Guest redyellowblue

"Buying a car, before test driving it"

34 posts in this topic

Being in high school, a lot of times classmates & friends will ask me if I'm a virgin. I'll answer that I am and they can't resist to make fun of it. Its no big deal to me that in their eyes I look dumb, but all attempts to explain it are futile. Usually I end up saying "I dont wanna STD, then Ill be alone and miserable for the rest of my life, K, thanks." Thats acceptable to them, but of course, they seemingly have a solution to everyhting.

Their main point is the "buying a car before test driving it" excuse. Has there ever been a couple that waited until marriage only to have a lousy sex life? Don't think so, if all the factors are right.

Marriage is all about love. Sex is a way of expressing and strengthening that. Lets be honest, not everything is going to work or look right 80 years from now. To me its just like having a great sound system in the car, only to have it drive and break down ever' 4 miles.

Chip in your thoughts, guys! Why are you waiting until marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sexual compatibility argument goes hand in hand with the cohabitation argument. Both arguments claim you have to "try before you buy." While it sounds logical and intuitive, studies have shown the opposite is true. Couples who do these things are less likely to stay married.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03marry.html

To be fair, there are certainly couples who WTM yet still have crappy sex lives, though they are rare. However is usually attributed to a medical reason (which is foreseen before marriage), lack of communication and the stress of daily life, which happens to everyone so the "try before you buy" argument is void.

Also, the average person has about 4 to 5 relationships in their life time before settling down with marriage. If a person has had sex with every one of those 4 or 5 people, they are less likely to be satisfied with one partner because they will always compare the next partner with the previous one. Once you've tasted multiple flavors of ice cream, why would you settle for one flavor the rest of your life? But if you've only had one flavor your whole life, you're going to think it's the best you've ever had because you know nothing else.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and when a car gets old you trade it in and get a new younger one.

I'm kinda curious to see how people take that response when they try the test drive thing, granted most of the people who are using the test drive excuse are also probably just as willing to trade in their spouse(divorce) and get a new one...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and when a car gets old you trade it in and get a new younger one.

Chris, you are a BOSS!!! Well said, sir. Well said.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the car deal is a bad argument. You get a new or used one all the time. But if you're sucked into that one, doesn't hurt to say - I would rather get a new car that hasn't been driven than worry about what a previous owner did to a used one.

A house is a better argument in this situation anyway. Those you take out long term loans and contracts on. Use that, then ask them - How long do you need to live in your house before you decide you want to buy it? Truth is, most people DON'T do that.

It is what it is.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their main point is the "buying a car before test driving it" excuse.

Just tell all they guys who make fun of you that all of the girls they've slept with must have thought they were terrible at sex, so the girls moved on to find better cars to buy :-)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when I hear the "test drive" argument, not only is it a pretty demeaning attitude to have of women, but it's pretty inaccurate too. I mean, you buy a car for the sole purpose of driving it. You don't marry someone for the sole purpose of having sex with them. I remember reading an article about WTM, and someone left a comment which said it really well: "Waiting till marriage isn't like buying a car before you've test driven it. It's like buying a car which you love and is perfect for you in every way, but you haven't checked to see if the radio works yet."

xxx

10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to chuckle at the 'try before you buy' case. I am generally quiet about being a virgin with my friends and I do not generally share things that I deem personal unless they are very close (or in this case people who I am not likely to meet up in person). I have recently debated the subject with a couple of close and intelligent friends, I also failed to convince them that my choice was legitimate although I did not attempt to convince them that my choice was better. I failed to convince them not because of poor reasoning but because I did not want to fully explain myself. Although very different from school teasing, I think our recent debate was interesting and appropriate to the question - it might give you ideas or spark others to write good ideas. Sorry about the length but I have always had the tendency to overwrite and it does not take long to type anyway

I never attempted STD arguments because if people use the appropriate contraception properly it is not really a issue.

I did at one point attempt to use marriage statistics but '90% of statistics are made up' is the classic joke. Counters over causation make it really easy to disregard statistics. Such as the reason why virgin marriages are statistically more likely to succeed is that both partners are more committed to the relationship. If you measured both samples in terms of commitment, the virgin sample and non-virgin sample would probably be the same. Pure speculation but it does make sense and then you could argue whether the sample is proportional and whether you comparing like with like. For this reason statistics are a bad idea if you are debating against another person who will not take anything at face-value.

