The more sexual partners a woman has had the more likely her marriage is to fail.
Women with zero sexual partners until marriage have an extraordinary success rate in marriage compared to the rest.
People donāt want to have this conversation, but the data does not lie .
Interesting, but not surprised
Yeah but... There are reasons, and look at this other study!
Weird incomplete and therefore nonsensical comment.
There is always nonsense that can be used to refute statistics, for example statistics derived from the same data but interpreted differently
Good theyāre not afraid to get on with their lives
Staying married doesn't necessarily mean having a happy marriage.
Getting divorced doesn't necessarily mean happiness either
he is playing in the fiat hyper reality in his mind, not objective reality
happiness in his speculative fantasy is nothing more than subjective whims
when in reality, happiness is the subjective experience of fulfilling objective ends
for marriage in reality āfor better or worseā are part of the journey to happiness
whatās the point of this mid-wit comment?
nothing necessarily means anything to some subjective interpretation of āhappyā
itās devoid of meaning, so you are emoting, but i donāt know what to make of this cry
are you in pain?
Imagine truly caring about what other people do with their genitals, all to appease The Big Sky Daddy.
by taking a reasonable position, and attaching it to some crazy sky daddy, you make a strawman
you donāt need a sky daddy to give a shit about people tearing the fabric of society apart
and if you have a sky daddy, that does not invalidate the giving a shit about society
you are a part of society, yes?
We all know this is fundamentalist propaganda, and here you are to try and justify it.
It's 2025, and people are going to do what they're going do, including but not limited to fucking with abandon, or not.
Why are you so concerned about other people's genitals and what they do with them? Why are you so concerned about how people spend their time in the company of others? Why are you so concerned about feeling oppressed by actions of others?
You need to get laid.
š„± no retard, tilt at windmills all u want
people have been doing what they going to do for all time, and it works out the same over and over and over.
the same natural law principles that make btc the best money in the history of the world apply to other domains too.
or do you not know why btc does what btc does?
you can live in a fiat sexual world where you can do whatever without consequence, but itās just as fake and gay as our fiat monetary world.
There it is.
Sounds like you need to go pray about it. Make sure you think long, and hard, about your dripping, slick, wanton need to ensure your spot during Salvation by telling other people who are straight, gay, or otherwise just plain fuckin' everything they possibly can, they are morally wrong for partaking in such behavior and are the root cause for society's downfall.
No but seriously, fuck God, fuck Jesus, and especially fuck You. You need some serious post-nut clarity to see exactly how deranged you sound.
whatās hilareous is you are spouting a speculative theology without even realizing it.
you are a gnostic lunatic
belief in the flying spaghetti monster is more logically coherent than your imagination
good news is u can join us all in objective reality anytime u get around to it. the water is warm, and we will just be crushing
...and you are a fanatic. Certified, even
How in the world you managed to write an entire book with any cognitive thought must have been quite a feat, and I don't think you're 'O.K.' or better for it.
Seek help. Sexual openness is not a disease, nor is it destroying society. It's destroying /your/ myopic view, and that's it. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, ain't it?
āsexual opennessā
so no lines, anything goes?
Again, why do you care what other people do with their genitals?
Stop thinking about other people's genitals. It's easy to do.
the silence is deafening
itās not my first rodeo, this debate plays out one of two ways but ends up in the same place.
either you:
really mean āopenā, no lines, anything goes, no morality, which logically compromises your position to say āiām wrongā
or you:
donāt mean open, that there is some line you arbitrarily/subjectively determine, which logically compromises your position to say āiām wrongā
you have no philosophical depth, but you could if u swallow ur ego and just follow the logic
I don't subscribe to your idiotic logic. My ego is fine, your's however appears to be damaged thanks to the populus fuckin', when you're not. Don't be mad about it.
Again, stop thinking about other people's genitals. It's easy to do.
logic isnāt āmineā
but it is rather oppressive, isnāt it?
can just wish reality wasnāt so.
you live in a fiat fantasy
There's that weird fiat shit, again.
Go tell God about, maybe she'll help.
thatās what fiat means: by decree.
you think reality is what you say it is
Can you even imagine having sex with more than 1 partner for your entire life? Do you even realize how unimaginative and boring that would be?
Of course you do.
Have you even lived if you havent experienced a goat? š
You're the one who brought up bestiality, Mr. Good Christian Man.
just reflecting the absurdity you project
Zealotry has caused more damage to the fabric of society than whatever insane talking points you think you've established.
look man, you are throwing around moral language without even knowing it
damage?
fabric?
the question isnāt whether a person is moralizing, the question is what is your morality based in.
you just make it up in your mind
my morality is objective and has nothing to do with me.
you really arenāt a thinker, but u could be, if u cared at all about following logic
Pretty sure your mind is complete mush at this point. It's be real nice if you'd stop trying to force your ideals on others, thanks.
