:O
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 ...
your opinion that it is an admonishment does not change the biblical fact that jesus was begotten through the wife of uriah, who was named bathsheba, who became the polygynous 7th wife of david. this is important and david’s union with bathsheba to produce jesus reflects the will of g*d, since otherwise, jesus would have been begotten via david and a different wife. iow the polygamous marriage of david with bathsheba reflects the will of g*d, the plan of g*d, etc. Y’all can be verklemmt about it if y’all wanna, and no one is forcing anyone else to refer to bathsheba by name, but i’m not sure there is anything more y’all can do about it than kvetch. and now i will resume being verklemmt too.
:)
:O
I don’t apologize for being a Tolkien fan since my youth. Grade school teacher read “The Hobbit” in class and that hooked me.
“Read the rest of the story. David repenting is your first clue, his son then seduced David’s other wives/concubine (Excluding Bathsheba), and initiated a Civil War. Another of David’s son took the virginity of David’s daughter making her politically useless. David rejected polygamy and continued to be with Bathsheba exclusively. Also, Nathan, the third son born to D&B (Well after David’s polygamy days) was the line that continued from David.”
It seems to me that if monogamy were the only permitted lawful relationship that true repentance would be marked by David duly returning to the first wife if she would have him or celibacy if she would not if the polygynous marriage were to result in a divorce (or effective equivalent) on the premise of a false (unlawful) basis. (Since polygyny was allowed, of course the latter is inoperative.)
I also note in passing that Your hypothesis fails to correlate (at least well) with the writer’s reluctance to mention Bathsheba by name.
None of David’s misfortunes constitute a law precluding polygyny. As I recall, David was primarily castigated for killing off Uriah. Subsequent collection of the goodie Bathsheba was the motive but not a sin in and of itself. At least, in the absence of something explicit (along the lines of “thou shalt not commit polygyny”) that is plausible given the narrative. Otherwise, it seems to me that y’all are trying too hard to read something that is not actually present.
Show me where it is written in the bible “thou shalt not commit polygyny” and I will become a true believer in what is apparently your interpretation. Tell me a plausible reason why the bible is so explicit in the case of the 10 commandments but nowhere near explicit in the case of purported ban of polygyny. Until then I’ll tell you (ockham’s razor): it is because polygyny is not in fact sinful in the bible, except in the easily impressionable and misled imaginations of alleged “christian” true believers.
“I don’t apologize for being a Tolkien fan since my youth. Grade school teacher read “The Hobbit” in class and that hooked me.”
I only observed that it is an interesting nom de net. I did not criticize you for it. Jumpy a bit? Reading too much into a text?? (But no, you would never ever do *that*, LOL!)
Exactly. In other news, water is wet.
Those boys are throwaways as we see in Mormon culture.
I love you.
Oh well, maybe you could be reading too much into my response too.
My handle isn’t as deep into the fandom as knowing what Glaurung’s original name was, but it’s pretty far in.
Thomas Jefferson was just a man, and is worthy of respect for his writings, but he did not claim to be God.
Jesus, on the other hand, did. He must be judged in light of this claim.
If He is not, then he’s just a con-man
It's not a contradiction, but it IS a paradox.
I say it's not a "contradiction" because God patiently tolerates a lot of morally/ethically objectionable stuff, and by His sovereign providence brings good out of the sitruation anyway.
Rom. 8:26 - "And we know that all things work together for good, to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
Michal would have been David's one-and-only, his lawfully wedded wife, (and I'm told she's the only woman named in the Bible who is described as "loving" a man --- she really loved David) but apparently she wouldn't sleep with David after the dancing-with-the=Ark incident.
David ended up with 19 or 20 legitimate sons, none of them by Michal.
A Lot of stuff happened in the OT that wasn't quite kosher. Notice the four female ancestors of Jesus mentioned in the Matthew genealogy: Tamar (seduced her father-in-law); Rahab (a prostitute); Ruth (a Moabite who approached Boaz when he was drunk) and Bathsheba (an adulteress and complicit in the murder of her husband). Every one of them was at least a little morally, um...short of pristine...
Just because God tolerated something, doesn't mean He invented it, or ordered it, or willed it. He let it happen --- this is our liberty --- and He works it into the larger plan of good (this is His sovereignty!)
Well it still leaves out the lack of any explicit command against polygyny in the bible, leaving it all to readers to infer and argue over, when it would be so much easier to add an 11th commandment, along the lines of “thou shalt not practice polygyny.” That’s only 5 more words. Are we saying g*d is too lazy to add 5 more words to the bible, just to make it formal instead of all this paradox stuff? And all the old testament dudes over dozens of generations repeatly can’t seem to figure out they are violating g*d’s anti polygyny law so they keep marrying multiple wives, and the rabbis never stand up and say “hey, enough is enough, i’m not going to marry you three (or four, or whatever) because it’s in the OT that it is unlawful? Really?!?! And if it is already illegal why was it outlawed in the 11th century?!?! if your premise is correct, isn’t that totally redundant and so therefore totally unnecessary?!?! someone should have stood up in the 11th century and said you guys are being totally redundant, because it’s already in the bible!!
the only reason that fits is that it is the common interpretation that polygyny was allowed prior to the 11th century!! and if that was the common interpretation then your paradox premise is out the window!!
have a wonderful evening.
So, only just the one guy, then?
You would be amazed at the number of people staying miserable to breathe “life” into the legal construct referred to as “the marriage”.
it was a mistake
If you care about being a good person, you try to stay in the marriage as long as you can. Without my current wisdom (highly debatable but more than I had then), I’d do the same thing over. Try to be the good spouse, sacrifice for others. Now I see that I sacrificed myself and didn’t do others any great favors. Ah well. Live and learn.
With regards to making pronouncements and conclusions about others based on alleged experiences of documented polygynists such as david, bathsheba, etc., we are also explicitly admonished by jesus not to judge lest we be judged ourselves (matt. 7). This explicit command of jesus trumps any paradox-laden inferences.
Finally, someone groks me.
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.