Posted on 09/17/2010 1:34:15 PM PDT by MichiganConservative
Now say that you have ten young women from that MTV modern American secular culture, are the less promiscuous ones less likely to divorce? Who knows? The study has no way of showing such.
Broad paintbrushes are not handy. It depends on the individuals involved and their commitment to each other.
Other studies have shown that children of divorced people are themselves more likely to get divorced.
... are the less promiscuous ones less likely to divorce? Who knows?
It's hard to say, because there are so many other factors in any relationship involving *two* people. At least two, because you've got in-laws, siblings, friends, etc., etc.
Additionally, a couple need not divorce to experience negative effects of their pre-marriage sexual history.
Sorry for the imprecise language, rereading what I wrote it was hard to navigate.
Somewhat difficult concept under discussion.
The actual relevance of this to an individual who knows that correlation is not causation is negligible because the study was ill designed.
Among a cohort of people who all know and hang out and talk with each other that are the same age, grew up together, etc - people from the same culture - are the less promiscuous ones less likely to experience divorce? Who knows? They didn't answer that question.
If you are thinking of cohabitation with a gal before or as an alternative to getting married ‘early’, does your decision to do it make it more or less likely that you will eventually divorce? Who knows? They didn't answer that question.
And yet the entire premise of the article, and much of the discussion; is that they DID show data, one way or the other, towards answering those questions. They did not.
Correlation is not causation. All they showed is that people from cultures who do not sleep around and do not cohabitate before marriage - also do not often divorce. That is because there is a cultural stigma to so doing among their culture.
The question I want answered is how do we go about re-stigmatizing ANYTHING in the era of self-esteem, where there are no winners or losers and everyone gets a trophy for participation?
Because I prefer a culture where you call a spade a damn little shovel, and things have a stigma! Our Republic was designed for a moral and educated people, not an Idiocracy!
I'd like to know that, too. In my opinion, a start would be to attached the financial consequences of behavior to the persons engaging in the behavior. It might not be "moral stigma," but it would be "getting hungry and need to pay some rent."
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The study says that the more sexual relationships a woman has before marriage, the more likely the marriage will end in divorce. Mens' previous sexual relationships were not part of the study. Interesting discussion on the thread. Considering that one of the unchangeable moral absolutes throughout history especially espoused by every religion, is that sex is for within marriage only, for men and women, I am sure that men with many sex partners also negatively affect marriage stability.
It seems that recently societies generally tolerate a bit more leeway with men; but the truth is that "whore mongers" should be condemned just as much as "whores" (courtesy of MichiganConservative). Can't have the one without the other. Also, this "toleration" is more general than personal - meaning, "whore mongers" in one's own family are a lot less congenial than theoretical ones in books. Sexual virtue is not only personally satisfying and gives self-respect, but makes it so that a person so acting sees others not as sexual toys or machines, but human beings apart from potential sex gratification.
This non-exploiting mentality colors a persons life in every way.
People are not merely meat animals; but eternal souls, and are expected to and enjoined to use self control - even in the face of temptation. This used to be the cultural standard, two or three generations ago. Now the cultural standard is:
"You're all animals, no God is in control, eat drink and be merry because tomorrow you die, the person who dies with the most toys (sensually gratifying experiences) wins, the only happiness that exists is what you can eat, drink or have sex with."
Oh, and this important one - I see this a lot on FR lately:
"If you practice or promote sexual virtue, you're psychologically weird, a closet homosexual, a prude, old fashioned, and a member of the Taliban."
Good point. Many good points on the thread akshully.
Yeah, nothing like subsidizing unwed motherhood.
Talk about a cultural thing!
They used to send preggers to the bad kid school. Then someone sued, and a lib judge decided they could stay.
Pregnancy is culturally contagious. One preggers gal roaming the High School halls and suddenly all the gals of her culture are thinking “why not me?”.
When I went to High School there were a few gals who got pregnant (and didn't abort).
During my sisters time at the same High School some twelve and fourteen years later, they were the ONLY ones from their region (about 20-30 gals) who DIDN'T get pregnant and have a kid while in or just out of High School.
