Virginity

[Occalgavia]

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.

All but the first site provide details on methodology, and academic references that are checkable. If you distrust the data, you can check it yourself.
I even let it slide when you guys denied the validity of the sources I cited, not on the basis that there was something wrong with their methodology, or on the basis that you had citable conflicting data, but because you decided that their names were "tell-tale" or that they were part of some "depraved misogynist" conspiracy (got any citations on that?).

The second, third and fourth sources are not evidence that the first is a valid source (that's what the NSFG is for), they're simply demonstrating that there are multiple studies which appear to have come to pretty similar conclusions. And, while this is not a reason to accept as true the statements made by the author of the first source, it is a reason to at least consider that it's not all bullshit.

Now, I also found the earlier quote from the NSFG. You are making the claim that my source is unreliable. The best way to check would be to contact the NSFG and try to get some better information from them. I don't have that information but I am prepared to take their findings at face-value because the rest of their research appears to be rigorous.

Here is yet another source:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false
And here is a summary of various studies:
http://www.focusinsights.org/article/ma ... sk-divorce

EDIT:

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.

Funny that, I'd just gotten onto the Journal of Marriage and Family as I was posting. See above.

[Transhuman Proteus]

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

Can't help but notice in the whole questionable nature of all this it is all about the women, all the time.

Women having sex before marriage leads to more divorce.... women, women, women, women, women.

Men. The victims of the female's insatiable lust!

Plus you know, correlation, causation.

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.

You post a bit from Focus on the Family and you say this is best taken with a grain of salt?

Uh, yes you are...

How if we don't have sex, smart guy?

Said after being shown abortions happen in marriage. Remarkable. And despite the name some of the diseases can be transferred by other means - needles, blood transfusions, child birth and breastfeeding (yes, a child can unknowingly have it, grow up, get married and have their first time and give someone an STD) etc

As you keep saying, the only way to be sure sure you never get it is to never have it, even in marriage.

[Occalgavia]

Can't help but notice in the whole questionable nature of all this it is all about the women, all the time.

Women having sex before marriage leads to more divorce.... women, women, women, women, women.

Men. The victims of the female's insatiable lust!

Feel free to perform your own study on the correlation between male premarital sex and divorce rates.

Plus you know, correlation, causation.

And when I posted the very first link, I acknowledged this.
The data still means that, unless we can form a good understanding of what causative relations exist, it may well be a good idea in terms of minimising the risk of divorce, to avoid promiscuous partners.
And some of it, of course, doesn't really need to be tested for causation. For instance, the stuff about prevalence of STDs.

You post a bit from Focus on the Family and you say this is best taken with a grain of salt?

The fact that they're religious and have an agenda, does not in and of itself mean that they cannot perform real science or write reliable articles.
But hey, let's focus on that and then we don't even need to pay attention to the studies themselves or the references on the article, or, for that matter, any of the other sources or their data.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Can't help but notice in the whole questionable nature of all this it is all about the women, all the time.

Women having sex before marriage leads to more divorce.... women, women, women, women, women.

Men. The victims of the female's insatiable lust!

Feel free to perform your own study on the correlation between male premarital sex and divorce rates.

Except nothing you have posted has demonstrated that as a fact.

1. Collect data from somewhere
2. Trawl data
3. Select stats for premarital sex isolated from any other factor
4. ???
5. Profit (claim premarital sex is responsible).

If these held water, as opposed to connecting convenient things to support their "women should be virgins" they would look at that. What other factors? What about the men? Why are these people saying they are divorcing? What is the psychology behind it? A lot of these women whose marriages ended in divorce apparently had premarital sex. So what? Where is the proof that has anything to do with it?

It is like looking at the stats and going "we have found 63% of divorces belong to white people! White men, clearly if you want to stay married you should marry a black woman. In addition 50% of divorced women had premarital sex, so make sure you black woman is a virgin. 25% of the divorced women were also red heads, so just to be on the safe side make sure your black virgin is a blond. Oh, and 30% were married on a Sunday, so men, make sure you marry your blond black virgin on some other day of the week".

These aren't studies, these are people trawling statistics to find ones that support their misogynistic view of women and their sexuality.

Plus you know, correlation, causation.

And when I posted the very first link, I acknowledged this.
The data still means that, unless we can form a good understanding of what causative relations exist, it may well be a good idea in terms of minimising the risk of divorce, to avoid promiscuous partners.
And some of it, of course, doesn't really need to be tested for causation. For instance, the stuff about prevalence of STDs.

No, that is absurd. As I suggested above. Unless these "studies" give us reason to believe it other than the cherry picking of conservative bloggers men should not be shunning women because they think they will divorce. Especially since we don't know the role mens promiscuity or lack their of plays into it.

Just like if it showed the opposite, that relationships where women had had 20 partners before marriage for some reason tended to stay married would mean men should be seeking out women who had slept with 20 or more guys. Christ, I've got to wonder how old you are and the relationships you've been in if you are honestly thinking marriages are falling apart because women had sex before marriage.

You post a bit from Focus on the Family and you say this is best taken with a grain of salt?

