Saiwania wrote:Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Because it isnt your right to tell people what to do with themselves, and they'll just do it behind the scenes. This is such a bad idea.
The point from my perspective, isn't to actually eliminate all instances of premarital sex. Rather it is social control to reign in the behaviors of men and women to be a bit more constrained if not confined to better contexts than is the case now, and perhaps to reduce if not eliminate STDs to the most extent possible.
Taking action designed to try and eliminate it instead of regulate it will only result in cases of STDs/STIs skyrocketing. You would have to fundamentally alter Western cultures in order to achieve anything even remotely close to that, and even if that were possible (which I seriously doubt), the people skirting the rules would still result in conditions getting worse.
Saiwania wrote:I just know that the more sexually conservative a nation is, the more impressed by it I am. It is such a good idea in my view precisely because sex and relationships are taken far more seriously and with better more formal protocol in such places. None of the MGTOW, PUA, Red Pill, etc. foolishness in those places. Not so far as I can see.
It would be good for sex a nd relationships to be taken more seriously...but this would cause equivalently large problems to our current situation. The best option is to regulate it in a way that improves the safety of those involved...although the current culture of casual sex could stand some stripping down and reforming.
Saiwania wrote:It is instead the family/clan units laying down the law and spelling out how it is which is: We follow the Shariah or Leviticus laws: no ifs, ands, or buts. Nothing gonna happen unless the marriage happens, and no marriage gonna happen unless the man/woman has jumped through all the hoops and really is accepted for such a union. People gotta choose who they want to be with, but the family also gotta be able to put the man/woman through the ringer figuratively speaking (if that applies), to test their value/dedication in determining if they're really worthy enough or if the union will be good or bad objectively speaking.
...and they could be sexually incompatible, which they wouldn't know until after the union.