Do virgin marriages last longer?

[Mr Rayon]

Hi everybody,

 

I was just wondering whether anybody knows whether virgin marriages last longer than non-virgin marriages.

 

I have heard that it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower.

 

Is there any truth behind being a virgin and your marriage going longer?

 

Please show your opinion with evidence.

 

Thank you!

[Moontanman]

How about some evidence to support what you have "heard"?

[Iggy]

Hi everybody...

 

I have heard that it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower.

Whoever told you that was assuming that divorce is bad. I've met a lot of married people, and I'd recommend divorce to a fair number of them, and premarital sex to anyone else.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Iggy

[John Cuthber]

"I have heard that it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower."

that's quite a spectacular non sequiteur.

[Ringer]

How about, I heard the same people who think divorce is bad also believe pre-marital sex is bad. So it could easily follow that people who don't have pre-marital sex don't get divorced at the average rate without regard to what is best for them.

[Prometheus]

"I have heard that it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower."

that's quite a spectacular non sequiteur.

 

I do not understand how the statement is a non-sequiteur. It may be true that populations with less pre-marital sex have lower divorce rates, it may not be true, but it you would have to actually look at the data wouldn't you? It doesn't logically follow one way or the other, does it?

[John Cuthber]

The statement "...is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce..."

implies that there is a causal relation ship between a lack of premarital sex and reduced chance of divorce.

However there is no plausible mechanism for it, and I doubt that anyone has done the experiment that would be needed to check if it's true.

 

There's quite probably a correlation between the two factors, but I think that will be produced by confounding factors rather than causation.

[Iggy]

Also, to double down, 'better, never to get divorced', is non sequitur. How many Catholic and Islamic women have been beaten to death under that presumption? It's nonsense that shouldn't be presumed. Complete non sequitur.

[Prometheus]

I was just wondering whether anybody knows whether virgin marriages last longer than non-virgin marriages.

 

An honest enough question, no?

 

I have heard that it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower.

 

Is there any truth behind being a virgin and your marriage going longer?

 

Please show your opinion with evidence.

 

Thank you!

 

The OP goes on to say where this hypothesis came from: hearsay. Well, we have to get our ideas from somewhere. Rather than simply accepting this the OP asks for evidence either way.

 

The statement "...is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce..."

implies that there is a causal relation ship between a lack of premarital sex and reduced chance of divorce.

However there is no plausible mechanism for it, and I doubt that anyone has done the experiment that would be needed to check if it's true.

 

There's quite probably a correlation between the two factors, but I think that will be produced by confounding factors rather than causation.

 

Is there really no plausible mechanism for it? I don't know a lot about psychology or sociology, but I could speculate about evolutionary mechanisms which select in favour of abstinence as a way of ensuring men do not waste their time raising young that are not their own.

 

A very quick google revealed there is some research on the topic, but the links were all to sites advocating abstinence so I didn't bother looking at them. I wouldn't be surprised with a little more digging that someone has done somewhat credible research into it. I don't care enough to look.

 

Anyway, i agree with you there may well be a correlation, probably via religiosity, linking the two but not causation. I just don't think it logically follows that pre-marital abstinence doesn't result in lower divorce rates.

 

Or do i simply not understand what a non-sequitur is? I thought it was purely a logical fallacy that the conclusion does not follow the premise.

 

Also, to double down, 'better, never to get divorced', is non sequitur. How many Catholic and Islamic women have been beaten to death under that presumption? It's nonsense that shouldn't be presumed. Complete non sequitur.

 

It's a value judgement, not a non-sequitur, isn't it? I think many people believe divorce is generally undesirable, though there a people who don't see it as a problem. Either one is simply a choice of ethics. If it's a non-sequiter are not all moral choices non-sequiturs?

 

Either way it is irrelevant to the original question which asked whether there is a causal relationship between pre-marital sex and divorce. Either it effects divorce rates or not, regardless whether you think divorce is good, bad or indifferent. Again, it doesn't logically follow either way, one would need evidence. So no non-sequitur fallacy has been made.

[John Cuthber]

The conclusion

"so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce..."

does not follow from the premise

".is better to not have pre-marital sex".

Whether or not you have pre marital sex does not determine the probability of divorce.

 

Whether or not " 'better, never to get divorced' is a non sequiteur or not, it's not actually shown to be true, so it can not be used as the basis of making any other logical decision.

[Prometheus]

The conclusion

"so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce..."

does not follow from the premise

".is better to not have pre-marital sex".

Whether or not you have pre marital sex does not determine the probability of divorce.

 

Yes i agree, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise. You would have to obtain evidence to prove or disprove it. The hypothesis in the OP asks whether pre-marital sex reduces the risk of divorce. Is that the same thing as determining something?

 

Whether or not " 'better, never to get divorced' is a non sequiteur or not, it's not actually shown to be true, so it can not be used as the basis of making any other logical decision.

