Are you advocating for premarital sex?
Lets take a look of consequences;

"It’s been established that having multiple sex partners prior to marriage sometimes leads to less happy marriages and increases the odds of divorce." Source

"This study sought to determine whether having a higher number of non-marital sex partners lowered the likelihood that people would eventually get married. Our analyses demonstrate that having more numerous sex partners is indeed associated with lower odds of marriage, but only in the short term. Longitudinal data from 17 waves of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1997) cohort indicate that multiple partners decreases the immediate likelihood of marriage." Source

"Multiple sex partners prior to marriage reduced marital quality for women, but not men. Along similar lines, sociologist Jay Teachman showed that premarital sex between future spouses didn’t make divorce more likely, but sex with other people did." Source

Now that we know premarital sex can lead to divoce. Lets see the trend of single mothers in America.

"In the United States, since the 1960s, there has been an increase in the number of children living with a single parent. The jump was caused by an increase in births to unmarried women and by the increasing prevalence of divorces among couples. In 2010, 40.7% of births in the US were to unmarried women." Source

"About one in five children is living with a single mom" Pew Research; Source
"Nearly half of Americans now say single women raising children on their own is bad for society". Pew Research; Source

Now that we know most women who have premarital sex end up being single moms and Americans think that it is bad for society, lets look at psychological and economic impacts of this practice

"Ongoing Conflict with an Ex. Divorce and separation are hard enough, but continuing conflict with a child's other parent can erode a single mom's mental health. Bullying, manipulation, withholding child support and violating divorce agreements are among the many behaviors divorced women tell us they face." Source; MentalHealthAmerica.org

"Single mothers generally remain impoverished longer than divorced mothers. Whereas divorced mothers who receive welfare do so for three to four years, the always-single mother is less likely to stop receiving welfare and takes longer to exit poverty."

"Single mothers experienced high unemployment rates and were more likely to exit the labor force than single fathers and women without children." Source; Fed Reserve Bank

You may find it cool to say that it is ok to have premarital sex, but research, economical, and psychological figures tells a different story.

Additionally, the children of such mothers have issues beyond your imagination. These mothers also turn to sex work, onlyfans, and what not.
I tried to google about the "divoce/multiple partners" thing, only found this utah article and that's it.
The rest of the results were websites talking about said article.

That's not REALLY a lot of ground...
Maybe because it is the most recent study? or maybe you should have used better keywords? There are some more credible studies in this field done over the years.

"After a variety of observable characteristics are controlled, nonvirgins still face a much higher risk of divorce than virgins." Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, “Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 845-855. [1]

"For both genders, we find that virgins have dramatically more stable first marriages…" Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 503. [2]

“Those who marry as non-virgins are also more likely – all other things being equal – to be unfaithful over the remainder of their life compared with those spouses who do marry as virgins.” Laumann et al., 1994, p. 505. [2]

"I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution. These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages." Jay Teachman, “Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2003): 444-455, p. 454. [3]

"Results indicate that wanted sexual debut in later adolescence does not directly increase the risk of marital dissolution but is linked indirectly as a result of subsequent premarital sexual outcomes. Sexual debut that is not completely wanted or that occurs before age 16 is associated with increased risk of marital dissolution. " Anthony Paik, “Adolescent Sexuality and Risk of Marital Dissolution,” Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (2011): 472-485, p. 472 [4]

You dont need to worry about correlation not necessarily meaning causation, because the studies i cited were done with a controlled experiment, as also mentioned in the quotations.

There is also this idea that divorce caused by infidelity is ultimately caused by stigma about premarital sex. They said that if pre marital sex is normalized, there would be less divorce. The funny thing is, this is blatantly counterintuitive, as a religious person would normally not have premarital sex.

"women who marry as virgins are far more likely than other women to attend church at least once a week...women who have multiple sex partners are less likely to be regular churchgoers." [5]

Premarital sex has also been observed along with infidelity.