You're not a fucking philosopher. You're wasting your time continuously replying to some dude on The Internet.
keeping a sharp blade isnāt a waste of time.
but to a point.
there is no honor in debating you.
like a toddler entering a UFC fight
Again, not a philosopher, but more troglodyte.
literally everyone in the world is a philosopher. itās how human beings get through the day.
many, like yourself, are just really bad at it
I wonder if the reverse is true for men who get about? Maybe to a lesser degree? #asknostr
A culture that dismisses chastity reaps broken relationships, but those who honor Godās design for marriage experience its blessings (Proverbs 5:18-19). The data only confirms what Scripture has taught all along.
correct, people confuse principles with particulars.
it wouldnāt matter if you flipped all the data on the chart. the principle remains true, the flipped data would only mean the people in the study with 0 pre marital partners had other unfortunate vices that ruined their lives
The actual reason for abstinence before marriage is merely a Malthusian argument for population control. God was long ago inserted to make this argument seem more legitimate and authoritative.
No, it's because men wanted to know who the father of their children were in an age before paternity tests.
I also suspect earlier cultures were aware of impact of telegony as they were much more involved and connected to animal breeding.
Awesome addition to the conversation here. Thanks!
There does seem to be an overlap between telegony and epigenetics, and this is good stuff to learn. It's really fun to tinker with the puzzle pieces of why things are the way they are now and how they came to be this way.
You bring up a good point that helps me tinker more.
Thanks again!
"data"
you can have whatever opinion you want of course but lets not pretend like this is some gotcha science
correct, the data doesnāt matter.
but you conflate opinion with universal principle
Does this data isolate for women who are heavily religious and unlikely to realize there may be better partners out their for them to live a happy life with?
Religious beliefs pressure people heavily to stick with their first partner, even if that partner is abusive. If you ask me the long term success of a marriage is better measured in how happy both partners truly are within it and not simply the length. I would hazard a guess that a similar chart of overall happiness within a marriage based on previous partner count would have a standard Bell curve, showing that a few partners leads to significantly increased overall marital satisfaction.
But in that case, as in this one, there's way too many variables to consider this chart with any significance. Though it likely appeals to whatever narrative you already believe considering your statement.
the chart doesnāt matter.
a meta analysis of numerous studies is not needed to recognize the truth of principles.
so the principle is either way above your head, or you are denying it in some weird justification of a fiat worldview that nestled in your mind
Canāt turn a hoe into a house wife.
All I see is an inverted daddy issue chart here.
The data may not lie, but interpretation does. Correlation isnāt causationāthere are cultural, religious, and socioeconomic factors at play. Lifelong monogamy may correlate with stability,
The data doesn't lie. Just the people they ask.
Why do you think that is?
Because sex creates a close bond, so people with many different partners have gotten used to cutting it.
I donāt believe it, bye
Lotta retards in the comments
This metric is quite interesting, thanks for sharing.
Am I the only one wondering how the chart matches the summary?
The chart doesn't actually contain any information about marriage or divorce rates, and the correlation wouldn't be linear, even if it did. (Why is 4 lower than 2, and 2-4 are barely different?) It's probable that most women in the higher categories never married, at all, or that some cohorts include prostitutes or lesbians.
And we don't know which or how many women tend to fall into which cohort and if some second variable made women more-likely to fall into the first cohort, so that we can control for that.
the x axis is ānon marital sexual partnersā
y axis is sexually actively 30+
so the only way the 0 group is sexually active is if itās with their husband
if you have a bunch of sexual partners in your 20s, you have a harder road to have any sex in your 30s and beyond.
whatās ironic, is it literally doesnāt matter what ānumbersā the chart says
the principle is objectively true for all human beings.
if someone canāt deal with reality, then they try convince themselves and. others to believe the fiat reality in their head
How many husbands can you have, and stay in the first cohort?
And can you marry a virgin, have sex, divorce, have sex with someone else, and then no longer be in the first cohort? Yes, you can.
How likely is a divorced woman to "save herself" for her next husband.
particulars have nothing to do with the principle.
I never argued the principle. I suspect that I hold a much stricter view of sexuality than anyone else in this thread.
But I don't like it when people just vomit up a chart, to prove some point, when it isn't evident in the chart. I can read.
same goes for the men
Fuck around find out
NO SHIT