Not wanting to enter too personal reasons I then tried half-heartedly arguing the value approach. The problem with arguing virginity has value is that you need to find a partner / other people who value it. Most often the only people who would value virginity tend to be waiters themselves and more specifically those who want to exchange their virginity for their partners virginity when they are married because it has value and should not be given to anyone but that special person who also waited. That failed because of the sheer probability of finding such a partner is statistically unlikely and I end-up acknowledging that other things are far more important. I did not attempt to argue that virginity had self-value because it would have seemed pretentious. It would have been taken as the same as if a person had said that education has value so those without education have no or less value to a person who was not academically intelligent - and I do not see things that way anyway and it is not a nice thing to say even if you believe it.

Other ideas got discussed such as WTM as screen for a future wife (that one made me laugh). I overcame arguments over compatibility by saying that you would already be emotionally compatible when you marry (possibly more so than in a physical relationship because you cannot substitute the emotional side with the physical side). Then physical compatibility would grow in time and I also used the idea that I took from another thread. The importance of having intimacy which is difficult to convey but I think it has solid reasoning.

The debate was one way as I never asked them to justify their choices because I see not waiting as a legitimate choice for people who want different things from life and see life differently. Some people want to try lots of car all the time, some people want to try various cars until they find that one that fits just right (sometimes it works other times it does not), some people want just one car and wait until they find it (again sometimes it works and other times it does not). All legitimate choices for people who want different things.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love that you took this on as a little debate-in-masquerade form!! and very strong all your observations. good focus group :-)

perhaps the best piece of it all... it didn't seem to shake your own thinking and value you place on WTM. :-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples and oranges. You might want to tell them the following (not my own material):

Him to her dad: "She's pretty; no doubt about that. Mind if I take her for a spin? Can you tell me about her warranty? I mean, what if she turns out to be a lemon? What kind of mileage does she get? You don't have one in metallic silver, do you? I know you're asking $20K but would you take $15? What about with a trade-in?"

Let's turn the tables and see how it feels. Let's say he finds the woman he wants to marry. She's perfect in every way, except for one thing: she's been "test driven" by all the guys who have the same mentality he does. She's been treated like a commodity by guys who needed to "kick the tires" to make sure she'd do, but for one reason or another they rejected her. How does that make him feel about those guys who "test drove" his now-fiancé? When she says, "Keep in mind I've had to sleep with a lot of guys because, as you know, guys need a test-drive," will he understand? Or is he expecting brand new "cars" just to keep rolling up to him for his test drives?

Or better yet, how would he feel if he were taken on a test drive? What if, after having had premarital sex with the woman he wants to marry, she said to him, "I'm sorry, everything about you is perfect, but I just can't marry you because you were a horrible 'test-drive,'" and then discards him into a junk-yard heap?

Needless to say, I wouldn't marry a woman who has been "test-driven" before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I HATE THAT SAYING. Humans are not cars! We're living beings, and science has shown that those who WTM have a higher success with marriage and a better sex life.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chip in your thoughts, guys! Why are you waiting until marriage?

Main reason - Emotional. I think it's best for me. As far as explaining why to your classmates, it may be futile. Sort of like trying to explain why your eyes are a certain color. I also think we're more intellectual, so they may not have the capacity to understand high order common sense. If they've brought the car analogy up, that pretty much sums up their brain function. I guess you could tell them your waiting on the model with zero miles on the odometer. I've never really been in a situation where I felt compelled to explain that to anybody. Maybe that's why my senior class in high school voted me as the "quietest." At the 25th year reunion, they didn't know me. And I think I'm the only person in my class who went to college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What if you get married and the sex is not great?"..... "Well I will have nothing to compare it to, furthermore, I will have a lifetime to make it better."

The idea of working together to make a sex life better is based on trust, honesty and respect. Couple who are not selfish, and genuinely love each other will work together to accomplish this. In another article someone said something to the effect of "I imagine our first few times will be awkward and not awesome, but we are sailing into uncharted waters, and we have forever to make it great."

