Are these premarital sex facts legitimate or not?

[Moontanman]

Fact...

 

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought, how often does anyone think this conversation happens.

"Why did you and your spouse split up?"

"Because we had sex before we got married".

 

That would be at least some sort of support for the idea and my guess is that it never happens.

[Ringer]

Just a thought, how often does anyone think this conversation happens.

"Why did you and your spouse split up?"

"Because we had sex before we got married".

 

That would be at least some sort of support for the idea and my guess is that it never happens.

I have heard the opposite conversation happen though.

[zapatos]

In which case, they are hypotheses or questions at best... Not facts.

Agree

Also, this thread does not exist in a vacuum. The OP has a history here that demonstrates a greater desire to lob grenades and assert nonsense than to educate, learn, or explore.

Doubly agree.

By what metric are you establishing the presence or absence of this desire? As I noted above, it would appear that more marriages occur between non-virgins than virgins. That seems to speak strongly against the assertion.

That seems to me to just as likely suggest there aren't that many virgins around when it comes time to marry.

Even if I'm mistaken, though, I'm curious how you would establish the presence or absence of this desire while controlling for problems with self-report measures and subjects trying to provide the answer they think you want.

I don't know as I've never done that kind of work before. I assume it would be similar to the way polls are done when they try to determine how people feel about any number of things. Perhaps finding out if people prefer virgins at marriage is particularly tricky, but I don't understand why it would be.

[overtone]

Seems to me that more people prefer the idea of their spouse's virginity at marriage than the fact of it.

 

That would be one of the tricky parts of a study - separating the people who thought they married a virgin, but didn't, from those who thought and actually did.

 

And the other confounding group, those who thought they were marrying the sexually experienced, who weren't (a much smaller group, but possibly one more balanced by gender ).

 

It's possible that the best satistied spouses are men who think they are marrying virgins, who aren't; and women who think they are marrying the sexually experienced (much in demand, preferred by others) who aren't.

 

If either of these were so, we would need to clarify exactly what we mean by "prefer", in the original question.

[Moontanman]

So... men prefer virgins and women prefer experienced men... Obviously someone is going to be disappointed....

[menageriemanor]

I would question your definitions of higher classes being more likely to wait longer, have more stable marriages. Perhaps in the American class system, where the lower and middle and upper middle classes define themselves as higher than they would be classed in Britain, and there is no real aristocracy or royalty The Aristocracy and squirocracy of Britain are infamous bedhoppers and early starters. From the Queen's sister downward, the Royal family, aristocracy and squirocracy have happily harrumphed through the counties. The Queen probably didn't, as she was always devoted to duty, which involved believing in God and her sacred birthright, but SHE decided on Philip, at 14. She just had to wait. It is said that Philip has had numerous affairs, mostly among the aristocracy who know the rules. One could argue that Diana's relative inexperience and youth was the disaster that wrecked that marriage. Charles had been smitten with Camilla from the start. She was experienced, had a 'history' that made it impossible for Charles to marry her in the hypocracy that was the rules of choosing wives in the 70s in Royal Britain. He never got over her. Her first line to him was "My gt grandmother, (I think it was), ie Sonia Keppel was your gt gt grandfathers mistress, ie Edward VII, so... " or very similar.

 

This questioning pushing ignorance under chasteness is really annoying. How many of the chaste, due to religious belief, means that for the same reason those marriages continue, unhappily and bitterly, because those same controlling religious beliefs make divorce impossible and one or both may even have sexual partners outside their spectacular and applauded 40 yr marriage? So, long marriage officially, mutual loathing and ignoring, seperate lives, day to day.

[Tridimity]

Mr Rayon,

 

I am not sure if your interest in the possible association between premarital sexual intercourse and the success or otherwise of marriage is purely academic or if you are attempting to decide upon a philosophy for your own life by way of academic scrutiny of available statistics. As other members have pointed out, the necessary experiment in order to prove that premarital sexual intercourse is causally related to some parameter that acts an indicator of the success of marriage (e.g. divorce rates, overall satisfaction scores from both partners) is impossible because there are too many confounding factors. One would need to take two marriages that are identical except for the presence or absence of premarital sexual intercourse, and then measure the appropriate parameter. So, the closest you are ever going to get to a formal answer is a statistical association between premarital sexual intercourse and the marriage outcome - and the survey would need to include participants from every demographic so as to be representative of humanity as a whole. Even ascertaining the happiness levels of partners is difficult - one option is to use a sliding scale ('5' for ecstatic; '1' for distraught) and repeat at various timepoints throughout the marriage - but even this technique fails to reflect the natural flux of emotional states that individuals experience on a daily basis.

 

The origins of morality with regards to heterosexual relations stems from considerations of energy investment in the offspring (gene propagation). The female invests more by way of provision of the egg, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding than does the male. It is therefore in the male's interest (from an evolutionary point of view) to be sexually promiscuous and to conceive as many children as possible; it is in the female's interest to attract a male who will be loyal to her in order to help raise their children. Of course, most people do not phrase their position in this way - they would refer to an all-transcendent love that is at stake.

 

Premarital sexual intercourse is arguably different, here, then - since neither party usually intends on bringing children into the world.

 

I think that premarital sexual intercourse is morally justifiable so long as:

 

• mutual consent is given
• both partners communicate honestly and effectively with regards the nature of their relationship and how deeply they feel towards one another including intentions to marry in future or otherwise
• safe sexual practices are used (contraception to protect against both STIs and unwanted pregnancy)

This is the humanist perspective though and other religions and individuals will disagree with this position. The important point in that you must decide for yourself what you deem to be morally justifiable or otherwise - and remember to include sufficient flexibility since as you grow and develop your moral framework may shift or stay the same - so try not to do anything that you may later regret. Importantly, if you are hoping to marry a particular individual and you know that (s)he has a strong affiliation with a certain religion or viewpoint, then arguably you should act in accordance with this so as not to scupper your chances of being with him/her. Partners may come and go but every day of your life you will have yourself, and will need to live with yourself, and with your own conscience. Do not rush into doing something that is irreversible if there is any doubt in your mind as to whether or not you ought to do it; life is not a race, there will be other opportunities for that later.

Or they quarrel about how often and where to have it

 

 

"The supposition that we have sex in bed again is simply preposterous. Henry, get onto my divorce lawyer, at once!" LMFAO

Edited October 19, 2013 by Tridimity

[Greg H.]

To paraphrase Henry Ford, your list of 11 "facts" is bunk. It's a morality piece that boils down to one real statement: Sex before marriage is BAD. That's all. The rest of it is just window dressing to try and get you to fall for the primary message. It's a man with an interest in controlling the morality of the people around him and making sure it meshes with his own.

 

All that aside, sex before marriage is a lot of fun, and it can help you determine if you and your potential partner are compatible. In that regard, sex before marriage can be responsible for breakups. But then again, being a pompous religious zealot can have the same effect.

So... men prefer virgins and women prefer experienced men... Obviously someone is going to be disappointed....

Virgins take too much energy. I want to enjoy myself, not fulfill someone's daddy issues.

 

I'm glad you didn't think it was impertinent to ask.

 

How do you mean that atheism is a way of living one's life? That sounds strange to me.

 

If someone you didn't know rang you up and said "My name is Jim, and I'm an atheist" what would you know about how that person lived their life

I'd know they have a compulsive need to call complete strangers and self-declare their lack of religious affiliation.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Greg H.

[Tridimity]

But then again, being a pompous religious zealot can have the same effect.

 

 

Too true