Virginity

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm just saying I don't see how it can be deep or meaningful without context. Without anything to compare it to etc.

So, having a first child can't be meaningful?

I suspect after the dozen or so attempts it rather loses it's meaning and becomes just "We'd better try and do that thing again."
Though i'll grant the first hopeful attempt carries some meaning

[Zweite Alaje]

Marriage is at least a bit more stable.

No, it isn't.
Find a source to back up your claim.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1097845/Labour-finally-admits-married-parents-ARE-best-children-all.html .....getting that in there was hard, damn iPhone.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, it isn't.
Find a source to back up your claim.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1097845/Labour-finally-admits-married-parents-ARE-best-children-all.html .....getting that in there was hard, damn iPhone.

The daily mail is not a source.
Further, a labour politician saying things that are untrue to pander to voters is again, not a source.

[Zottistan]

So, having a first child can't be meaningful?

I suspect after the dozen or so attempts it rather loses it's meaning and becomes just "We'd better try and do that thing again."
Though i'll grant the first hopeful attempt carries some meaning

So why can't sex with nothing to compare it to be meaningful?
And I'm sure actually having the child, as in, giving birth to it, is a meaningful experience.

[Zweite Alaje]

I suspect after the dozen or so attempts it rather loses it's meaning and becomes just "We'd better try and do that thing again."
Though i'll grant the first hopeful attempt carries some meaning

So why can't sex with nothing to compare it to be meaningful?
And I'm sure actually having the child, as in, giving birth to it, is a meaningful experience.

Not really, people these days don't value anything other than self-gratification.

[Ostroeuropa]

So why can't sex with nothing to compare it to be meaningful?
And I'm sure actually having the child, as in, giving birth to it, is a meaningful experience.

Not really, people these days don't value anything other than self-gratification.

This isn't true.
The gratification of others ranks very highly among most peoples priorities.

[Zweite Alaje]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1097845/Labour-finally-admits-married-parents-ARE-best-children-all.html .....getting that in there was hard, damn iPhone.

The daily mail is not a source.
Further, a labour politician saying things that are untrue to pander to voters is again, not a source.

You gave me a link to a random article I returned the favor, what is wrong with it?

[Ostroeuropa]

The daily mail is not a source.
Further, a labour politician saying things that are untrue to pander to voters is again, not a source.

You gave me a link to a random article I returned the favor, what is wrong with it?

It's the daily mail? And showing people have the same opinion as you isn't the same as stats.
Once again, source your claim

[Laerod]

The daily mail is not a source.
Further, a labour politician saying things that are untrue to pander to voters is again, not a source.

You gave me a link to a random article I returned the favor, what is wrong with it?

What do you think might wrong with a source known for its repeated failure to adhere to veracity? The Fail is a tabloid that routinely distorts the truth or lies outright. As such an unsupported Fail article is useless, meaning it's useless, since you need to find a reliable source you could have posted instead.

[Zweite Alaje]

Not really, people these days don't value anything other than self-gratification.

This isn't true.
The gratification of others ranks very highly among most peoples priorities.

Current trends would disagree with that. http://coolsciencenews.blogspot.com/2012/03/people-are-becoming-more-selfish.html?m=1

[Mavorpen]

This isn't true.
The gratification of others ranks very highly among most peoples priorities.

Current trends would disagree with that. http://coolsciencenews.blogspot.com/2012/03/people-are-becoming-more-selfish.html?m=1

Now I understand why you want to shove your morality down other people's throat.

[Laerod]

This isn't true.
The gratification of others ranks very highly among most peoples priorities.

Current trends would disagree with that. http://coolsciencenews.blogspot.com/2012/03/people-are-becoming-more-selfish.html?m=1

Got more than a vague blog linking to a vague site that doesn't know how to list sources?

[Zweite Alaje]

Current trends would disagree with that. http://coolsciencenews.blogspot.com/2012/03/people-are-becoming-more-selfish.html?m=1

Got more than a vague blog linking to a vague site that doesn't know how to list sources?

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/fame-giving.aspx there are you happy now, or is the genuine article still not good enough for you?

[Laerod]

Got more than a vague blog linking to a vague site that doesn't know how to list sources?

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/fame-giving.aspx there are you happy now, or is the genuine article still not good enough for you?

