Isn't waiting for sex after marriage old fashioned?

In this day and age when we have contraception and very low risk of getting anyone pregnant what is the point of abstaining?

Didn't God just make that rule before so that society wouldn't break down, with loads of women having children with no father?

Now we have contraception, so why does it matter? No broken families are going to occur from it.

Tell me what you think =]

All these issues are as old as humanity. Old fashioned? Hardly. It is modern arrogance that disparages things that are so human.

The Roman Empire came down amidst such decadance. Who knows how much longer the U.S. has. There doesn't seem to be much being said for formalities in sex any more, as if sex is just something you do with no psychological repercussions. You are left to be ridiculed if you respect a woman enough to commit to her formally for life rather than just "enjoying the moment".

There are many more issues than only broken families when having informal sex, with or without contraception. First of all, in the case of a condom, it is not natural. It is a plastic (or similar) garment that is worn over the male's most important part for the act. You are not completely nude given you have put a plastic element into your bodily function.

Then you have the chemical-psychological bonding. A woman's body releases chemicals (oxytocin) while having sex which naturally bond you to your partner. It is a natural, biological release, which prepares the woman for child rearing. Since she is vulnerable with a child within her, and also while nuturing an infant, she naturally bonds to a strong, protective being, which would be the one she has sex with. She naturally feels the need for protection for her and her baby. She doesn't have to actually have a baby to feel the bonding. Deny her the security of a faithful man and she will be more unstable than otherwise.

Women who do not insist on a strong signal of committment risk their own emotional stability.