>Waiting until marriage
>Is it retarded?
Yes absolutely 100%

the only concern I can think of is "sexual compatiblity." but think about it, if two people can remain celibate for that long then its very likely they have matching libidos to be able to achieve that. if not then similar coping mechanisms. that might be a non-issue.

>>34597636
It's mostly a religious viewpoint and a bit of a myth. There is no real evidence that waiting for marriage is a panacea. The studies that "prove" this are flawed in various ways and also openly acknowledge that communication has a far greater effect on relationship satisfaction than waiting for marriage.

>>34597655
>communication has a far greater effect on relationship satisfaction than waiting for marriage
yeah what this nigger said communicate with your bitch nigga and fuck every one of her nasty holes nigga

>>34597655
i like the idea of waiting for marriage because its kind of a signal that the person youre dating is high quality. they believe in something in to stick to it their entire lives and ignore all windows to temptation. a relationship with someone like that is less likely to end in divorce because theyre not swayed easily.

File: virgins.png (542 KB, 1320x528)

542 KB PNG

>>34597685
It's a nice idea, but you're filtering out 95%+ of women by doing so. Men already have the disadvantage in dating as it is and setting such a severe filter for yourself guarantees inceldom.

>>34597690
>but you're filtering out 95%+ of women by doing so
thats the point. most women are not worth dating. why do you think most marriages end up in divorce? id rather date someone that has high standards for themselves

>>34597690
That still leaves you with 200 million.
And you only need one.
New virgins are born every single day, don't settle.

>>34597636
>Is it retarded?
Yes. You don't want to wait until after you're married to someone to find out that the two of you aren't sexually compatible.

>inb4 Anyone can be compatible if you're considerate.
No. This is the kind of thing that sounds plausible if you've never actually had sex, but it simply isn't true.

>>34597701
Communication has a greater impact on marriage satisfaction, it's proven by studies.
>>34597709
>And you only need one.
Not really, because virgins also cheat and divorce.
Every hoe started as a virgin, which indicates that even if you find a virgin she might end up being a hoe.
>New virgins are born every single day, don't settle.
Even female virgins don't want virgin men, they prefer experienced men.

>>34597636
>How likely is it to find a girl that believes in no sex before marriage?
It's quite easy. The problem is that they won't want any sex after marriage either. Guaranteed dead bedroom for life.

>>34597636
In concept no it's not retarded and it lowers the chances of divorce and infidelity

In practice you're going to have a hard time finding a woman to abide by it. Its pretty much a Unicorn nowadays since most women are hypersexualized the moment they get a smartphone. Its a damn shame and not spoken about as much as it should be.

>>34597685
>i like the idea of waiting for marriage because its kind of a signal that the person youre dating is high quality
Lolwut no it's not.

>>34598425
Zoomers are having less sex and lose their virginities later than previous generations. You are objectively incorrect.

>>34598437
You disingenuously fail to mention this only applies to men and there is a great imbalance of sexual encounters between men and women. Women are having as much casual sex as Millennial Women did the only difference being its mostly with the top 20% of men

>>34598447
Why do you post lies on the internet? There are actually more sexless women than men on the internet. Incelism is based on lying.

>>34598461
>Incelism is based on lying.
Back to r*ddit you go foid

>>34598465
This is why you are a kissless virgin. Being an angry incel cultist is not attractive. You were lied to and that is why you decided to become an incel, because you believed the lies you were told.

>>34597636
People used to get married at 11-15. Puberty starts at 11-15.
"Wait until marriage" didn't mean wait and suffer for 20 years, it meant "wait until next month for the wedding".

>>34598486
oh shit

File: Screenshot 2026-06-07 021657.png (97 KB, 767x162)

97 KB PNG

>>34597636
No, God will probably bless your marriage if you do (even disregarding practical stuff like pair-bonding, not comparing you to her ex, etc). Most people don't wait until marriage and the divorce rate is already something like 1/2 marriages.

>>34598486
Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius mentioned he was grateful that he waited until marriage in Meditations (picrel), he was only married at about 24. Now this man was not a Christian, but a pagan, so it seems like this was common wisdom back then. Now personally, I do not want to reap the rewards of a 20th century retarded hippie, so I will not practice the lifestyle of one.
>"people got marred at 11-15" (no era or location given)
sounds like retarded cope

>>34597636
>Sophie Rain who makes millions making content but has apparently never had sex
yup. why would she lie about her sexual history? just for all the simp money? NONSENSE

>>34598437
>our generation is the most chaste in recent history
every day is a blessing. all glory to God.