The fact that they're religious and have an agenda, does not in and of itself mean that they cannot perform real science or write reliable articles.
But hey, let's focus on that and then we don't even need to pay attention to the studies themselves or the references on the article, or, for that matter, any of the other sources or their data.

If they have a long history of misrepresentation of facts, lies, using poor studies with terrible methodology etc ues, yes it means in all likelihood they can't.

If you are needing to rely on Focus on the Family as one of your points of evidence you are in trouble, because their bias could lead them to being able to present a study into the color of the sky as claiming it was green.

[Occalgavia]

*snip*

Yes, as I said, let's ignore the data and referenced articles, not just the hobbyist's graphs based on NSFG data, but also the published research papers, and instead we can focus on those nasty misogynists and their enormous conspiracy.
This is a good general rule to follow when we see something which conflicts with our prejudices; we can just dismiss it as hogwash without putting any actual thought into the matter!
And if our rant is long, uses plenty of science-y words, and draws some (over-simplified and thoroughly dissimilar) analogies, people will probably think that there's a legitimate problem with the data, even though we've made baseless claims about the methodology without actually looking into it. Suckers.
It also never hurts to subtly insult the other party.

[Transhuman Proteus]

*snip*

Yes, as I said, let's ignore the data and referenced articles, not just the hobbyist's graphs based on NSFG data, but also the published research papers, and instead we can focus on those nasty misogynists and their enormous conspiracy.
This is a good general rule to follow when we see something which conflicts with our prejudices; we can just dismiss it as hogwash without putting any actual thought into the matter!
And if our rant is long, uses plenty of science-y words, and draws some (over-simplified and thoroughly dissimilar) analogies, people will probably think that there's a legitimate problem with the data, even though we've made baseless claims about the methodology without actually looking into it. Suckers.
It also never hurts to subtly insult the other party.

One can't help it if your own bias - as evidenced by such descriptive phrases as:

"It really does seem that a non-virgin is permanently damaged goods as far as suitability for marriage goes"
and
"But being a slut is something of which people should be ashamed."

- means you put significantly more trust in less than reputable bloggers who are drawing convenient connections based on simplified stats and cheery picking from other studies they have got their hands on, which are placing an over emphasis on the stat they like, and neglect such significant factors as, oh you know, 50% of the relationship (the man).

Doesn't go into how exactly that premarital sex they are concluding as being a key factor in the divorce is actually a key factor in the divorce. What about it make marriage fall apart? But yes, inconvenient questions. All we need to know - Yep, those women and their premarital sex. We looked at divorced people, found a lot of divorced women had had sex before marriage. Ergo if you are a slut the chances of your marriage being destroyed are much greater.

[Tahar Joblis]

Can't help but notice in the whole questionable nature of all this it is all about the women, all the time.

Women having sex before marriage leads to more divorce.... women, women, women, women, women.

Men. The victims of the female's insatiable lust!

If we're going to blame one gender for divorce, it should probably be the gender that files for divorce more often.

It's mostly women filing for divorce. Mostly women instigating divorce, as well - it's not that men are provoking women into filing divorce, women are actually more likely to engage in what Brinig classifies as "instigating" the end of a marriage. Study of the matter suggests that divorce is the result of women pursuing self-interest in gaining control over children and/or jointly held property.

Adultery is cited as a reason in a fairly small fraction of divorce cases. Cruelty is similarly rarely cited in divorce cases. So generically, when we're talking about the stability of a marriage, it is appropriate to appeal to women as being the primary agents in the destruction of a marriage, because it is principally women who both instigate [e.g., deliberately engaging in destructive behavior intended to lead towards a divorce] and subsequently file for divorce.

Discounting female agency is not generally a good idea, and when talking about divorce, the opposite - discounting male agency - is much more readily forgiven.

That said, directly on the topic, any correlation you find between virginity at marriage and low divorce rates is likely linked via common cause - people who don't believe in sex before marriage often don't believe in divorce. I doubt, however - given the sort of divorce rates you actually see in the Bible Belt vs the urban northeast - that the correlations will hold up very well.

[Mavorpen]

That said, directly on the topic, any correlation you find between virginity at marriage and low divorce rates is likely linked via common cause - people who don't believe in sex before marriage often don't believe in divorce. I doubt, however - given the sort of divorce rates you actually see in the Bible Belt vs the urban northeast - that the correlations will hold up very well.

Virginity has little to do with it.

[Hatsunia]

I'm a celibate who is against "virgin-shaming", which is the idea that someone is a pathetic loser if they haven't had sex.

An example of this would be the usage of the term "permavirgin", especially with "basement dwelling" as a prefix.

[Zottistan]

I'm a celibate who is against "virgin-shaming", which is the idea that someone is a pathetic loser if they haven't had sex.

An example of this would be the usage of the term "permavirgin", especially with "basement dwelling" as a prefix.

How do you feel about slut-shaming?

[SanctusEmpire]

Im a virgin

So am I.

*sigh*

[Zottistan]

So am I.

*sigh*

Me too.

[SanctusEmpire]

I'm a celibate who is against "virgin-shaming", which is the idea that someone is a pathetic loser if they haven't had sex.