And as for the people that say you have to test drive it before you buy it, well they are thinking backward so far they can't even understand our side of the argument.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't really have to do the test driving to get an idea if you will enjoy someone in bed. You can accomplish a lot just by asking some simple questions to each other. I don't see the harm if you and someone are real comfortable together maybe just slip in a question about something you may respectfully want to try after the big day. I don't see what harm it could really do and plan to ask those questions myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrying on with the car analogy... because who doesn't love explaining things with analogies...

What happens if when you're test driving that car, it crashes and the car ends up being a complete write off? Then you're left with a car falling to pieces, and not much reason to fix it because you can easily sweep the rubble under the rug and get a new one? However once you've bought the car you've got insurance and things and you actually fix the problems with the car rather than just trying a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never attempted STD arguments because if people use the appropriate contraception properly it is not really a issue.

Not true Nick. There are quite a few STDs that condoms do not protect against. Herpes being one. Herpes is easily transmitted by "Sluffing" off the pubic bone to pubic bone contact. 1 in 5 people have genital herpes.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry ComputerFox but I have to disagree. The reason why I said "not really" a issue is because at first glance it could appear to be a good argument, however, when I explored the logic, I fail to find any substance - although I would very much appreciate if you could offer insight to dispute my ideas as it would be an interesting addition.

Sorry if it reads like a lecture as I have always been bad at creative writing but it gets the point across - another one of my flaws is that I struggle to make my point succinctly. So, OK here it goes:

At a basic level everyone evaluates risk based upon the probability of something happening and the impact that it will have if it does happen - irrational fears being the exception. You could make it more complicated like by including case scenarios (best case vs worst case and associated probabilities or even lag times), but I think the simple model will suffice. So at a basic level: overall risk is a combination of the probability of the event occurring and how bad the event will be if it does occur.

So let assume you are correct and the probability of catching one of these common STD which bypasses contraception is high. Now lets assume for argument sake that your statistic is correct and on average every 5 people you sleep with you will catch one STD - which may or may not be correct. So on the scale of 0-10 (10 being certain, 0 impossible) you would give it something like an arbitrary 4. However, even with the high probability of occurrence, the impact of catching this common STD is minor as with appropriate medication it will go away (or possibly naturally) and does no permanent damage. So on the scale of 0-10 (10 being death, 0 being a mild annoyance for a period of time) lets give it a 1. Therefore despite the high probability of occurring, the overall risk is minor because it is the average of the two scores.

Yes, I imagine genital herpes is not nice but it will not kill you and is not permanent. Therefore my friends would not logically accept such arguments because the overall risk is minor. Unless you or someone else can offer different insight, I cannot see STD being a compelling case to wait unless your perception of overall risk (the arbitrary numbers) is really conservative. Could take it a step or two further if you really want (perception of reward, timing of outcomes etc), but this is probably more than you wanted anyway.

Also, my friends made mincemeat out of me when I quoted a statistic to try and prove my point (so I quickly backtracked), The thing about becoming a social scientist is that you are taught not to accept statistics/statements at face value but critically analyse them for worth because social science is not scientific like biology, chemistry or physics. They bombarded me with common questions over methodology, sampling methods, sample size, statistical validity, theoretical assumptions, research paradigm, statistical variables. When I am reviewing research in my studies these are exactly the type of questions I ask of academic papers. But in this case I could not answer and given the level that the debate was I really needed to know because they appreciate (and so do I) that most social science research is flawed to some extent (which is usually acknowledged within the academic paper but is often ignored by the press and government bodies).

I am now saying sorry because it is most certainly more than you wanted but I am really, really, really bored of transcribing my interviews - it is mind numbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While it sounds logical and intuitive, studies have shown the opposite is true.

