Actually, I've been raised by a family who places great emphasis on abstinence.
If my daughter should find a husband who truly loves her, and saves herself for him, I honestly do believe that she will lead a far happier (and less dangerous) life than your daughter, who will be off having her safe sex with different guys that shes happens to care for.
That is what you believe. There are just as many women who were not virigins when they were married who have happy and wonderful marriages, despite the fact that their hymen is not intact. Lack of virginity does not imply promiscuity.
"My son-in-law will value what my daughter will have achieved and has given him in a true lifelong commitment to marriage and family. Your future son-in-law will always know there was this other guy, and this other one, and this other one... He will always wonder just how committed she is, knowing all the guys she 'cares' about in her life.
That could be equally applied to the fact that many women have several boyfriends before meeting "the one"---should he ("the one") not trust her commitment to him because she has been in a relationship and deeply cared for men other than him?
She can't "deeply care" for a guy without sleeping with him?
I think men on average are rightly suspicious of women committing to them for life when such women have had many 'committed' and sexual relationships previously (and vice versa as well). And as for your family's raising you with abstinence stressed, it's still obvious that you yourself do not share that value, and that we don't.
Speaking in an ideal context of disease free world, sadly, hedging your bets is not for the womb owner. Care should be exercised in choice of men for women, not in hedge. After all a single woman has only a limited shot at having children, and if she blows it from the get go through hedges she cannot afford (men that dump her, the more burdensome she is with children, the more frequent), she will be very disapointed and frustrated. Men on the other hand CAN afford to have many women and to hedge to spread their risk accross different women, though they cannot choose but only be available through widespread exposure.
In a sex diseased world things get worse though for women especialy. Hedging their bets mean they will get exposure to disease more so to the elusive perfect husband (and lord knows how unfair this search is if one cares to compare the fears of skirted husbandry obligations vs. a government in charge of single women that is hardly sinless, liable and responsible). Men on the other hand become those vectors for disease, but men were always expandable in the first place.
So in the real world men's conditions remain the same, it is women and society that suffer most from immorality in the end. Whatever the feminists will say, expanding man was always the goal, and by tracking down men and attempting to feminizing them, they are destroying morality, women and causing society to suffer a backlash in men dominance. Even "socialy" progressist nations like the Soviet Union or China are very much dominated by men. Sure, I hear now and then a Russian policeman will go to jail for running after his wife with an axe, and she will consider herself happy if it happens once a week.
If memory serves, Washington and Jefferson were two of them. Both married widows.