Bobvis retails a WSJ report on the hookup culture in universities, when Trumwill throws a grenade in the comments:
I would be hesitant to dedicate myself to a young lady that had chosen to save herself for marriage. Not because I don't think that is an honorable thing to do (in fact I would greatly admire the discipline), but because I would I would be concerned that she had some sexual/religious hangups about sex in general (even after marriage) and that the not-married rationale was a cover or stalling tactic.
Naturally I asked:
Do you have stats?
He didn't, but then neither do I. After googling around for an hour, I came up with three studies that might address this, but they are tucked inside pay-per-view journals whose prices exceed my motivation. So, lacking data, I will here attempt to engage the model at an intuitive level.
The substantive question before the house is: Does a woman's desire to remain chaste indicate "frigidity," defined here as a lack of interest in or a distaste for sex. This question would lead to a testable hypothesis: does the extent of a woman's premarital sexual history (number of partners, frequency of sex per partner, etc.) correlate positively or negatively with the frequency of sex in her eventual marriage.
I will begin with the following concessions:
1. The general expectation in favor of chasity has largely perished from the broader culture. The specific religious worldview(s) from which the injunction to chasity flows is not universally held. And few people (certainly not I) believe that chasity is "natural" (as opposed to a civilizational artifact). In this context, a woman without any apparent religious affiliation who wants to wait for marriage "just 'cuz" is plausibly indicating a low sex drive. (She is also plausibly indicating a lack of physical attraction for a particular class of suitors, a separate issue.)
2. A shared religious and moral worldview is important in a relationship. An expressed preference for chasity could well indicate a larger incompatibility with a man who doesn't share that preference.
But on the other hand.
1. There are larger considerations. The elephant in the living room is the amply documented connection between pre-marital sex/cohabitation and post-marital adultery/divorce. From a proper religious understanding of sex, it is not hard to understand why. Sex has been given to us to bond us to another person: "the two shall become one flesh." Much as sticky-tape, once applied and ripped away, loses its stickiness, so too will the sex act, repeatedly applied and then ripped away, eventually lose its ability to perform the bonding function.
2. There are other background variables. Fact: with few exceptions, men have higher sex drives than women. Thus, few men will find a woman whose interest in having sex matches their own. Plus, we get old. We get busy and stressed with the business of managing a communal life, especially when children enter the picture. We get tired. Eventually, we get rather ugly. None of these things is conducive to a woman's sex drive. In light of all this, I would much rather choose a woman with a proper understanding of her covenant duties* with regard to sex than attempt to tease out the predictive value of a woman's sexual past on how often she'll be as ready as I am to take a roll in the hay ten years into the marriage.
3. Trumwill, specifically, wants to draw the following distinction:
My personal preference is for sex to be reserved for stable, monogamous relationships. I've not advocated anything else. To the extent that I differ from Phi (and apparently you), it's that I don't believe that marriage is necessarily a precondition for it.
Trumwill subsequently defines stable as "a year or two". I'm not impressed. As Bobvis points out in the subsequent post, this deal really bites from a woman's perspective. On the one hand, she is to save sex for stable, committed relationships. But she must embark on a one- to two-year trial wherein she must prove her sexual athleticism. In the mean time, she can be overturned at any time for any reason. So . . . "stable" and "committed" in this context really mean temporary and contingent, undermining the stated conditions under which she is expected to have sex in the first place. Trumwill is undoubtedly arguing in good faith here, but ultimately, this circle cannot be squared.
Update: In the comments, Trumwill takes issue with my interpretation of his words. The discussion continues . . . .
*Footnote: Inevitably, the usual people will try to spin this as saying that a man has a right to demand sex from, or force sex on, his wife. I will pre-emptively point out that this is not what I wrote, nor what I believe.