There are sexual ideas that have been passed down for generations as though they are wisdom simply because they are old.

Men should have experience before marriage.

A young man needs to practice.

Men naturally need variety.

A man with many women is sexually accomplished.

Prostitutes provide an outlet for men.

A prostitute can teach a young man how to please a woman.

A powerful man having several wives proves something about his manhood.

Boys need to “get it out of their system” before they settle down.

These ideas are so familiar that people often repeat them without stopping to ask whether they actually make sense.

That assumption deserves to be examined.

Plainly.

The Sexual Lies That Have Been Passed Down

These are not random sexual habits we are discussing. These are ideas that have been repeatedly taught, excused, normalized and passed from one generation to another as though they contain some great wisdom about men, women, sex and marriage.

We are going to take the lies one by one and ask a very simple question:

Does a Man Need to Practice With Multiple Women Before Marriage to Learn How to Satisfy His Wife?

This should be obvious.

A man can sleep with ten women and still marry an eleventh woman whose body, preferences, sensitivities, pace and desires are completely different.

He still has to learn his wife.

Previous women cannot teach him exactly what his wife likes because they are not his wife.

Sexual experience can teach a person some things. A person can learn anatomy. He can become less nervous. He can become more comfortable communicating. He may simply become more familiar with sexual situations.”

And sexual experience with many people is certainly not the same as knowing how to love one person well.

A husband ultimately has to learn his wife, not “women.”

That is why the idea that a young man needs several women as practice before marriage makes so little sense.

Practice for what?

His future wife is still going to be a new person.

Two Experienced Strangers Can Still Be Awkward

People talk about inexperienced couples as though awkwardness proves they should have practiced first.

But two experienced strangers can be awkward too.

They do not know each other.

They can misread each other.

They can move at the wrong time.

One person can like something the other person hates.

One can move too quickly.

One can be nervous.

Someone can laugh.

Someone can lose arousal.

Bodies can bump into each other.

Communication can be clumsy.

Sex between two new people can be awkward because they are new to each other.

Experience does not remove that.

There is general sexual experience, and then there is partner-specific sexual fluency.

Those are not the same thing.

A husband and wife who began with very little experience can spend years becoming extraordinarily good lovers to each other because they have learned each other deeply.

That is not sexual incompetence.

That is intimacy.

Whose Daughters Are Supposed to Be Your Son’s Training Ground?

This is where the old advice to young men becomes especially foolish.

A father says:

“My son needs some experience before he gets married.”

With whom?

Another man’s daughter.

Whose daughter is supposed to provide the training?

If every father wants his own daughter respected but also wants his son to “get experience,” then somebody else’s daughter has to become the practice woman.

The contradiction is obvious.

Would that same father happily hear another man say:

“I want my son to practice sex on your daughter so that he will be better prepared for the woman he eventually marries”?

Probably not.

Then why should another family be expected to accept exactly that arrangement for their daughter?

There has long been an ugly double standard hiding beneath this thinking.

Some women are treated as the women men should protect.

Other women are treated as the women men can practice on.

That is not wisdom.

That is using women in categories.

And there is another simple test.

If sexual practice with several partners is such excellent preparation for marriage, would the same father recommend it to his daughter?

Would he tell her:

“Before you marry, sleep with plenty of men so that you can practice pleasing your husband”?

In many cultures, the answer would suddenly become no.

Then this was never a consistent theory of sexual education.

It was permission for boys.

Another Person’s Daughter Is Not Your Son’s Sexual Equipment

Having Many Women Does Not Prove Sexual Prowess

We have also confused access with ability.

A man who has slept with many women has proved one thing:

He has slept with many women.

That does not automatically tell us that he is a good lover.

It does not tell us that he listens.

It does not tell us that women feel safe with him.

It does not tell us that he understands his partner’s pleasure.

It does not tell us that he can remain faithful.

It does not tell us that he can sustain desire in a long marriage.

It does not tell us that he can be tender.

It does not tell us that he can handle rejection without becoming cruel.

It does not tell us that he can receive sexual instruction without his ego collapsing.