Thanks judge!
It’s like the laws of physics (as so many writers have said ;-). If you break them, there are negative consequences. Even if you didn’t know any better. Even if you’re sorry afterward.
I have a problem with dumping all the consequences on the girl, simply because she’s the one with a visible issue. I kind of like the idea of fines for fornication, because even if there is no pregnancy, there could have been, and obvious neither participant cared enough to control themselves.
Exactly. The Laws of Nature are inviolable. Sooner or later the natural reaction kicks in. Divinely designed for our learning experience.
And it certainly would help a faster learning experience if the government did not subsidize bad behavior! I often say “cut off the funding and much bad fruit will wither on the vine”.
Imagine - no methadone clinics, no AFDC, no WIC, no gov funded AIDS treatments, no high school baby care rooms, etcetc.
“You play, YOU pay”.
There’s an old saying:
An intelligent person hears that fire will burn, he doesn’t stick his hand in it.
A slightly less intelligent person has to see someone sticking his hand in the fire, and then doesn’t do it.
A less intelligent person still has to stick his own hand in the fire, and then doesn’t do it again.
A very unintelligent person sticks it in, it hurts, and then does it again.
Now we have a culture and government that promotes sticking the hand in the fire, has burn salve and ointment for free, and fake ads saying “I stick my hand in the fire all the time and it’s great!” And it’s taught in schools, too.
And now, “If you don’t stick your hand in the fire you’re weird and a member of the Taliban!”
“Broad paintbrushes” are simply generalizations. If we made no use of generalizations we’d all be dead.
Civil fine? I see your point, but there should be some consequence, shotgun marriage having gone out of style.
Excellent analogy!
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.
If you are from a culture where promiscuity and cohabitation are acceptable, you will be more likely to get divorced if you marry that people from a culture where promiscuity and cohabitation are not acceptable.
OK Fine. Uh, I don't actually think cohabitation is necessarily the cause of the later divorce.
I just think the correlation between the women who are sluttier and the women who are more divorce prone is interesting. I actually think there's a cause for both and that cohabitation and divorce are outcomes of it.
The correlation of slutty behavior - not just cohabitation, but also sexual partner count - to higher divorce rate is of value in and of itself. It can be used to teach you stay away from sluts for marriage. I didn't need to know the cause of AIDS to know that the correlation between homosex and AIDS meant I should stay away from homosex.(That was among other reasons.)
Come back when you find a study that compares people of the same level of religious devotion and culture, and their rates of promiscuity and cohabitation and how they correlate to divorce and you MAY have a leg to stand on.
No. I don't care to. I find the correlation interesting.
Something caused the women to be slutty. Something caused them to want to get divorced. They seem to be found in common in certain women. Good to know!
Among those who are from a more sexualized culture and do NOT engage in promiscuity or cohabitation - are their rates of divorce actually lower - The study as designed has no way of showing that.
The study was of people in the US. I'm in the US. It's a pretty corrupt culture.
I think if we could just get government to stop rewarding immoral and incompetent behavior through welfare, that would go a long way.
As you pointed out, social stigma is one thing, cant pay the rent is another.
:)
If you are trying to avoid divorce, choosing your partner based upon her sexual history, and reducing that to a number, is not going to serve you as well as picking a partner for compatibility and attributes.
They in no way established that the more slutty members of the predominant culture are more likely to get divorced, all the numbers showed is that people from traditional or religious cultures that do not cohabitate and are not promiscuous also do not divorce.
Previously this same correlation was used to imply a causative effect of increasing divorce if you choose to live together first. Absolute bunk.
Do you understand why?
OK cool. Look, I'm not married to the study. I didn't do the study. I didn't study the methods or data. I read the excerpt and used it to comment on feminism and the degradation of the culture. Your comments are even better than just slut vs. chaste. I also believe there's a component in there related to religiosity. I think religiosity, Christianity especially, helps people restrain their fallen nature that would lead to higher divorce rates. Thanks for clarifying. Your earlier postings were hard to follow.
Men should look for a religious, chaste woman if they want to not be cleaned out in divorce.
Thanks for pointing that out.
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.