An interesting perspective on saving yourself for marriage

[Firethorn]

Feeling that virginity is important in itself - and that sex is a dirty, primal thing is definitely not what she was being taught, but it is what a lot of girls hear. Why? We get told repeatedly that virginity is preferred until marriage - but then nobody talks to us about transitioning into a marriage (and sexual) relationship.

Going by what I've heard, the former is actually fairly likely.  Though I  agree with you on the transition stuff.  I remember reading about 'marriage instructions' given just before the wedding night in a lot of cultures, that seems to have fallen by the wayside.  It was downright elaborate in India, from what I remember.

[onions!]

Going by what I've heard, the former is actually fairly likely.  Though I  agree with you on the transition stuff.  I remember reading about 'marriage instructions' given just before the wedding night in a lot of cultures, that seems to have fallen by the wayside.  It was downright elaborate in India, from what I remember.

I forget which culture it was(I read it a long time ago) but either the mother or mother-in-law spent the wedding night under the bed to offer advice if needed.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I've always kind of wondered if the numbers are jack in favor for a single partner simply because the two people involved don't know what they are missing.

Since one of the biggest complaint of woman who attain a divorce after marrying young and virgin is a crappy sex life, I have to think at least a portion of those who stay married (male and female) are unhappy with their sex lives.

[sumpnz]

A crappy sex life has a crap ton more to do with poor communication and lack of empathy than prior sexual experience.  Those same people probably would have complained just as much about their sex life if they'd had a dozen prior partners rather than none.  Only reason it might change is they might be slightly more likely to communicate, but the comfort with their sexuality is only a small part of that whole equation.

[BlueStarLizzard]

A crappy sex life has a crap ton more to do with poor communication and lack of empathy than prior sexual experience.  Those same people probably would have complained just as much about their sex life if they'd had a dozen prior partners rather than none.  Only reason it might change is they might be slightly more likely to communicate, but the comfort with their sexuality is only a small part of that whole equation.

I don't know what to say to this since you are so off on left field not understanding what I am saying and not wishing to understand what I am saying.
Plus, that last sentence pretty much confirms your complete ignorance of how insanely difficult it is for a woman in our culture to be comfortable with their sexuality.

A crappy sex life has a lot of factors. Ignorance and lack of communication is a big part of that.

What I am saying is that those who are not going to fix that or even know to fix it are included in the graph of single partners who marry as virgins and stay married, which unfairly bumps those numbers. So they stay married, big whoop, but it's not exactly a great example of why you should stay a virgin till you marry.

You find me a graph that has data on married couples with satisfying, dynamic sexual relationships with the same drastic difference between those with single partners and those with multiple partners and we can talk. Until then, I remain extremely skeptical of it's overall value in this discussion.

[drewtam]

@BSL

You bring up an important judgement call on priorities and imperatives. If one comes from the direction that sexual and emotional happiness is the proper context that marriage and family occurs, then your point is spot on. If one comes from the Christian perspective that marriage is the proper context of sex and family, then the comments will always talk past each other.

This leaves aside a difficult question of pragmatism, because the graphic nearly addresses the question of what kind of partner should I chose if I want to reduce my risk of divorce. This is a very serious and important question to men, being on the receiving end of the super majority of divorces.
We all know the increased risks of divorce during youth, poverty, and low education. This question of previous partner count ("N-count" for brevity) is another factor to consider that is taboo to discuss among the politically correct crowds. I say "nearly" because as Rev was quick to point out, (and I don't disagree), correlation is not causation. There are probably just as many theories as to the direction of causation as there are people who consider the questions of divorce as a function of age, economic class, education and N-count. It is for this reason that I posted the graphic without comment, because I am not convinced of anything yet on causation, but real statistically significant data is a good antidote to anecdotal experience of the original posting.

Is that graph reporting on the number of sexual partners for men, women, or both?