I think this is why the "test drive" argument and argument for living together are so prevalent. Most people have convinced themselves that those are necessary "tests" if you will before getting married because at first glance they can *seem* like they would produce a better overall marriage. But not only do the statistics show differently, when you really think about it (well and from a Biblical POV as well but thats another story) with the emotional bonds sex creates, the connection between you and that other person, comparisons, and how living together cheapens marriage, you're more likely to marry someone that isn't right for you just because it seems like the next step, etc etc etc its really not all that logical to do those things before you're married.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with the "test drive" defense of pre-marital sex is that it labors under the assumption that human beings are machines, and that sex is a simple biological need of no greater psychological or social significance than eating a burrito to stave off hunger. A car can be driven before purchase without any lasting impact on the car's subconscious or sense of self-worth, or the driver's ability to form a lasting bond with said car. The same cannot be said of any being so complex and emotional as a human.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with the "test drive" defense of pre-marital sex is that it labors under the assumption that human beings are machines, and that sex is a simple biological need of no greater psychological or social significance than eating a burrito to stave off hunger. A car can be driven before purchase without any lasting impact on the car's subconscious or sense of self-worth, or the driver's ability to form a lasting bond with said car. The same cannot be said of any being so complex and emotional as a human.

What if the person who was the first to test drive the car was a little rough with it? Or ran it into a telephone pole? Of course the car would have no memory of any of this but you see what i'm getting at.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry ComputerFox but I have to disagree. The reason why I said "not really" a issue is because at first glance it could appear to be a good argument, however, when I explored the logic, I fail to find any substance - although I would very much appreciate if you could offer insight to dispute my ideas as it would be an interesting addition.

Sorry if it reads like a lecture as I have always been bad at creative writing but it gets the point across - another one of my flaws is that I struggle to make my point succinctly. So, OK here it goes:

At a basic level everyone evaluates risk based upon the probability of something happening and the impact that it will have if it does happen - irrational fears being the exception. You could make it more complicated like by including case scenarios (best case vs worst case and associated probabilities or even lag times), but I think the simple model will suffice. So at a basic level: overall risk is a combination of the probability of the event occurring and how bad the event will be if it does occur.

So let assume you are correct and the probability of catching one of these common STD which bypasses contraception is high. Now lets assume for argument sake that your statistic is correct and on average every 5 people you sleep with you will catch one STD - which may or may not be correct. So on the scale of 0-10 (10 being certain, 0 impossible) you would give it something like an arbitrary 4. However, even with the high probability of occurrence, the impact of catching this common STD is minor as with appropriate medication it will go away (or possibly naturally) and does no permanent damage. So on the scale of 0-10 (10 being death, 0 being a mild annoyance for a period of time) lets give it a 1. Therefore despite the high probability of occurring, the overall risk is minor because it is the average of the two scores.

Yes, I imagine genital herpes is not nice but it will not kill you and is not permanent. Therefore my friends would not logically accept such arguments because the overall risk is minor. Unless you or someone else can offer different insight, I cannot see STD being a compelling case to wait unless your perception of overall risk (the arbitrary numbers) is really conservative. Could take it a step or two further if you really want (perception of reward, timing of outcomes etc), but this is probably more than you wanted anyway.

Also, my friends made mincemeat out of me when I quoted a statistic to try and prove my point (so I quickly backtracked), The thing about becoming a social scientist is that you are taught not to accept statistics/statements at face value but critically analyse them for worth because social science is not scientific like biology, chemistry or physics. They bombarded me with common questions over methodology, sampling methods, sample size, statistical validity, theoretical assumptions, research paradigm, statistical variables. When I am reviewing research in my studies these are exactly the type of questions I ask of academic papers. But in this case I could not answer and given the level that the debate was I really needed to know because they appreciate (and so do I) that most social science research is flawed to some extent (which is usually acknowledged within the academic paper but is often ignored by the press and government bodies).

I am now saying sorry because it is most certainly more than you wanted but I am really, really, really bored of transcribing my interviews - it is mind numbing.

You can let your friends candy coat with fancy rhetoric all you want. It's not a matter of using STD's as a cause for wait or not. I am simple stating a mathematical and well accepted statistic among the medical community that 20% of all Americans have genital herpes. 80% have oral.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/other.htm#HPV

I will accept CDC facts as significant and credible source. Its not a matter of pounding this down a non waiters throat as fearmongering. Just scientific fact.

I am at work right now and cant post a more credible source to the nature of condoms stopping herpes but there are plenty of sources that say the same

http://www.themedguru.com/node/24792

"It is a known fact that condoms can help avert the spread of life-threatening conditions like HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), chlamydia, gonorrhoea as well as many other types of sexually transmitted diseases. However, if condoms can help effectively prevent HSV-2 virus is still not well-established, revealed Martin and her research team.