An example of this would be the usage of the term "permavirgin", especially with "basement dwelling" as a prefix.

Virginity for me is an important component to my self-being. I am noting without my honor

[Hatsunia]

I'm a celibate who is against "virgin-shaming", which is the idea that someone is a pathetic loser if they haven't had sex.

An example of this would be the usage of the term "permavirgin", especially with "basement dwelling" as a prefix.

How do you feel about slut-shaming?

I believe those who haven't had sex, and those who have lots of sex, should be treated equally. I don't believe on pushing celibacy/abstinence on others, just like how I don't like people saying "you need to get laid."

[Greed and Death]

When I hear "virgin" I think "unskilled"...

Unskilled olive oil?

We are not low class swine, Extra Unskilled olive oil.

[Raeyh]

How do you feel about slut-shaming?

I believe those who haven't had sex, and those who have lots of sex, should be treated equally. I don't believe on pushing celibacy/abstinence on others, just like how I don't like people saying "you need to get laid."

People would just say, "you need to get a life" or "you need to go outside" instead. Virginity isn't looked down on, being single is.

[Czechanada]

I believe those who haven't had sex, and those who have lots of sex, should be treated equally. I don't believe on pushing celibacy/abstinence on others, just like how I don't like people saying "you need to get laid."

People would just say, "you need to get a life" or "you need to go outside" instead. Virginity isn't looked down on, being single is.

Screw the single haters. We single men are the men of intellect, knowledge, and academia. We are the ones furthering human progress, while the chauvinistic and barbaric mesomorphs spend their days obsessed with hedonism.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

People would just say, "you need to get a life" or "you need to go outside" instead. Virginity isn't looked down on, being single is.

Screw the single haters. We single men are the men of intellect, knowledge, and academia. We are the ones furthering human progress, while the chauvinistic and barbaric mesomorphs spend their days obsessed with hedonism.

x) The way you type perfectly matches that flag.

[Grinning Dragon]

Screw the single haters. We single men are the men of intellect, knowledge, and academia. We are the ones furthering human progress, while the chauvinistic and barbaric mesomorphs spend their days obsessed with hedonism.

MMMM, hedonism. Can I get that with a side of self gratification to go?

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

I believe those who haven't had sex, and those who have lots of sex, should be treated equally. I don't believe on pushing celibacy/abstinence on others, just like how I don't like people saying "you need to get laid."

People would just say, "you need to get a life" or "you need to go outside" instead. Virginity isn't looked down on, being single is.

No, being single but able to get "ass" for men, at least, is exalted in many circumstances, and the rest of the time they are called "douches. Being male and virgin is like a death sentence sometimes, as is being male and romantic. Women get looked down upon for being single, or being in love, or being virgin, or having sex. No way to win for any of us.

[Zottistan]

People would just say, "you need to get a life" or "you need to go outside" instead. Virginity isn't looked down on, being single is.

Screw the single haters. We single men are the men of intellect, knowledge, and academia. We are the ones furthering human progress, while the chauvinistic and barbaric mesomorphs spend their days obsessed with hedonism.

Plus we get to wank all day long. Single life is good.

[Grinning Dragon]

Screw the single haters. We single men are the men of intellect, knowledge, and academia. We are the ones furthering human progress, while the chauvinistic and barbaric mesomorphs spend their days obsessed with hedonism.

Plus we get to wank all day long. Single life is good.

Why do all the work yourself, a FWB is where it is at.
Give me a woman who knows what she is doing and how she wants it, over a virgin any day.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Screw the single haters. We single men are the men of intellect, knowledge, and academia. We are the ones furthering human progress, while the chauvinistic and barbaric mesomorphs spend their days obsessed with hedonism.

Plus we get to wank all day long. Single life is good.

From Sexuality Today Tenth Edition:

The study concluded that masturbation did not, in fact, decrease with age when the social norms of the culture during the generation's teenage year were considered as the basis for forming particular masturbatory habits. The study also found that masturbation was not particularly related to the presence of a sex partner or to levels of activity with that partner. Masturbation was seen as an independent way to experience sexual pleasure rather than as a compensatory for partner unavailability (Kontula & Haavio-Mannila, 2002).

In other words, you'll be masturbating at about the same frequency when you have a sexual partner. ;p

[Hatsunia]

I believe those who haven't had sex, and those who have lots of sex, should be treated equally. I don't believe on pushing celibacy/abstinence on others, just like how I don't like people saying "you need to get laid."

People would just say, "you need to get a life" or "you need to go outside" instead. Virginity isn't looked down on, being single is.

and I'm against single-shaming as well.

[ThirdPrizeYoureFired]

I think that being a virgin or not is a personal choice and I don't understand the point of either slut-shaming or virgin shaming. And while I do believe that people should choose when they want to engage in what sex act, I find saddlebacking to be absurd. Wanting to save a certain sex act for marriage/the right person or whatever, that's all well and good. Engaging in anal sex to preserve virginity... I don't see the point. It feels more like an unintended side effect of these virginity movements.

As for purity balls, I find those rather creepy.