"For people in this survey who reported four or fewer lifetime sexual partners, the rate of infidelity in the current marriage dropped to 11%, while for those who had five or more sexual partners the number was nearly double (21%). The break between the 54% of people who had five or more lifetime sexual partners vs. the 46% who had four or fewer total partners illustrates the lessons from the study. This breakpoint is validated by the fact that when asked straight out, 68% of those with more sexual partners in their pasts agreed that, “I am always faithful to my sexual partner” (whether currently married or single), compared to 82% of those with fewer sexual partners who said the same." [6]

Now look at the after effect:

"Divorce rates were significantly higher for secret infidelity couples (80%, n 4) than for revealed infidelity (43%, n 6) and noninfidelity couples (23%, n 26) " American Psychological Association (APA). [7]

So there you go another bullshit from the so-called "progressivism" from a certain group. Stop normalizing pre marital sex
 
Maybe because it is the most recent study? or maybe you should have used better keywords? There are some more credible studies in this field done over the years.

"After a variety of observable characteristics are controlled, nonvirgins still face a much higher risk of divorce than virgins." Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, “Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 845-855. [1]

"For both genders, we find that virgins have dramatically more stable first marriages…" Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 503. [2]

“Those who marry as non-virgins are also more likely – all other things being equal – to be unfaithful over the remainder of their life compared with those spouses who do marry as virgins.” Laumann et al., 1994, p. 505. [2]

"I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution. These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages." Jay Teachman, “Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2003): 444-455, p. 454. [3]

"Results indicate that wanted sexual debut in later adolescence does not directly increase the risk of marital dissolution but is linked indirectly as a result of subsequent premarital sexual outcomes. Sexual debut that is not completely wanted or that occurs before age 16 is associated with increased risk of marital dissolution. " Anthony Paik, “Adolescent Sexuality and Risk of Marital Dissolution,” Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (2011): 472-485, p. 472 [4]

You dont need to worry about correlation not necessarily meaning causation, because the studies i cited were done with a controlled experiment, as also mentioned in the quotations.

There is also this idea that divorce caused by infidelity is ultimately caused by stigma about premarital sex. They said that if pre marital sex is normalized, there would be less divorce. The funny thing is, this is blatantly counterintuitive, as a religious person would normally not have premarital sex.

"women who marry as virgins are far more likely than other women to attend church at least once a week...women who have multiple sex partners are less likely to be regular churchgoers." [5]

Premarital sex has also been observed along with infidelity.

"For people in this survey who reported four or fewer lifetime sexual partners, the rate of infidelity in the current marriage dropped to 11%, while for those who had five or more sexual partners the number was nearly double (21%). The break between the 54% of people who had five or more lifetime sexual partners vs. the 46% who had four or fewer total partners illustrates the lessons from the study. This breakpoint is validated by the fact that when asked straight out, 68% of those with more sexual partners in their pasts agreed that, “I am always faithful to my sexual partner” (whether currently married or single), compared to 82% of those with fewer sexual partners who said the same." [6]

Now look at the after effect:

"Divorce rates were significantly higher for secret infidelity couples (80%, n 4) than for revealed infidelity (43%, n 6) and noninfidelity couples (23%, n 26) " American Psychological Association (APA). [7]

So there you go another bullshit from the so-called "progressivism" from a certain group. Stop normalizing pre marital sex
Good post. I think we need more of this in political thread.
 
Maybe because it is the most recent study? or maybe you should have used better keywords? There are some more credible studies in this field done over the years.

"After a variety of observable characteristics are controlled, nonvirgins still face a much higher risk of divorce than virgins." Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, “Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 845-855. [1]

"For both genders, we find that virgins have dramatically more stable first marriages…" Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 503. [2]

“Those who marry as non-virgins are also more likely – all other things being equal – to be unfaithful over the remainder of their life compared with those spouses who do marry as virgins.” Laumann et al., 1994, p. 505. [2]

"I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution. These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages." Jay Teachman, “Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2003): 444-455, p. 454. [3]

"Results indicate that wanted sexual debut in later adolescence does not directly increase the risk of marital dissolution but is linked indirectly as a result of subsequent premarital sexual outcomes. Sexual debut that is not completely wanted or that occurs before age 16 is associated with increased risk of marital dissolution. " Anthony Paik, “Adolescent Sexuality and Risk of Marital Dissolution,” Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (2011): 472-485, p. 472 [4]

You dont need to worry about correlation not necessarily meaning causation, because the studies i cited were done with a controlled experiment, as also mentioned in the quotations.