>>34599170
Based incel gooners

>>34597715
>dead bedroom
?? just rape her

>>34597636
>Is it retarded?
Depends on your goals. If you value stability and happiness of marriage, then it's demonstrably beneficial, even after controlling for religion. And if you value exclusivity, then it's by far the most effective and repeatable means available.
If you think marriage is a spook only worth a tax break, and think sexual freedom is more important than anything, well, sure, it's kind of retarded to commit to a moral framework designed for the exact opposite.

>How likely is it to find a girl that believes in no sex before marriage?
In the US, iirc, it's about 1 in 25 now. But this highly depends on location and religiosity. However, many people don't wait not because they don't resonate with the reasons for waiting, but because they have never seriously considered the possibility. If they weren't raised in a community which emphasized it (which tends to be the religious nowadays), it wouldn't occur to most to question what they see everyone else doing, but they can easily be shown the example with some patience.
About 1 in 5 women marry their first partner, but have sex outside of marriage. Most of these probably just got "lucky", but it also includes those who wait extended periods before they feel comfortable getting intimate, for various reasons. All told, your dating pool is about 10% of women, if you include women who aren't waiting but are potentially open to doing so (and are able).


>>34597655
>There is no real evidence that waiting for marriage is a panacea
There's a big middle ground between "panacea" and "retarded". Being philosophically appealing and completely neutral/irrelevant to outcome would already be enough to justify it to people. Being moderately beneficial is just a bonus.

>>34598486
That's nonsense. Look up "Western European marriage pattern".

>>34597636
It's all a show. There's a good chance Sophie Rain is on all fours right now getting fucked by some chad.

Whatever you do in life, do it because it aligns with your values, not because you expect a payoff. Life will let you down if you're only in it for the reward.

>>34597636
>Apparently theres an OnlyFans creator named Sophie Rain who makes millions making content but has apparently never had sex.
I highly doubt that. Her being a "virgin" makes her more appealing to men, especially the type of men that subscribe to her only fans.
>How likely is it to find a girl that believes in no sex before marriage?
It is definitely possible, but not super likely. I remember reading a statistic somewhere that roughly 5% of marriages were virginal. I think that factored in the man being a virgin too, but regardless, I would estimate the chances of finding a girl like that to be between 5-10%. It also heavily depends on the types of circles you're dating in, if you meet a super religious girl in church I'm sure the chances go up quite significantly.

>>34597636
Basically, you want the girl to be a virgin, avoiding higher divorce rates (women cannot pair-bond well if they have higher body counts) and emotional trauma that comes with her past. I've seen girls, in my own family too, lash out at other men simply because they felt mistreated by their bfs. They blame the entire male gender when something goes wrong with one men they dated. To avoid this, it's better to date younger and ultimately marry her in her early 20s (science agrees as well as this is peak fertility).

>>34603629
>>How likely is it to find a girl that believes in no sex before marriage?
>It is definitely possible, but not super likely.

It's actually far more likely than most think. The reason there are few virgins until marriage now is not because promiscuity is higher ---- it's because the average age to marry is nearing 30 now. It was closer to 20 a few decades ago. Considering that, you want to aim younger + target the right circles (religious circles are a good choice) to find a virgin. It's not hard at all, really. It's like someone saying it's impossible to find a jewish girl because there are so few jews. it's easy for a jew to marry another jew --- they go to a synagogue, some jewish organization, or even israel, and they can find the 0.002% of jews that exist

>>34597636
You know women lie, right anon?

>>34599162
>>34600442
There was a Wikipedia page that neatly listed all the European countries' ages of consent/marriage historically with sources, but it seems got (((deleted))). Here's what I found with a quick lookup:
>In Greece females married as young as 14 or 16.
>In Roman law the age of marriage was 12 years for females and 14 years for males, and age of betrothal was 7 years for both males and females.
>In France, Portugal, Denmark, the Swiss cantons and other countries, the minimum age was raised to between thirteen and sixteen years in the following decades.
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most states set the minimum age at ten to twelve (in Delaware, it was seven in 1895).
>In Spain, it was set in 1822 at "puberty age", and changed to twelve in 1870, which was kept until 1999, when it became 13 and in 2015 it was raised to 16.
And outside of Europe:
>Tang Dynasty (618–907) men typically married around age 15, women around 13
>Pre-Edo & Edo Period Japan: arriage often occurred shortly after puberty.
You retards have to think: WHY would extremely horny hormonal teenagers let themselves get cockblocked? HOW could adults possibly stop them when they're busy working or doing other things? All you need is 1-3 minutes for a couple of REPRODUCTIVE AGE teens to get pregnant, and there were no contraceptives back then, nor would HORNY teens even care.
You have to understand that the modern conception of "teenage" and "age of consent" is completely fictional and artificially enforced in order to reduce birthrates as well as cause mental illnesses in young people. No such thing as "teenager" in biological terms, only infant and adult. You'll never see a puppy or kitten get pregnant or impregnating, because there's no "teenage" puppies or kittens. That's how biology works.
In the past, adults had two options: either marry their children as soon as they hit puberty, or have a bunch of pregnant girls with orphaned children whose fathers are unknown.

