Posted on 10/22/2018 9:54:09 PM PDT by DeweyCA
Over at the Institute for Family Studies, Nicholas Wolfinger, a sociologist at the University of Utah, has found that Americans who have only ever slept with their spouses are most likely to report being in a “very happy” marriage. Meanwhile, the lowest odds of marital happiness—about 13 percentage points lower than the one-partner women—belong to women who have had six to 10 sexual partners in their lives. For men, there’s still a dip in marital satisfaction after one partner, but it’s never as low as it gets for women,...
(Skip)
In an earlier analysis, Wolfinger found that women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce, while those with 10 or more were most likely. These divorce-proof brides are an exclusive crew: By the 2010s, he writes, just 5 percent of new brides were virgins. And just 6 percent of their marriages dissolved within five years, compared with 20 percent for most people.
Other studies’ findings have also supported the surprising durability of marriages between people who have only ever had sex with one another.
In this latest study, women who have had one partner instead of two are about 5 percentage points happier in their marriages, about on a par, Wolfinger says, with the boost that possessing a four-year degree, attending religious services, or having an income over $78,000 a year has for a happy marriage. (In his analysis, he controlled for education, income, and age at marriage.)
This analysis merely suggests that sleeping with fewer people is correlated with marital happiness; it doesn’t say one thing predicts the other.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
“Polygamy is adultery”
No. They are distinctly different.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygamy
marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adultery
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person’s current spouse or partner
in the second definition webster obviously presumes monogamous marriage over polygamous marriage, but that is minor. the terms are distinct enough that one cannot say that one equals the other.
deuteronomy 17:17 discusses adultery, not polygamy. As I have previously mentioned!
I think y’all missed my original point about drinking alcohol. Read my original point (again if necessary)!
Now you’ve crossed into open mendacity. Never mind employing liberal tactics such as citing dictionary definitions.
I was going to further cite Solomon’s regrets over having engaged in polygamy as outlined in Ecclesiastes, but it would appear to be lost on you.
Have a nice day.
LOL!
I’m not so into Paul as some are.
However, there is a scholarly tradition among theologians which confers precedence whenever one biblical passage seems to contradict another. What is that tradition?
I’ll let someone else dig it out. To say the bible does not contain an occasional contradiction seems ... hmmm... controversial?, but hey, be so entertained if it floats your boat.
“Christians are not subject to ritual laws of the ancient Hebrews”— not according to Jesus’ word in the 4 gospels (but whatever).
polygamy is ancient, not progressive.
i am distinguishing between moral judgments and literal biblical “truth.” You can, too, if you like. I do not reflexively concede that contemporary so-called “Christian” thought is “biblically correct.” So-called “Christians” repeatedly entreated me to read the bible and find the “g*d’s word.” So I did! Therefore I don’t really see how (so called) “Christians” can complain if I merely followed their advice!
Just curious: does that line work?
Words are important. Definitions are important.
We use English as a common protocol.
If your definition of an english word differs from m-w, or any other reputable dictionary, you are free to state so and why. But accusing me of being a liberal (???) without foundation merely for going to definitions seems ... mendacious. We use English to communicate. Therefore if we are civilized and responsible, we refer to dictionaries as a tool to augment communication of ideas.
Let me guess, you did not win any debates in school.
:)
...........so, sl*tty women are less likely to be happily married. That makes sense.
.....and then there’s the “innocent and virginal” Christine Ballsy Ford, who as a teenager bragged about having 54 different sex partners before she started college.
Ewwww Bleh Yuck
I suspect she contracted MANY STD’s and had several abortions during those years.
Being on the extreme right side of the graph, that explains my 3 failed marriages and 2 long term live-in situations... although I’m going on 11 years with the latest long term live-in.
So, let me ask, do you identify as a Christian, and if so, what kind? I do, and I identify as a conservative Southern Baptist.
Polygamy is ancient, so is a lot of New Age religious practice.
Finally, theologians have been known to disagree. Or you can take the view, as somebody, I forget who and who I disagree with, “Theology is the tribute that nonsense pays to sense”
lapsed catholic, trending towards agnostic, with much exposure to “christian” doctrine.
Ah.
Dictionary definitions are in flux. Note the word “gay” in particular. In contrast, Scripture is unchanging.
Dismissing an opponent’s points is not a win in a debate, frankly.
let me amend that, trending towards buddhist.
I read the study to suggest the opposite conclusion from that of the authors.
Marriage partners who are happy, because of the marriage or just generally so, don’t feel the need to look.
Those who are unhappy, either within the marriage or just generally, are more likely to look and sleep around.
scripture is based on words. words are based on concepts. forget dictionaries and words if you are hung up on those. focus on concepts. and laws. concepts are not in flux. words are tools to permit communicating concepts and to determine strict construction of written laws.
i notice you don’t refute that you have not won any debates in school. why am i not surprised.
last book read, “living with the himalayan masters” by swami rama.
still trying to make more sense of the catechism pounded into me by the sisters of notre dame many years ago.
Well, good luck with your interests. I gave up studying eastern philosophies when I graduated from college the first time. Never appealed to me anyhow, but it takes all kinds.
The vital part of Christianity seems pretty simple to me, as it would have to be for primitive peasants to understand it and believe. You repent of your sins and accept Christ as your personal Savior. The other stuff is interesting but secondary. At least that’s the way I see it. If you have truly done so, you will try to determine God’s Will and do it.
Other people have other opinions, but if they could make a convincing argument to me, I would change my own opinion. Fortunately, we do not have to be perfect to be accepted by God.
Now you’re trying to prove a negative.
notice you don’t refute that you have not won any debates in school
I certainly am not hung up on them, and I am glad you broke away from that notion here.
scripture is based on words. words are based on concepts. forget dictionaries and words if you are hung up on those. focus on concepts. and laws. concepts are not in flux. words are tools to permit communicating concepts and to determine strict construction of written laws.
Notwithstanding, Scripture is not based on words, but the thoughts of God.
alas, all that we have are words, translations, definitions, logic and math. plus science, depending on your allegiances.
Especially after you're married...
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.