasons.
It's interesting that the argument for point 6 boils down to the old sewing his wild oats bit that used to justify the idea that promiscuous men were just being men even though such women were sluts. I don't disagree with the point, but I seem to recall that the sewing his oats argument was thoroughly reviled in some feminist quarters, who preferred male emasculation.
The "wild oats" argument is ridiculous anyway because it makes the assumption that people (male & female) eventually get to a point where they have had "enough sex with many partners" and after this point they'll be happy with one partner for the remainder of their lives. Does anyone seriously believe that? If anything it would seem that acquiring massive levels of sexual experience would simply whet ones appetite for that intensity and variety in the future.
This is all just theoretical, because everybody is different, but the counter to Dayton's argument is that somebody in a mature relationship might start to wonder if they missed out on something. Such a person might consider sampling others, whereas if they had sewn their oats, so to speak, they might not have such thoughts.