It does not tell us that he can love one woman deeply for decades.

Those are much harder abilities.

Sexual conquest is easy to count.

Sexual wisdom is harder to measure.

Wanting Many Women Is Not the Same as Needing Many Women

Another old claim says that men naturally need variety.

A man can certainly desire another woman.

That proves desire.

It does not prove necessity.

Human beings desire all kinds of things they do not need.

An appetite does not become a requirement merely because it is strong.

A man may find several women attractive.

Fine.

That does not mean civilization must arrange several women for him.

It does not mean his wife is inadequate.

It does not mean monogamy is impossible.

It does not mean women are responsible for satisfying every direction in which male sexual appetite can travel.

That distinction should have been made a long time ago.

Since When Did Male Sexual Appetite Become a Problem Women Are Required to Solve?

This brings us to prostitution.

Prostitution has repeatedly been defended as though men having sexual desires creates a social problem that women must solve.

Unmarried men need an outlet.

Soldiers need women.

Sailors need women.

Young men need experience.

Men who cannot find partners need access.

So somewhere women must be made sexually available.

Why?

A man’s sexual desire is his responsibility.

It does not create a debt that some woman must pay with her body.

And prostitution raises one of the simplest questions in this entire discussion:

That question matters.

Because wanting sex is not the same as wanting prostitution.

A woman can enjoy sex.

She can have a strong sexual appetite.

She can enjoy novelty.

She can be adventurous.

None of those things automatically means she wants strangers to purchase sexual access to her.

The transaction itself matters.

If she would say no without the money and yes because of the money, then the money is doing something very important.

The money is changing the answer.

What Is the Money Actually Buying?

Suppose a woman would not freely choose a particular man as a sexual partner.

Then he offers enough money.

Now she agrees.

What changed?

Not necessarily attraction.

Not necessarily affection.

Not necessarily desire.

Not necessarily love.

The resource changed.

This becomes even more serious when the woman needs the resource for food, housing, children, medicine or survival.

People love to reduce this to:

“She chose it.”

But all choices are not made under equal conditions.

There is a difference between:

“I want this man.”

and:

“I need what this man can give me badly enough that I will allow something I otherwise would not choose.”

Those are not the same sexual situation.

So here is the question civilization should ask:

There may still be people who choose prostitution without economic need. They are not the question here.

The civilization-level question is how much prostitution remains when women no longer need to sell sexual access to their bodies in order to obtain money, food, shelter, medicine or survival.

That is the question.

If She Did Not Need Your Money, Would She Still Choose You?

That question can be uncomfortable for the purchaser too.

Because prostitution can create an illusion.

The man receives sexual cooperation.

But was the encounter mutually desired?

If the money disappeared, would the encounter still happen?

The money may have created access that attraction, affection or mutual desire did not create.

That is a very different thing from being chosen.

So when prostitution is presented as a way to teach men sexual confidence, we should ask:

Confidence in what?

Paying someone who has an economic reason to cooperate is not the same thing as building mutual intimacy with a woman who owes you absolutely nothing.

What Exactly Is a Young Man Supposed to Learn From a Prostitute?

Imagine a father takes his son to a prostitute so the boy can “learn how to please a woman.”

Think about that carefully.

The woman is being paid to participate.

She may have every reason to keep the encounter moving.

She may flatter him.

She may tolerate clumsiness.

Her payment gives her a reason to continue an encounter she may not have chosen without the payment.

She may simply want to finish the encounter.

And the young man is supposedly learning what?

He may learn some mechanics.

He may become less afraid of nudity.

He may gain confidence touching a woman’s body.

But he has not necessarily learned what mutually desired sex is like.

He has not necessarily learned how to listen.

He has not necessarily learned how to notice genuine pleasure.

He has not necessarily learned how to handle vulnerability.

He has not necessarily learned how to build trust.

He has not necessarily learned how intimacy develops when the woman genuinely wants the encounter too.

And that is one of the most important realities of adult sexual relationships.

A wife is not a paid training partner.