>>34599162
>>34600442
>This one guy got married in his 20s/30s/40s
He's the exception, not the rule. And imagine not understanding why an EMPEROR who has to lead an EMPIRE would try to be careful on who's going to be the empress consort.
And by the way, when those older men finally got married, they didn't usually marry 20/30/40yo roasties like nowadays, but virgin teen girls.
>That's nonsense. Look up "Western European marriage pattern".
I did. You should try looking it up too, and reading slowly and carefully.
Sometimes the ages got temporarily raised high in order to control the population, such as in the case of the Netherlands.

>>34607001
>>34607011
>There was a Wikipedia page that neatly listed all the European countries' ages of consent/marriage
That's a minimum age, you spastic. Not the median, and certainly not the optimum for stable, healthy marriages or a functioning society.
The marriage pattern I referred you to is indeed a uniquely Western thing, with the notable exception of Ireland, iirc. And it's something which set the West apart from the shitholes and savages elsewhere.

>Sometimes the ages got temporarily raised high in order to control the population
Put down the tin foil hat, moron.
Nobody has that level of outright social control, not today, and certainly not a premodern government which could barely maintain roads between cities that weren't infested with robbers and murderers. And even if they DID have that amount of control, it would be utterly retarded for them to use it as you suggest: a high population is (or at least was, pre-automation) a *good thing* for ruling classes. It means a larger pool of labor to extract from and diluted bargaining power for any individual peasant, which is why the best thing that ever happened for the quality of life of peasantry was unironically the Black Death.

>WHY would extremely horny hormonal teenagers let themselves get cockblocked?
Because everyone depended to a much greater extent on their community rather than an impersonal, distant government's handouts, and their own reputation mattered a great deal more to their neighbor than to the taxman. Which also means people had a much greater motive to police each other's behavior, especially the unruly family members who could ruin their sibling's prospects by association.
>have a bunch of pregnant girls with orphaned children whose fathers are unknown.
Given the divorce rates of couples who marry in their teens, your "solution" is far worse than the supposed problem of waiting just a bit longer than the historical median to marry and then have sex.

tl;dr kys pedo

>>34597636
>Is it retarded?
Absolutely. Committing to someone for life having no clue if you enjoy having sex with them is crazy retard mode.

>>34607025
>That's a minimum age, you spastic.
And WHY do you think that was the minimum, you absolute retard? You refuse to think.
>Put down the tin foil hat, moron.
So you're indeed a retard. You disbelieve anyone and anything if he gets called a (((conspiracy theorist))).
Look what the very sources that speak of the "Western European marriage pattern" say:
>The pattern of late and non-universal marriage restricted fertility massively, especially when it was coupled with very low levels of childbirth out of wedlock. Birth control took place by delaying marriage more than suppressing fertility within it.
Remember there were no automatic guns back then: having too many peasants meant civil wars and getting beheaded rather than living in luxury off their backs.
>Given the divorce rates of couples who marry in their teens, your "solution" is far worse than the supposed problem of waiting just a bit longer than the historical median to marry and then have sex.
There was no no-fault divorce back then like today, fag.
>tl;dr kys pedo
You're ideologically captured. Grow a spine and think for yourself. Sapere aude.

>>34607032
The only conceivable way it could be retarded is if you place such an outsized value on sex/against the slightest possibility of "bad sex" that it overrides all other concerns around your relationship.
And even then, fucking around first and asking questions later is no guarantee that you won't end up with a dead bedroom. In fact, the evidence we have not only consistently shows higher marital happiness and lower rates of divorce, even controlling for religion, but ALSO higher sexual satisfaction. I can't imagine the kind of sexual maniac who would look at all that and still rail against an objectively good bet just because they're so petrified they could be "trapped" due to bad luck. If you're that terrified, then don't get married, period, and you will never ace the problem. But the vast majority of people don't have the same priorities.