There is also this idea that divorce caused by infidelity is ultimately caused by stigma about premarital sex. They said that if pre marital sex is normalized, there would be less divorce. The funny thing is, this is blatantly counterintuitive, as a religious person would normally not have premarital sex.

"women who marry as virgins are far more likely than other women to attend church at least once a week...women who have multiple sex partners are less likely to be regular churchgoers." [5]

Premarital sex has also been observed along with infidelity.

"For people in this survey who reported four or fewer lifetime sexual partners, the rate of infidelity in the current marriage dropped to 11%, while for those who had five or more sexual partners the number was nearly double (21%). The break between the 54% of people who had five or more lifetime sexual partners vs. the 46% who had four or fewer total partners illustrates the lessons from the study. This breakpoint is validated by the fact that when asked straight out, 68% of those with more sexual partners in their pasts agreed that, “I am always faithful to my sexual partner” (whether currently married or single), compared to 82% of those with fewer sexual partners who said the same." [6]

Now look at the after effect:

"Divorce rates were significantly higher for secret infidelity couples (80%, n 4) than for revealed infidelity (43%, n 6) and noninfidelity couples (23%, n 26) " American Psychological Association (APA). [7]

So there you go another bullshit from the so-called "progressivism" from a certain group. Stop normalizing pre marital sex
good post.
 
"For both genders, we find that virgins have dramatically more stable first marriages…" Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 503. [2]
that means the study takes into account that the people in question get divorce

so it's an empty argument
 
Lemme give you a good debate subject, this is for my Euro bros

European Union to unite like USA
Uff do you reallly want to open this pandoras box? Beside this thread seems only about Trans and Sex Stuff, I will be so cheeky and interrupt the current topic.

The EU in its state which it is at the moment,absolutly not. It's not only the fact that the EU parlament is corrupt as fuck,the tax burden is extremly unfair for some states like Germany or France. Yes,these countrys have the most power in the EU parlament but nobody asks the citizens of these countrys if they want this power over their hard worked money. I bet most normal citizen would prefer to have more money in their wallet instead of of some corrupt politicans growth in power.

United under the term of absolute equal rights as brotherhood of states...why not. But not under a corrupt,undemocratic gouverment.
 
Last edited:
that means the study takes into account that the people in question get divorce

so it's an empty argument
It's not at all an empty argument, or rather you mean study?

Of course there are divorces among virgins too, but the point is they are less likely to divorce than nonvirgins. If there is no divorce then obviously there will be no second marriage. Hence, more stable first marriage.
 
Uff do you reallly want to open this box of the pandora? Beside this thread seems only about Trans and Sex Stuff, I will be so cheeky and interrupt the current topic.

The EU in its state which it is at the moment,absolutly not. It's not only the fact that the EU parlament is corrupt as fuck,the tax burden is extremly unfair for some states like Germany or France. Yes,these countrys have the most power in the EU partlament but nobody asks the citizens of these countrys if they want this power over their hard worked money. I bet most normal citizen would prefer to have more money in their wallet instead of of some corrupt politicans power growth.

United under the term of absolute equal rights as brotherhood of states...why not. But not under a corrupt,undemocratic gouverment.
EU idea backfired heavily, so much that like half of the EU countries wanna leave and shit
Who would have thought that it will turn into another overgrown empire with greedy elites🙄
 
Like the most ideas of our goverment: not much. If we make english the second language of this country, then nobody who comes here will learn german anymore. It would probably contribute to the point where the German language is dying out more and more.
That's what I think too

In my ''horror scenario'' German will have turned into a minority language in 50 years.

Another reason to hate this government.
The FDP are a clown party.

What about replacing that 'unwieldy bureaucratic' German with normal German?
Every German struggles with it because nobody actually talks like this.
And thanks to the decreasing quality of grammar education over the last years, even the office guys who write this stuff make mire and more obvious mistakes, making it even more impossible to understand shit.