Thank you.

[Northern Dominus]

Got more than a vague blog linking to a vague site that doesn't know how to list sources?

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/fame-giving.aspx there are you happy now, or is the genuine article still not good enough for you?

I fail to see how this pertains in any way to the current argument, that is virginity/purity/chastity/rank BS being used as a boilerplate to strip away the rights of women and turn them back into breeding stock as certain religious texts mandate in various fashions.

[Occalgavia]

I think that this blog post (with data from the National Survey of Family Growth) sheds some light on the matter. It really does seem that a non-virgin is permanently damaged goods as far as suitability for marriage goes. Or it could be, that women with the inclination to have sex (with many partners) before marriage are more likely to make bad partners.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html

[Risottia]

I think that this blog post (with data from the National Survey of Family Growth) sheds some light on the matter. It really does seem that a non-virgin is permanently damaged goods as far as suitability for marriage goes. Or it could be, that women with the inclination to have sex (with many partners) before marriage are more likely to make bad partners.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html

The blog's author seems to think that the "moral virtues" of a good wife are rejecting feminism, being a virgin, staying at home to cook and clean, and being a christian.

She is committed to having a family.
She rejects feminism.
She goes to Church and believes in God.
She is a virgin.
She wants to be a stay at home mother.
She knows how to cook, clean and mend.
She is not a spendthrift.
She is happy to put out whenever.
She clearly possess all the moral virtues of a good wife.

So, I call bias.

[Northern Dominus]

I think that this blog post (with data from the National Survey of Family Growth) sheds some light on the matter. It really does seem that a non-virgin is permanently damaged goods as far as suitability for marriage goes. Or it could be, that women with the inclination to have sex (with many partners) before marriage are more likely to make bad partners.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html

Blogs, especially ones that contort and twist psycho-babble to feed a depraved misogynist and prudish notion of the author, do not a credible source make.

I think that this blog post (with data from the National Survey of Family Growth) sheds some light on the matter. It really does seem that a non-virgin is permanently damaged goods as far as suitability for marriage goes. Or it could be, that women with the inclination to have sex (with many partners) before marriage are more likely to make bad partners.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html

The blog's author seems to think that the "moral virtues" of a good wife are rejecting feminism, being a virgin, staying at home to cook and clean, and being a christian.

She is committed to having a family.
She rejects feminism.
She goes to Church and believes in God.
She is a virgin.
She wants to be a stay at home mother.
She knows how to cook, clean and mend.
She is not a spendthrift.
She is happy to put out whenever.
She clearly possess all the moral virtues of a good wife.

So, I call bias.

Bias exited the room a long time ago replaced with "Holy shit, you can't SERIOUSLY believe that bullshit....seriously?"

[Occalgavia]

The blog's author seems to think that the "moral virtues" of a good wife are rejecting feminism, being a virgin, staying at home to cook and clean, and being a christian.

She is committed to having a family.
She rejects feminism.
She goes to Church and believes in God.
She is a virgin.
She wants to be a stay at home mother.
She knows how to cook, clean and mend.
She is not a spendthrift.
She is happy to put out whenever.
She clearly possess all the moral virtues of a good wife.

So, I call bias.

Blogs, especially ones that contort and twist psycho-babble to feed a depraved misogynist and prudish notion of the author, do not a credible source make.

The best way to check for bias would be to look at the relevant NSFG studies and see if the data lines up.

Characteristics of individuals related to a higher probability of divorce include
...
premarital cohabitation (25), and premarital sexual activity (26).

The NSFG has even more data available on its website, although I haven't yet found the raw data used in the creation of these graphs.
There are, however, various sources which say the same thing.

Here's one which might be interesting:
http://moralissues.web.fc2.com/mi/THFSexualActivityChartBook.pdf
And another:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/does-being-a-virgin-before-marriage-affect-marital-stabilitity/
And another:
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/focus-findings/marriage/premarital-sex-and-divorce.aspx

Now, given that these people talk about "Christian values" and the like, and some of it seems to be advocating for government policies, this is all best taken with a grain of salt. But the data itself seems to be telling a certain story, which could well be useful in making decisions as an individual.

[Risottia]

The blog's author seems to think that the "moral virtues" of a good wife are rejecting feminism, being a virgin, staying at home to cook and clean, and being a christian.