And for those people, the lesson is that, far from being a risk, waiting is demonstrably beneficial. Practically all of the supposed incompatibilities are solved far better through good communication (the bedrock of any successful relationship) and restraint than by fucking on impulse and then pretending you were totally doing it out of concern for your future instead of just being horny.

>>34607052
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petitions_against_age-of-consent_laws

But sure, THE JEWS want you to have a stable and happy marriage instead, and those marriages are actually the true evil us sheep have to fight against. More power to you, buddy.

>>34607080
>In 1977 and 1979
That's modern bullshit. How is it relevant to our discussion of historical (which was closer to natural/biological, born from unbiased observation with no agendas)?
>But sure, THE JEWS want you to have a stable and happy marriage instead, and those marriages are actually the true evil us sheep have to fight against. More power to you, buddy.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Either you got mindbroken or you're a bot.

>>34607088
>What the fuck are you even talking about?
That's what (((these))) mean. I'm actually impressed at how many layers of stupidity and ignorance you're on.

>>34607069
>The only conceivable way it could be retarded is if you place such an outsized value on sex/against the slightest possibility of "bad sex" that it overrides all other concerns around your relationship.
I can't explain the value of sex and physical intimacy in long term relationships to someone who has never had sex or been in a long term intimate relationship.

>And even then, fucking around first and asking questions later is no guarantee that you won't end up with a dead bedroom.
The fact that you think dead bedrooms is the only thing that can go wrong in a sexual relationship communicates to me your complete lack of any personal experience with this topic.

>In fact, the evidence we have not only consistently shows higher marital happiness and lower rates of divorce, even controlling for religion, but ALSO higher sexual satisfaction.
Yet the researchers themselves even admit that they can't determine whether these things are a direct cause and effect or attributed to other underlying personality traits. This data is wildly overstated all of the time on this board but I get it. If you've never had sex or had a girlfriend then meme charts on 4chan are the only thing you have to go off of.

>Practically all of the supposed incompatibilities are solved far better through good communication (the bedrock of any successful relationship) and restraint than by fucking on impulse and then pretending you were totally doing it out of concern for your future instead of just being horny.
Literally nobody advocated for fucking on impulse. In the autistic 4chan brain for some reason the only two options are never having sex before marriage and having sex with anybody anytime without any commitment. The world is more complicated than that but, again, the issue is I'm trying to explain the complexities of intimate relationships to a community of people who have never had one.

>>34607134
>random bullshit go!
>what the fuck are you talking about?
>i'm actually impressed at how many layers of stupidity and ignorance you're on
Concession accepted, fag.

>>34607137
>The fact that you think dead bedrooms is the only thing that can go wrong in a sexual relationship
I don't. I think that it's the only conceivable issue that could naively be blamed on the selection effects of waiting, rather than being actively resolved by communication and waiting. I was trying to interpret your drivel in the most charitable manner possible, instead of strawmanning like you do. You want some other outcomes? Fine, let's go through them:
Big difference in sex drives?
The partner with a much higher libido is very unlikely to bother waiting at all, which is far better than the usual route of couples having sex a lot initially, only for the sex to taper off and the higher-libido partner getting frustrated and leaving/cheating anyway.
Repulsive fetish?
Not only are they correlated with high sex drives, but even fetish "communities" themselves stress how important it is to communicate beforehand instead of traumatizing an unsuspecting partner in the act. Non-issue.
Literal deformity?
Very rare, anyone with a shred of decency would disclose it beforehand, and the vanishingly tiny proportion of people walking around with microdicks or 12-inchers and lied about it would be subject to an annulment of a marriage for deception.

What the fuck else is there that you could possibly "solve" by having sex without commitment?

>>34607137
>Yet the researchers themselves even admit that they can't determine whether these things are a direct cause and effect or attributed to other underlying personality traits
Cope and you know it. If you're going to act like anyone who waits is retarded, don't whip around and pretend the balance of evidence consistently tipping against you is suddenly worthless because it hasn't tickled whatever arbitrarily high standard of "proof" you've created on the spot. I didn't refer to the evidence to "prove" anything to you. I used it to show that there is a perfectly reasonable basis to wait, even by your own focus on sexual quality/compatibility, let alone whether a marriage is happy and lasting.