 

Could it not be used on the basis that if true then such and such is true. The premise need not have any basis in reality for an argument to follow logically, does it? Anyway, my only point on this thread is to ask whether the question is one of logic or one of empiricism. In my opinion it is one of empiricism.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Prometheus

[John Cuthber]

"Yes i agree, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise."

Then you agree that it's a non sequiteur.

It does not follow logically.

It's like saying "Cows eat grass so the sky is blue."

Both parts are true, but there's no causal relation.

In the case of the link between pre marital sex and divorce, no one is going to do the experiment.

You would need to get people who were predisposed to have premarital sex, prevent them from doing so, and then see what their divorce rates were like and you would also need to get a group of people who would normally abstain and force them to have premarital sex and see if that altered the divorce rate.

 

Good luck getting that past the ethics committee.

 

Th fallacy is that the OP presumes that the outcome of such an experiment is known and that it agrees with his personal belief.

[Prometheus]

"Yes i agree, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise."

Then you agree that it's a non sequiteur.

It does not follow logically.

It's like saying "Cows eat grass so the sky is blue."

Both parts are true, but there's no causal relation.

In the case of the link between pre marital sex and divorce, no one is going to do the experiment.

 

'Cows eat grass' therefore 'the sky is blue', is not quite the same as 'no pre-marital sex' therefore 'less risk of divorce'. You must admit there is a agree of plausibility in the latter not in the former. However, i agree that if this is what it takes for a non-sequitur then both are indeed such. Then it is also a non-sequitur that Plasmodium causes malaria - there is no purely logical reason for it to be so, we had to observe it. In fact most of science would a non-sequitur for if something does logically follow then there is no need of observation or experiment, other than confirming the premise.

 

So then i don't understand why you levelled this as a critique of the OP. If it does not logically follow, then we have to do experiments to find whether it is true, no?

 

 

You would need to get people who were predisposed to have premarital sex, prevent them from doing so, and then see what their divorce rates were like and you would also need to get a group of people who would normally abstain and force them to have premarital sex and see if that altered the divorce rate.

 

Good luck getting that past the ethics committee.

 

There are other research methodologies. A very quick look revealed some research around this subject has been done. Haven't read much myself, but it looks like a retrospective review of some type. Epidemiology has quite a few methods for investigating claims like these.

 

If a 20 second search revealed this, i'm sure the OP could find more with some effort.

 

 

 

Th fallacy is that the OP presumes that the outcome of such an experiment is known and that it agrees with his personal belief.

 

Can you point out to me where the OP states his belief one way or the other, i can't see it:

 

 

I was just wondering whether anybody knows whether virgin marriages last longer than non-virgin marriages.

 

 

I have heard that it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower.

 

 

Is there any truth behind being a virgin and your marriage going longer?

 

 

Please show your opinion with evidence.

 

I can see an assumption that there is some evidence either way, but i can't see where he states his personal beliefs, let alone where he implies this evidence is in line with his (unstated) beliefs.

[John Cuthber]

Part of the problem is that Mr Rayon has "heard" some strange things in the past.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69674-are-there-any-health-benefits-for-men-who-undertake-semen-therapy/?p=707840

 

Strictly speaking he hasn't said that he thinks that premarital abstainance leads to a reduced chance of divorce, but he has said that he heard that it's true.

If he thought it was nonsense I doubt he would have posted it.

Perhaps he will come back and clarify the matter.

However, as I pointed out, there's no way anyone will get that past the ethics committee. The work will never be done.

So, whoever said " it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower." made a non-sequiteur and Mr Rayon has copied it. Strictly, it's not his personal belief that it agrees with, but that of whoever wrote the original assertion. I think it's reasonable to assume that it agrees with his belief too.

[Ringer]

Just to weigh in, there has been one study I know of that found a correlation between abstinence and marital satisfaction. But the research methodology was pretty much crap IIRC. Mainly the sample was completely non-random, a large portion of their sample was from the college which requires both their students and faculty to stay abstinent unless married and must have a church figure give recommendations regularly. So the likely hood of bias is pretty high.

[iNow]

Just to weigh in, there has been one study I know of that found a correlation between abstinence and marital satisfaction. But the research methodology was pretty much crap IIRC.

 

I dunno. I suspect the correlation is quite strong, actually. It's almost certainly an inverse correlation.

[Moontanman]

In the days of the British Empire wasn't it traditional (maybe just for military men) for a man to wait until he was 30 or so and then they were expected to marry a young girl, usually mid teens or something like that? I might have gotten that from a novel about the British Empire... but it reflects the age old idea that men should have experience and women should be innocent and pure...

[LaurieAG]

Actually Moontanman in those times men usually married when they could support a wife and family. The exceptions were when a woman became a widow and married a younger brother of her brother in law (married to her sister) to keep the property in the family.

[overtone]

The OP does not distinguish between different partners, or even sexes, for the premarital sex.

 

There are also arranged vs choice marriages, class and income distinctions, religion factors, etc. I don't think the question as it stands has an answer.