Germany doomed.

Europe doomed.
Next imperialists are gonna be the Chinese.
 
In my ''horror scenario'' German will have turned into a minority language in 50 years.
If we don't correct the course of this trend...yes that's what will happen. And there are some people like Axel Steier (mieser Soja Lumpen der er ist) who are happy about it.

Another reason to hate this government.
There are many reasons. Starting with Baerbock and stopped with Lauterbach and Facer. If you have to do nothing to do to appear competently like our Minister of Justice does.:suresure:
The FDP are a clown party.
They always were. Remember the Schlecker scandal in 2012?
What about replacing that 'unwieldy bureaucratic' German with normal German?
Will not happen. We german folks are a bureaucratic bunch. Always were and always will be. It's part of our cultutre.
Germany doomed.

Europe doomed.
Man,you are extremly black pilled.:milaugh:
Next imperialists are gonna be the Chinese.
Well then: "All hail to our chinese Overlords!:cheers:"
 
They always were. Remember the Schlecker scandal in 2012?
Oh yes
I remember ard or zdf making a TV movie about it.
Corporate is always there to exploit everything.


That bureaucratic speek is there to torture us, I'm sure. It's meant to break us and assert dominance.

We german folks are a bureaucratic bunch. Always were and always will be. It's part of our cultutre
Nope not 'we'
'We germans' hasn't been a thing for most of history.
I don't like that Prussian bs heritage, I don't associate with this empire.

Well then: "All hail to our chinese Overlords!:cheers:"
No fuck them
Fuck every conqueror

Man,you are extremly black pilled.:milaugh:
Yes
The times warrant this attitude.
 
Oh yes
I remember ard or zdf making a TV movie about it.
Corporate is always there to exploit everything
Yes and the FDP also did their best to support the employes who lost their job...not. Westerwelle said then these people just had to search a new job,even if it was in a far away part of the country.
'We germans' hasn't been a thing for most of history.
Yes there is. Since the 9th century there where some kind of german state (the holy roman empire) united under Karl the Great. Maybe there was no "Germany" as we know it,but we were all german folks with the same language and we share the same history. The prussians just did what the people had in mind at the german revolution in 1848. Maybe under the wrong intentions but they did unite the germans under one flag.
Yes
The times warrant this attitude.
Okay,heres a white pill: people like Axel Steier (dieser miese Soja Lumpen) will also suffer from this shit. And maybe,before the end comes,they will pay the bitter price for their doings. Karma can and often will be a bitch.
 
Yes and the FDP also did their best to support the employes who lost their job...not. Westerwelle said then these people just had to search a new job,even if it was in a far away part of the country.

Yes there is. Since the 9th century there where some kind of german state (the holy roman empire) united under Karl the Great. Maybe there was no "Germany" as we know it,but we were all german folks with the same language and we share the same history. The prussians just did what the people had in mind at the german revolution in 1848. Maybe under the wrong intentions but they did unite the germans under one flag.

Okay,heres a white pill: people like Axel Steier (dieser miese Soja Lumpen) will also suffer from this shit. And maybe,before the end comes,they will pay the bitter price for their doings. Karma can and often will be a bitch.
Lmao I don't use soyboy or similar terms as insults.



Yes there is. Since the 9th century there where some kind of german state (the holy roman empire) united under Karl the Great. Maybe there was no "Germany" as we know it,but we were all german folks with the same language and we share the same history. The prussians just did what the people had in mind at the german revolution in 1848. Maybe under the wrong intentions but they did unite the germans under one flag.
I see
Tbh I don't really wanna start a German identity debate here.


And about Charlemagne I'll just say: he was successful, that's why we call him 'father of europe' and everyone loves him.
Hitler, on the other hand, lost.
Imagine had Hitler won WWII every historian today and in the future would shill for Hitler, we'd call him the father of New Europe ,we'd sugar coat his crimes to no end and the biggest historian propaganda elites would praise Hitler as the second coming of Jesus or w/e

History is decided by the winners & dead men tell no tales they say
 
Top