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 ...
I was referring to your comments in post 74.
“Well then, you do not understand this forum in spite of your duration here, and blithely call God a liar.”
??? How so? I do not follow your train of thought.
“Deuteronomy/Devarim is certainly in the part of the Bible referred to as the Law; chapter 8 and verse 3 is the first time it’s mentioned that man must live by every word of God.”
So?
“You don’t even need to appeal to Scripture, you can just appeal to nature. 108 boy babies are still born for every 100 girl babies, pretty much all over the world, unless people kill the girl babies in the womb.”
That presumes every man is equally productive. Natural selection dictates that man is not equally productive and therefore not equally capable of supporting an equal number of wives. Introduce natural disasters affecting men worse than women, and wars, and imbalances in productivity can compound.
Yup. You've got more 'samples' to remember and probably each one of them did 'something' better than the one you are with now.
What IS it about the 6-10 group that causes such a dip??
Show me a chart with 6,7,8,9,10 ect so I can see the actual slope trend.
Cmon natural 20!
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
.
.
.
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Not 'prohibited' but note that a SINGLE woman was provided for Adam. THIS was the IDEAL model.
Bingo!
Even Catholics SHOULD be 'amazed' at the 'marriage' that Rome claims Mary & Joseph had!
In your previous post, you pillioried those who believe God’s word as “illogical”. That would make God into a liar, following that line of thought. And as for debating, falling to “argumentum ad hominem” (a fallacy) is an abandonment of logic.
I don’t mind you being an unbeliever, what with that being your right, but I would have preferred you being forthcoming.
“not prohibitive...”
thanks for confirming.
this has been kicked around before with the same results. i propose we all just move on. so i may choose not to answer further challenges since i got better things to do than refute redundant arguments.
I prefer to think of myself as the BEFORE model in the before/after pictures.
for example, you argue that it is the law because it is the law. that is circular logic. it (your argument) is illogical.
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
you don’t like m-w? i am verklemmt. you may have the last cartoon.
:)
You’ve reverted to mendacity by accusing me without proof of using circular arguments. God calls it the law, not I.
The me I’m with now is the same one that be been with for over 30 years and the only one ever for both of us.
No sampling needed
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.