Women only. The chart for men is similar in trend but a reduced slope. I think that implies it is less of a leading indicator for men. The reason I think this (but haven't done the math to back it up) is imagine a couple with equal N-count, say 5. Knowing nothing else, we would say her divorce risk is ~70% +/-10%. If the guy's divorce risk is statically significantly less, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think its on the order of ~50%, and we know that woman initiate ~66% of divorce. So if this high risk woman initiates divorce against the guy, then he still shows up as risk impacted. Combining these 3 numbers it implies to me that the guy's N-count is much less significant. But statistically, it is still there.

[BlueStarLizzard]

@BSL

You bring up an important judgement call on priorities and imperatives. If one comes from the direction that sexual and emotional happiness is the proper context that marriage and family occurs, then your point is spot on. If one comes from the Christian perspective that marriage is the proper context of sex and family, then the comments will always talk past each other.

I'm not sure why the two are exclusive of one another. I don't have an issue with the concept of marriage being an appropriate context of family and sex.

Maybe it's that I don't think bad sex is automatically good if it's married sex...

[sumpnz]

Maybe it's that I don't think bad sex is automatically good if it's married sex...

Nobody on here, esp me, has made that claim.

[RevDisk]

There is a difference between an entirely spurious correlation as in your margarine example, and something that has an entirely reasonable connection.  In this case, while the correlation between premarital sex and divorce may not be entirely causal, that doesn't mean that there isn't a real relationship. The connection is likely values driven. That is to say, many of those whose values tend to put emphasis on a lifelong, stable marriage also put emphasis on premarital chastity. 

Declaring it to be bad science doesn't make it so, your gonna have to put up some facts. We are talking about two independent studies of two independent data sets, controlling for multiple variables, over time, with different ideological backgrounds coming to similar results. And its plotted in a straight forward manner, without the typical statistical chicanery.

I know, I was just being satirical. I don't doubt that there is at least a tenuous link between premarital sex and divorce. But deceptive or sloppy science is another matter altogether and contemptible. It is a decade limited divorce rate chart, controlled for one variable (number of sexual partners by the female). If the graph was so labeled, it'd be fine assuming the data was honest. It'd clearly define the purpose and contents in an honest fashion. You would know it was data about divorce (not stable marriage), limited in scope (that it only took into account one decade worth of marriage) and that only sexual activity by females was examined.

Defining a stable marriage as "not getting divorced" is obviously not a false definition, but I'd argue it is oversimplified. Domestic violence, other misc criminal activity (molestation, rape, etc), significant lack of satisfaction by either party, etc would all be signs of a marriage being decidedly unstable. I've known quite a few unstable marriages where the partners stayed together for religious, financial and child related reasons. The religious one is a bit obvious, but I've also known of cases where folks stayed married even if only on paper for insurance reasons. "Staying together for the kids" is another one.

Not arguing with the overall inclination of the results, per se, merely the way it is presented and that it is overly suggestive while minimizing its significant limitations. Which is bad science.

 

[KD5NRH]

It's all about shaming.  The benefits of pre marital abstinence are pretty clear.  The proper way to encourage it is without shaming.

Amen.  I remember a minister going off pretty severely on a parent who told their child that sex was dirty, and preaching for a good half hour on how it is intended to be a gift from the Lord to duly married couples as a means to bring them closer together.

[cordex]

Defining a stable marriage as "not getting divorced" is obviously not a false definition, but I'd argue it is oversimplified. Domestic violence, other misc criminal activity (molestation, rape, etc), significant lack of satisfaction by either party, etc would all be signs of a marriage being decidedly unstable. I've known quite a few unstable marriages where the partners stayed together for religious, financial and child related reasons. The religious one is a bit obvious, but I've also known of cases where folks stayed married even if only on paper for insurance reasons. "Staying together for the kids" is another one.

I wasn't making a global judgement in my post, just pointing that differing values systems will impact the results and that there was nothing surprising that a large group which (at least on the surface - obviously the degree of emphasis varies from group to group) teaches both premarital abstinence and lifelong marriage would impact the statistics.   I do believe that most divorces are a net negative, not a net positive as well as avoidable, but fixing such a relationship takes more than continuing to wear the rings.