>Literally nobody advocated for fucking on impulse.
You might as well be, and you know full well that arguing for the permissibility of sex outside of marriage will be taken further than whatever supposed ideal you have in mind. Do you think most people who have sex outside of marriage are even remotely interested in the long-term implications of what they're doing? The "respectable" norm in many places is three dates. If that isn't just an impulse, I'm Mickey Mouse.

>the only two options are never having sex before marriage and having sex with anybody anytime without any commitment
As far as moral standards go, yeah, pretty much. Because only the former offers a repeatable and proven means of achieving lifelong monogamy. Everything else, from "testing sexual compatibility" during engagement to drunken hookups in gas station bathrooms, shares the same fundamental premise that sex need not be grounded on commitment. That belief, no matter the form, is antithetical to the ideal of monogamy, and will inevitably degenerate into the full spectrum of non-commitment that we see right now.

>>34607163
>I think that it's the only conceivable issue that could naively be blamed on the selection effects of waiting, rather than being actively resolved by communication and waiting
I know its the only issue you could conceive of. You've never been in a long term relationship.

>instead of strawmanning like you do
Citing that you've never had a girlfriend isn't a strawman. Its just a statement of fact.

>What the fuck else is there that you could possibly "solve" by having sex without commitment?
This is how I know you have absolutely no experience with this topic nor can you even meaningfully engage with it. Literally nobody said anything about having sex without commitment.

>>34607184
>Cope and you know it.
Literally just reporting the own researchers words to you, anon. If you don't like it then take it up with the people who generated the meme data you rely on so much.

>>34607245
>Citing that you've never had a girlfriend isn't a strawman
No, that's just an irrelevant ass-pull. Even if I were the condensed armpit sweat of an ogre, it wouldn't affect the data.

I was referring to your deliberate misconstrual of multiple points I make, like pretending an example ("dead bedroom") of a thing you yourself said is a problem (not enjoyingsex) is the only thing I could have possibly had in mind, even though that exact post mentioned the possibility of multiple problems.
That is the literal definition of a strawman, of making up an imaginary argument that you can smugly dismiss and act superior for.

>Literally nobody said anything about having sex without commitment.
Commitment in the sense of being binding and enforceable. I.e. marriage, exactly the thing you said was retarded to wait for. You even used the word >>34607032. So I call bullshit.
But, because I have at least a passing interest in intellectual honesty (unlike you), I'll again interpret what I could disprove on its face more charitably:
I assume you want argue that you think there should be "other" commitment. Well, be my guest, but that's exactly my point. Your conception of a relationship is fundamentally different from that intended by the standard of waiting.
Commitment in the sense of being internally motivated to follow through and care for one's partner (or in simply saying, without any external guarantee, that you'll do something) is necessary but not sufficient, because it provides no protection against bad actors. Those people are the only ones who ultimately benefit from the death of a norm of actual commitment with teeth.

>Literally just reporting the own researchers words to you
As an excuse to ignore the evidence, rather than to put said evidence in context as they did.
Whether it's a heuristic (mere correlation) or direct causation is irrelevant to us, because either way, it is rationally justifiable to wait, from the standpoint of marital outcomes.

File: 1769295811897408.png (5 KB, 568x555)

5 KB PNG

>>34597636
blatant astroturf spam thread
faggot mod team

AAAAND OH WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT, 3 DAYS OLD & IT'S BEEN NECROBUMPED TO OBLIVION

is anybody seeing this, or no?

>>34607364
Wanted to Negrobump this thread in response, but I don't seem to have any photos of black people saved.

>>34607011
>>34607001
>they didn't usually marry 20/30/40yo roasties like nowadays, but virgin teen girls
In those days, there were 20s/30s women who weren't roasties, but remained virgin until marriage, if they didn't marry as a child. There were cultural restrictions in place against this, hence my example of Marcus Aurelius.
If you'll continue to label virgin women in their 20s as roasties, I'll have no choice, but to disregard you as a pedophile.

>>34597636
"Waiting until marriage" stems from a time and place before birth control.
Back in the day, a rapist would be enslaved to the family of the victim, marry her, and forced to take on the father role.
Nowadays we have child support, but you couldn't run away from this or negotiate it. This was your punishment.
I believe that waiting until marriage had to do with knowing your partner first before settling down for good, because it seems like it was incredibly dishonorable to be a deadbeat father.
There were miscarriages and elixirs to induce said miscarriages too, but this is all that I could gather from the context of what it meant to wait until marriage.