She is committed to having a family.
She rejects feminism.
She goes to Church and believes in God.
She is a virgin.
She wants to be a stay at home mother.
She knows how to cook, clean and mend.
She is not a spendthrift.
She is happy to put out whenever.
She clearly possess all the moral virtues of a good wife.

So, I call bias.

Blogs, especially ones that contort and twist psycho-babble to feed a depraved misogynist and prudish notion of the author, do not a credible source make.

The best way to check for bias would be to look at the relevant NSFG studies and see if the data lines up.
The NSFG has even more data available on its website, although I haven't yet found the particular studies used in the creation of these graphs.
There are, however, various sources which say the same thing.

Here's one which might be interesting:
http://moralissues.web.fc2.com/mi/THFSexualActivityChartBook.pdf
And another:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/does-being-a-virgin-before-marriage-affect-marital-stabilitity/
And another:
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/focus-findings/marriage/premarital-sex-and-divorce.aspx

Now, given that these people talk about "Christian values" and the like, and some of it seems to be advocating for government policies, this is all best taken with a grain of salt. But the data itself seems to be telling a certain story, which could well be useful in making decisions as an individual.

So, your blog source is a valid one because other blogs (whose names are quite the tell-tale) say the same things?
Allow me a MMMMMEEEEEHHHHH.

[Occalgavia]

Check the edit to my post. The NSFG has the same findings (and I'm still working on checking my sources - I know very well that I can't get away with not doing that here).
You should try not to reject things out of hand just because you don't like what they're telling you. As I said, if you don't trust the data, the best thing to do is to check where it's supposed to have come from.

[Northern Dominus]

The blog's author seems to think that the "moral virtues" of a good wife are rejecting feminism, being a virgin, staying at home to cook and clean, and being a christian.

She is committed to having a family.
She rejects feminism.
She goes to Church and believes in God.
She is a virgin.
She wants to be a stay at home mother.
She knows how to cook, clean and mend.
She is not a spendthrift.
She is happy to put out whenever.
She clearly possess all the moral virtues of a good wife.

So, I call bias.

Blogs, especially ones that contort and twist psycho-babble to feed a depraved misogynist and prudish notion of the author, do not a credible source make.

The best way to check for bias would be to look at the relevant NSFG studies and see if the data lines up.

Characteristics of individuals related to a higher probability of divorce include
...
premarital cohabitation (25), and premarital sexual activity (26).

The NSFG has even more data available on its website, although I haven't yet found the raw data used in the creation of these graphs.
There are, however, various sources which say the same thing.

Here's one which might be interesting:
http://moralissues.web.fc2.com/mi/THFSexualActivityChartBook.pdf
And another:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/does-being-a-virgin-before-marriage-affect-marital-stabilitity/
And another:
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/focus-findings/marriage/premarital-sex-and-divorce.aspx

Now, given that these people talk about "Christian values" and the like, and some of it seems to be advocating for government policies, this is all best taken with a grain of salt. But the data itself seems to be telling a certain story, which could well be useful in making decisions as an individual.

Backing up contorted misogynist notions with more of the same doesn't make your case any more valid.

And you said it yourself, you don't have the raw data, just a few quotes and no source links to non-biased sites, so forgive me or any of us if we don't take you at your word that the misogyny and prudish notions are somehow "valid".

[Occalgavia]

And how would you react if the data said that promiscuity was negatively correlated with prevalence of STDs and divorce rates and what-have-you?
Why don't you contact the institutions which have performed the research and gauge credibility for yourself?

[Northern Dominus]

And how would you react if the data said that promiscuity was negatively correlated with prevalence of STDs and divorce rates and what-have-you?
Why don't you contact the institutions which have performed the research and gauge credibility for yourself?

Because you're the one making the claims, therefore the burden is upon you to re-enforce your claims with credible, reliable data. Promiscuity may lead to certain risk factors but sex education and availability of contraceptives along with marriage counseling also would play a role, most likely.

But I digress, you made the claim, therefore its your job to find a source other than a blog to back up your statements.

[Demara]

Research on divorce is a fascinating subject. I suggest you start with recent academic literature reviews for a bit of background, instead of just citing the first thing you find.