[drewtam]

@ RD

Its not limited to one decade of data, but rather calculated on the risk within the next 10yrs.

Your argument seems to be that since someone combined the big result of two different studies, and didn't try to cram every nook and caveat of the full studies, that makes the plot misleading? That's an unconvincing argument, got anything else?

Defining a stable marriage as "not getting divorced" is obviously not a false definition, but I'd argue it is oversimplified.

Come on, your better than this. I know you know what a proxy is, especially for something so difficult as divorce statistics. The two arguments come across to me that your using your intelligence to avoid hearing what you don't want to hear; I am disappointed.

[RevDisk]

@ RD

Its not limited to one decade of data, but rather calculated on the risk within the next 10yrs.

Your argument seems to be that since someone combined the big result of two different studies, and didn't try to cram every nook and caveat of the full studies, that makes the plot misleading? That's an unconvincing argument, got anything else?

Come on, your better than this. I know you know what a proxy is, especially for something so difficult as divorce statistics. The two arguments come across to me that your using your intelligence to avoid hearing what you don't want to hear; I am disappointed.

Not following. I went out of my way to say that I didn't necessarily disagree with the results, but that the chart was making labeling assertions not necessarily justified by their criteria. How is this avoiding what I don't want to hear?

[MillCreek]

Somewhat on point to this topic:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/19/hookup-marriage-weddings/14241739/

The number of wedding guests as a proxy for marital quality is interesting. 

[AJ Dual]

Somewhat on point to this topic:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/19/hookup-marriage-weddings/14241739/

The number of wedding guests as a proxy for marital quality is interesting. 

Granted, only two pages so far, but I didn't read it all for what I'm sure was a fair amount of bile and snark in some spots.

However, I can't help but think that both the number of sexual relationships before marriage, and the number of wedding guests are probably measuring the same thing, and it isn't "marital satisfaction".

I'd assert both are likely to be a metric of peer-group/societal pressure to remain married, or avoidance of the expected negative consequences/disapproval if there's a divorce. aka: "community support" as mentioned in the article... the line between support and pressure is a fine one. And I'd further find that any self-selected measurement of happiness or marital satisfaction to be near-useless, because the people who can't or won't leave... they're going to lie, maybe even to themselves.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing or a good one. The loss of personal satisfaction on the part of one or both married people might be balanced out, or even exceeded by other societal benefits, better adjusted children, better finances, the mutual physical and economic support of two parent families no matter what the quality of their "love connection" might be etc.

My main take-away is that what's better for the group is often at odds as to what's better for the individual, and even further, what's better for the individual emotionally might not be better for them physically, or financially

Life sucks, and expecting perfection either from dogmatic conservative religious dictates, or hedonistic personal pursuits is unrealistic.

[makattak]

The number of wedding guests as a proxy for marital quality is interesting. 

That actually makes sense. Those who see it as a celebration and want witnesses to their commitment will invite more people.

Additionally, those who feel an obligation to family will invite more people.

Third, those who are richer will invite more people.

So, by these thoughts, people who (1) want to celebrate their marriage, or (2) have a strong sense of obligation to family, or (3) are wealthier, report a higher quality marriage.

(Or (4) who want to shake down more people for wedding gifts. Grifters have better marriages?)

[AJ Dual]

That actually makes sense. Those who see it as a celebration and want witnesses to their commitment will invite more people.

Additionally, those who feel an obligation to family will invite more people.

Third, those who are richer will invite more people.

So, by these thoughts, people who (1) want to celebrate their marriage, or (2) have a strong sense of obligation to family, or (3) are wealthier, report a higher quality marriage.

(Or (4) who want to shake down more people for wedding gifts. Grifters have better marriages?)

Then at least they'd have something in common. 

[Perd Hapley]

Her last words are the key, do it for you not anyone else.

