It is more beneficial in a relationship to have sex before marriage instead of waiting until after

Refutations:The first few paragraphs in Pro's argument are summed up in the following points:1. Physical attraction is an important factor in a relationship.2. Sex in a relationship often results in happiness.3. If people wait until marriage to have sex, it can be a let down. I agree with all of those points, but not one of them suggests a benefit to having sex specifically prior to marriage. Number one is true, but has nothing to do with sex. Number two is also true, but only under specific criteria. For example, sex in the case of rape would not make the victim happy. I will reiterate later in this argument why premarital sex is not beneficial to a long term relationship (marriage). In point number three, though first-time sex can be a let down, Pro fails to point out that it is not contingent on the couple being married. "When people wait to have sex after marriage, they are putting sex on a pedestal. "The alternative to 'putting sex on a pedestal' would be to feel casual about sex, which, in turn, would mean more sexual partners. Studies have repeatedly shown that as the number of sexual partners a person has had increases, so does their risk for divorce. [1] Which, in regards to marriage at least, proves that there should be some boundaries in relation to sex. A major problem with Pro's 'sexual compatibility' argument is the solution it must employ. Assuming that a relationship can be good and the sex can be so bad it is grounds for a break up, the solution would be to move on. And, if the studies are correct and more sexual partners increases risk for divorce, then the solution is a rich irony. Have sex to save yourself from possible divorce, thus lowering your chances of a long-term relationship by having sex with someone who may or may not be your future spouse. Pro's other argument is that issues in regards to sexual incompatibility can come up if a couple doesn't engage in intercourse before marriage. The faulty reasoning behind this argument is in the separation of person and body - in other words, relating to the body independently of the person. One study - that I cited last round - talks about the power of touch. In the study, an experiment was conducted where heterosexual men were touched on the leg by an unseen person. The men were shown a video of either a man or woman touching them. Subjects who had 'seen' they were touched by a woman rated the experience as more pleasant. The primary somatosensory cortex (a part of the brain) of the subjects, responded more sharply to a woman's touch then to a man's. It turns out though that the unseen person was always a woman. To quote directly, "The results were startling, because the primary somatosensory cortex had been thought to encode only basic qualities of touch, such as smoothness or pressure. That its activity varied depending on whom subjects believed was touching them suggests that the emotional and social components of touch are all but inseparable from physical sensations. "When you're being touched by another person, your brain isn't set up to give you the objective qualities of that touch," says study coauthor Michael Spezio, a psychologist at Scripps College. "The entire experience is affected by your social evaluation of the person touching you. " " [2]Which implies that emotional connection accounts for most of the pleasure received in a physical relationship. This is a response to a number of the points you address with sexual incompatibility. To address your specific points in regards to 'issues that can come up if you wait to have sex until after marriage':1,2,5,7, and 8 can all be discussed - sex is NOT required to sort them out. On the contrary, discussing them seems to be more practical anyway. Does it make sense to try have oral sex with someone in order to see if they're comfortable with it? And someone shouldn't need to have sex with their partner to determine if they have HIV. (That seems sort of counterproductive. ) These are all important things that should be discussed before any sex takes place.3 and 4 aren't inherently causes for sexual dissatisfaction. Both can be addressed by doctors. [3]And point 6 is explained in the study above. (Emotional connection influences the physical. )It is very interesting to note that in regards to the sources Pro brings in round 2 (sources 3,4, and 5), not one of the articles specifies that it is talking about premarital sex. I agree that good sex is important. But the articles don't specify that good sex can only be achieved through premarital relations, nor do they state that good sex before marriage leads to happier, better marriages. "Literally that is all it is. The only other ties that can be claimed to this are religious, because the church feels it has the right to moderate it. Regardless of that, it is irrelveant to what we are discussing. Couple =/= marriage. "Actually, it is essential to what we are discussing. As Pro states in his opening round: 'Resolution : It is more beneficial for a couple if they have sex before they get married, instead of waiting until after marriage to have it. In specific regards to future happiness in the relationship. 'We're talking about sex in relation to marriage (before or after) and future happiness in the relationship. Nowhere have we discussed sex when a person is not interested in committing himself/herself to marriage. (That's another discussion entirely. ) Therefore, the subject at hand is limited to cases where couple = marriage, and the question is simply in regards to when is it appropriate to have sex within that circumstance. ". .. the dating stage is an experimental stage to learn everything about that person that you can. So when you get ready to marry them, there are no hidden secretes. "A general rule in going out with someone, contrary to what Pro stated, is to find out if you're compatible in issues that are important to you. You don't need to know everything about your future spouse - it's actually impossible. Human beings change, and have depths to them that cannot be expressed. Though it is impossible to know everything about them, it is sufficient to know the important things. For example, whether or not they like hot peppers is not integral to a relationship. But if they want to have fifteen children, that might (as in, it must) be mentioned. A general rule to information that is integral to a relationship is information that you would get divorced over. If that includes someone's sexual identity, then it must be discussed. "As I said In my prior contention, dating is a way for people to see if they are ready to or possibly want to commit to the person in question. If you are going to do that with personality, income, and any other variable you can think to place here. The next most logical process is to also try out sexual experiences. "Unfortunately, the next logical step is not to try out sexual experiences. Among Pro's list of important qualities to look for, he writes religion. If your date is a Mormon, does that mean you have to try out being a Mormon? No. It's enough to talk about it. Income is also not something that needs to be 'experienced'. As for the articles I referenced, your point could be a decent refutation assuming:1) Every lasting Christian and conservative marriage is because the partners don't consider it holy to get divorced.2) We were talking solely about divorce rates. But we're not. The one article specifically states, "Couples who do not have sex before marriage have happier more stable relationships and a more rewarding sex life, according to a new study. " Which seems to be the point of this debate. Until a person marries, there is no commitment officially. If there are standards involved in a relationship and both parties are required to meet them, the relationship is already stronger than a free-for-all because both parties have accepted responsibility upon themselves. Prior to marriage there is no such commitment. When a person decides that sex is integral to making a decision about marriage, they lose sight of the other - possibly more important - points to consider. Why? Because, as Pro pointed out several times, sex is a huge factor in a relationship, partially because of the physical pleasure that comes from it. So if someone has the opportunity to have sex or engage in a discussion, they are more likely to choose the former. As I proved in round 2, people should wait to know each other properly before engaging in sex. If they are having relations before they know each other, everything else flies out the window. By the time the couple realizes they are not compatible - on other, more fundamental levels - they are already involved in an intense emotional relationship because of the sex. [1] . http://www.jstor.org...[2] . http://www.psychologytoday.com...[3] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...As