File: 1775843326389353.jpg (204 KB, 1431x574)

204 KB JPG

>>34597636
the avg woman is a ran through whore anon. Even your own mom had a cock carousel past. You will be disappointed to know as to how women have been for the past 70 or so years.

>>34607520
back in the day, rapists would be put to death, what do you mean lil nigga? In what society are fathers allowing rapists to take their daughters hand in marriage?

>>34607520
> this is all that I could gather from the context of what it meant to wait until marriage.
sleeping consensually with someones daughter would get the shotgun marriage treatment, instead of inventing history from a bong, try reading for once.

>>34607573
The 20th century was an evil and vile time, we're past it. Mass media (attitude setter) is no longer controlled by the same small wretched crowd, thanks to the internet.

>>34607588
you're literally surrounded by whore women, cuck men and you were literally birthed by whore women and cuckoldry loving men. lmao.

>>34607583
Not that guy, but
>rapists would be put to death, what do you mean lil nigga? In what society are fathers allowing rapists to take their daughters hand in marriage?
Marry-your-rapist laws were actually a thing back in the day. How common the option was used depended on the time and place, but the general idea was, since a woman was almost unmarriageable (in some contexts) if she were raped, then the rapist taking on the responsibility of supporting her was seen as a tidy way to compensate for the wrong. He could evade punishment, so the thinking went, if his labor and resources went to her instead of him being locked up at state expense.
Of course, this is nonsense to modern sensibilities, and I'm glad it's gone. But it did happen.
It doesn't mean rape wasn't seen as a monstrous crime. It was. But how society got 'restitution' for it could look completely insane to us.

>>34607601
Bullshit, name a single western country that ever had these laws.

>>34607595
Cuckholdry is mostly contained within the millenial generation, likewise to whorish women (to a lesser extent, obviously). Do you know what came after Weimar? Not to draw any comparisons, but just to assert that society can change.

>>34607601
>Of course, this is nonsense to modern sensibilities, and I'm glad it's gone. But it did happen.
If you go back to Rome, or even the Bible, rapists are put to death, this is the foundation of western law for the last 2000 years. What you are arguing for does not exist.

>>34607606
>but just to assert that society can change.
how are you going to change muh basedciety when you yourself carry slut-cuck heritage anon?

>>34607608
Colonial laws for America, Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc reflect this. I don't know if this is an erotic fantasy of yours or whatever, but it doesn't exist in reality. The natural reaction of a father or a brother to such an event hasn't changed throughout recorded history.

>>34607610
Society IS changing, whether it will take you 20 years to realize this or not does not matter to me. Remain unconvinced for 2 decades, if you wish.

>>34607616
society is changing, yes, but for the worse. You know as much as I do that women will just blatantly lie about their bodycounts so there's no way you're going to be able find a "virgin" woman
https://nypost.com/2024/10/08/lifestyle/1-in-4-americans-hide-body-count-from-their-partner-survey/

>>34607606
>>34607608
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marry-your-rapist_law
The feminist interpretation that treats all of this as a matter of "property" is largely ideological hot air, but the fact is that marriage to one's victim could sometimes be seen as either compensation or an alternative to punishment.

>>34607671
This is a fiction.
>Ancient Assyria
Irrelevant to the civilized world (the west) but dubious

>Deuteronomy 22
Misconception that arises from a few bad modern translations, earlier in, the death penalty is given for rape in the same chapter (Deuteronomy 22:27)
>But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

>But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

>For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

>Napoleonic laws
>contained a provision that if a man had 'abducted' a girl and married her, he could only be prosecuted if the girl's parents or legal guardians arranged to have the marriage annulled first. Although the law does not contain the word 'rape', it has been described as a marry-your-rapist law,
as in, if it's rape, the parents will obviously have an issue with it

>some third world countries in the 20th and 21st century
not the civilized world

In general don't get your understanding of the world from women, you'll look retarded, especially feminists.

>>34607759
moreover
>https://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/france/penalcode/c_penalcode3b.html
>331. Who shall commit the crime of rape, or shall be guilty of any other attack upon the modesty, consummated or attempted, with violence, against an individual of either sex, shall be punished with solitary imprisonment.
Rape is already punished elsewhere in this law

Waiting until marriage is a good way to trap a woman into a disappointing situation, that’s for sure

>>34607925
In the end, it's better for society.

>>34607925
Alright, you win. To make it fair, women can pick who they want to marry. You've twisted my arm !