I would say, do it for your God and your intended, more than for yourself.

[BlueStarLizzard]

That actually makes sense. Those who see it as a celebration and want witnesses to their commitment will invite more people.

Additionally, those who feel an obligation to family will invite more people.

Third, those who are richer will invite more people.

So, by these thoughts, people who (1) want to celebrate their marriage, or (2) have a strong sense of obligation to family, or (3) are wealthier, report a higher quality marriage.

(Or (4) who want to shake down more people for wedding gifts. Grifters have better marriages?)

I disagree with one. A larger gathering could indicate a large circle of friends and family, but it could also indicate a show rather than a celebration.
*shrug* It seems that the more successful couples I know had either small ceremonies with close friends and family or they eloped.

[Perd Hapley]

The larger wedding thing is probably just about relative wealth. If I understand correctly, people in higher tax brackets tend to have more stable marriages. Or the more stable families earn/save more money. I would guess that it works both ways.

[zahc]

Most of this thread discusses marriage from the typical post-American perspective of how it can gratify the individual. Success is defined by the extent to which the individuals are "satisfied". There is very little said about marriage as a responsibility and/or obligation to society, the spouse, the extended family, any (by this attitude, incidental) offspring, and/or as a spiritual directive. Modern marriage by this definition is just a particular framework (kink, if I may) in which some folks (purely of their own whims) maintain their sexual relationships.

Recent marriage in Western culture, pre-birth-control, was a social arrangement and sexual power exchange by which reproduction was managed on a certain society and time. Modern ideas of marriage are practically cargo-cult recreations of various past ideas of marriage, with white dresses and rings. People use the term "husband" and "wife" usually meta-nonironically.

So yeah, I am not sure how to understand the concept "saving oneself for marriage". One must first understand what he is saving himself for (masculine forms used generically because that's how I roll)

[makattak]

I disagree with one. A larger gathering could indicate a large circle of friends and family, but it could also indicate a show rather than a celebration.
*shrug* It seems that the more successful couples I know had either small ceremonies with close friends and family or they eloped.

The larger wedding thing is probably just about relative wealth. If I understand correctly, people in higher tax brackets tend to have more stable marriages. Or the more stable families earn/save more money. I would guess that it works both ways.

Errr... not sure why y'all are disagreeing- wealth was my point 3. They were separate explanations.

(As in the large wedding could be family OR commitment OR wealth. Possibly all three, but I was providing multiple explanations.)

[Perd Hapley]

Most of this thread discusses marriage from the typical post-American perspective of how it can gratify the individual. Success is defined by the extent to which the individuals are "satisfied". There is very little said about marriage as a responsibility and/or obligation to society, the spouse, the extended family, any (by this attitude, incidental) offspring, and/or as a spiritual directive. Modern marriage by this definition is just a particular framework (kink, if I may) in which some folks (purely of their own whims) maintain their sexual relationships.

Recent marriage in Western culture, pre-birth-control, was a social arrangement and sexual power exchange by which reproduction was managed on a certain society and time. Modern ideas of marriage are practically cargo-cult recreations of various past ideas of marriage, with white dresses and rings. People use the term "husband" and "wife" usually meta-nonironically.

So yeah, I am not sure how to understand the concept "saving oneself for marriage". One must first understand what he is saving himself for (masculine forms used generically because that's how I roll)

Thanks. I had been meaning to respond to bluestarlizzard's post about stable marriages not counting because the virgin brides are (maybe-possibly) not having super-good sex. You have saved me some typing.

[sumpnz]

There were 9 people at my wedding, including me, my wife and the pastor.  12.5 years and going strong.

[Perd Hapley]

Errr... not sure why y'all are disagreeing- wealth was my point 3. They were separate explanations.

(As in the large wedding could be family OR commitment OR wealth. Possibly all three, but I was providing multiple explanations.)

I wasn't disagreeing with anybody. I was just throwing in my chips for the wealth-stability connection.