She is a person.

We Train Boys in Novelty and Then Expect Husbands to Love Exclusivity

Another foolish idea says boys should “get it out of their system.”

What system?

And why would repeatedly practicing a behavior make the desire for that behavior disappear?

Imagine training a young man this way:

Then one day he gets married and society suddenly says:

Now one woman should be enough forever.

We spent years teaching him that excitement comes from novelty and then act surprised when familiarity feels different.

That makes no sense.

If you want a man capable of faithful marriage, then self-control is preparation for marriage.

Respect is preparation for marriage.

Learning how to remain interested in one person is preparation for marriage.

Learning how to deepen intimacy instead of replacing the person is preparation for marriage.

If One Woman Is Supposedly Not Enough for a Man, Why Is One Man Enough for Several Women?

History gives us powerful men with several wives, concubines and mistresses.

People sometimes look at those arrangements and see male greatness.

But again, what exactly has been proved?

That the man had access.

That he had wealth.

That he had status.

That the society permitted the arrangement.

None of those things automatically prove that he was a better husband or a greater man.

When male sexual appetite is used as the justification, an obvious question follows:

If the argument is that a man’s sexual appetite justifies several wives, what about the sexual and emotional needs of the wives?

Why is his appetite the one around which the entire arrangement is organized?

Multiple wives also create more responsibilities, not fewer.

More emotional relationships.

More children.

More household needs.

More opportunities for jealousy.

More opportunities for favoritism.

More demands on a man’s time.

A man can obtain five wives.

He still has only twenty-four hours in a day.

Having several women may prove abundance of access.

It does not automatically prove abundance of love, wisdom, fairness, presence or sexual ability.

A Strong Sexual Appetite Is Not an Accomplishment

We should also stop praising appetite as though appetite itself is mastery.

A man wanting many women is not impressive simply because the desire is intense.

Can he control himself?

Can he remain faithful when somebody attractive appears?

Can he handle periods when sex is unavailable?

Can he love his wife through pregnancy, exhaustion, illness, aging and changing bodies?

Can he desire without becoming entitled?

Can he hear no?

Can he remain kind when frustrated?

That is strength.

A man ruled by every sexual appetite that enters his body is not displaying mastery.

He is displaying appetite.

So What Is Sexual Prowess?

We have spent far too long defining sexual prowess by numbers.

How many women?

How early did he start?

How many experiences?

How many conquests?

That is a very shallow measurement.

Real sexual prowess is much more demanding.

It is knowing your own body.

It is learning the body of the person you are actually with.

It is communication.

It is confidence without arrogance.

It is self-control.

It is patience.

It is knowing how to listen.

It is noticing whether your partner is actually enjoying herself rather than performing enjoyment for your ego.

It is being teachable.

It is being able to laugh when something awkward happens.

It is creating safety.

It is building mutually desired intimacy together.

It is becoming deeply fluent with your spouse.

It is learning what makes this particular person feel wanted, loved and satisfied.

It is remaining sexually attentive after novelty has passed.

It is faithfulness.

It is depth.

A man does not need a catalogue of women to become sexually accomplished.

He needs the maturity to learn the woman he has actually chosen to love.

Sex Is Too Important for Foolishness

This is not an argument against sex.

Sex is powerful.

Sex is pleasurable.

Sex can be joyful.

Sex can bind two people together deeply.

Precisely because it matters, we should stop surrounding it with foolish ideas simply because generations before us repeated them.

Old does not mean wise.

Common does not mean sensible.

Male desire does not automatically create female obligation.

Access to many women does not prove manhood.

Experience does not automatically produce wisdom.

A prostitute is not a young man’s educational equipment.

Another man’s daughter is not your son’s rehearsal.

And a husband does not need to learn “women.”

He needs to learn his wife.

Before telling a son that he needs sexual experience, ask:

Before saying prostitution gives men a necessary outlet, ask:

Before praising a man because he has had many women, ask:

Some sexual traditions have survived because people inherited them, repeated them and never stopped long enough to ask whether they were wise.

It is time to ask.