But the researchers did add that condoms don’t offer 100 percent protection and can only guard partially. This is because the virus HSV-2 gets transmitted if the area of your skin not covered with condom comes in contact with the infected person.

Furthermore, even if the symptoms of genital herpes are not exactly visible in people affected by it, they can still infect others with the virus. Nevertheless, Martin added, “30 percent is partial protection, but it is protection.â€"

Waiting till marriage or not is irrelevant. 1 in 5 have genital herpes. 4 in 5 have oral. Condoms do not protect against hepes (70% chance of catching herpes is not what I call protection).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that I knew all the credible statistics (which I do not - nor claim to know) and could argue that it was applicable to them, the disagreement is the same. It is over risk vs reward - and you will never convince someone who evaluates risk and reward differently by saying their perception of risk and reward is wrong (as illustrated by our case). Lets show the idea on a slightly less emotive subject - business ownership - draw whatever reasoning from it you wish.

Starting up a business has many bad statistics. 1/3 of businesses fail in the first year, 50% within two and 75% within three years. Most fail to make a profit, many people lose their saving and nothing whatsoever statistically is in your favour. Knowing this, why do people set up businesses? They value the rewards of business ownership more than the risk of failure. The potential rewards are immediate when the potential consequences are in the future. Thinking that I can control my own fate and I am not another statistic. I can mitigate some of the risk of small business ownership by forming a partnership with someone who is trustworthy. It is unlikely that I will lose everything I own which I would be unwilling to risk but I am willing to risk a little money.

I do not think these statistics make a compelling reason not to start-up a business but it may for others because (even with the same information) everyone evaluates risk and reward differently based on the likelihoods of rewards/risks and the impact of rewards/risk.

The point (which I failed to explain correctly because I just quickly rattled on about something without thinking) is that people evaluate things differently, even statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a fair comparison, Nick. The difference between sex and business is that while the odds are against business owners, the reward can potentially be just as great if not more so depending on how the business thrives. With sex, if condoms only offers 30% protection against herpes and significantly reduces the pleasurable sensations, the reward is just a few minutes of watered down sex and a possible lifetime of living with a disease. Another difference is that there are certain things that are beyond your control in determining how successful a business. With sex, you have all the control. You can choose either to have sex with a person with STDs or you can hold out for someone who is completely clean. I don't see how anyone can argue that the rewards of having protected sex with a person with STDs are worth the significant risks involved. If they do, they are probably ignorant of the risks or have a false sense of security.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly misrepresented myself again. The point of the case was merely to say that people evaluate risk and rewards differently in a context that was slightly easier to illustrate and less conflicting/potentially hurtful. I was not necessarily arguing the two cases are comparable (although I think I could make a compelling case for it), but instead that everything involves risk and reward. People see the same risk and evaluate it differently and people see the same reward and evaluate it differently. Some people might value the guarantee of a 'few minutes of watered down sex' more highly than the 'high' risk of having a rash for a week (and the 'low' chance of dying from something). The reason why it lacks the ability to convince people is that you are disagreeing over the value of statistics - not the validity of the statistic. It is your perception that they are being ignorant of the risk / false sense of security. The majority of my peers (who are aware of the statistics) would argue that a person would be too risk adverse, again that is their perception of the risk and reward. Why do people see gambling different when the probabilities are the same?

Also, the person chooses to start a business like a person chooses to have sex. And reward is evaluated in terms of impact and likelihood, so the likelihood of being successful is very low - so overall potential success is low.

Me and my friends often debate with each other just for the fun of it and simply to challenge each other / play devils advocate. When debating with my friends it is a competition and we try to make mincemeat out of each other (it is all done in good humour but obviously I have been more conservative on here). It is difficult to judge how people take things when you do not know them personally, nor can you see their reactions. In person it is easy to see if the person wants to debate (or is feeling obliged to counter-back because you disagree with them), at what intensity they want to argue (or understate a case to keep it polite), and if it is being taken in good humour (or slightly irritating or even hurtful). I have a feeling that I am edging towards a few people invisible lines - so please feel free to counter and I promise to read it. Then simply agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now