Posted on 09/17/2010 1:34:15 PM PDT by MichiganConservative
The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.
But maybe those women who believe screwing any breathing male nearby is empowering really are referring to empowering their ability to divorce the dude who is unlucky or stupid enough to marry her.
You can read more here as well as see a graph:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
From the above link:
"Note, the really disturbing [finding] still holds. As soon as a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50%."
Thus, a woman's value for marriage or long-term-relationship really is tied to her chastity. Women instictively know this. That's why they always lie about their sexual history. They underreport by half.
Anyway, I figure women will react to this like Dracula to a cross. Hay, I'm just the messenger. It is Science!
I forgot to click the “excerpt” checkbox.
It is an excerpt. The linked pdf is a lot longer.
http://www.ncfr.com/pdf/press_releases/PRESS%20RELEAS2.pdf
OH yeah, the comments at the linked blog might offend some people, especially since we’re talking about sluts and how they have trouble with marriage.
It makes sense to me. For fun, you ought to post this on a liberal, feminist board, and watch the fur fly.
Maybe in gross statistical terms, number of divorces. However, any women who has had sex outside marriage, even if it's with her future spouse, has learned that sex and marriage are not related, that sex is not related to commitment or care for another, that sex is an expression of selfishness first and foremost. Bad lessons to take into marriage.
That's probably related to the Age of the Narcissist we are living in.
It is totally un-Christian and we can expect more of it as we continue on into the post-Christian West.
So basically people who are essentially married without the paperwork continue to do well once the paperwork is done? Meanwhile serial monogamy doesn’t work?
Does the study examine men?
I agree - it’s totally unChristian. Marriage is supposed to be a type of the relationship of Christ to the Church (or the other way around) and there’s no place in that for sex outside marriage for anyone. Both men and women should be committed to chastity, which means sexual continence outside marriage. Even if a couple has sex only with each other, and later gets married, damage is done.
The study did not examine men. That was one of the factors that it admittedly left out.
No.
Does the study examine men?
You must be kidding. It's about "sluts."
The omission of men in the study could lead one to believe that the study is intended to place the blame for marital failures on women and women’s habits/values. ??
Have you guys come up with a word for a male slut yet? They are equally abhorrent to God, you know. Just asking.
Which would be totally typical, wouldn’t it?
The paper says this about the study of men:
“To be sure, this research is limited by the lack of information pertaining to the relationship histories of men. Only information pertaining to the premarital relationships of women is available in the NSFG (note, however, that Round 6 of the NSFG, conducted in 2002, will contain information about men). Thus, the results cannot be extrapolated to the premarital relationships of men, and there is no immediate basis for expecting the effects of such relationships to be either similar to or different from those of women. The current results also cannot be used to ascertain the joint effects of the premarital relationships of both men and women (e.g., the likelihood of marital disruption if both partners had cohabited with someone else prior to marriage). Again, this remains an issue for subsequent research to address in full. These results are also limited to marriages formed prior to 1995 and marriages of relatively short duration. As changes in premarital sex and cohabitation continue to occur, it would prove useful to consider the effects of these variables on marital stability.”
They claimed to not have the data at the time they did the study.
Yeah, I use the term slut.
But in a post-Christian culture, you’ve got to take into account what men and women value in each other and themselves.
Men value chastity in women. Women don’t care one way or the other. Women also know this and under report their sexual histories. Men exaggerate. Thus you have words developed for women that are pejorative and terms that approving for men.
I guess you could use the terms “whore” and “whore-monger”. Those are good ones. I’m going to try to start working those into my everyday conversations.
Recently, I’ve just been using the term “whore” for people like Sean Hannity.
Why no? Presumably lots of people in the past were married in the same sense as people cohabiting. I.E. without paperwork or not legally married.
Actually, I am incorrect in that. Women do care. Women are attracted to men with a history. It makes them feel better about themselves if they think they "got the guy" that those other witches couldn't keep. Then the guy moves on and the chick eats ice cream. Rinse, repeat. etc.
It would be interesting to see which of these women are the children of divorce.
Maybe divorce is an evil feedback cycle.
But you know, it was necessary to bring about the golden age of communism for the pleasure of the Prince of the World.
Pure, unadulterated evil, typical of the misogyny we see among so many soi-disant conservative men. That kind of reasoning is fully in line with Satan’s plan for the destruction of humanity.
A Mutt, I think...
Colonel, USAFR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.