All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

Study: couples that delay sexual activity experience higher quality relationships

2 Comments
Relationship stability, quality, communication, satisfaction
Relationship stability, quality, communication, satisfaction

From Family Studies, news about TWO new studies.

Excerpt: (links removed)

[T]wo recently published studies call into question the validity of testing sexual chemistry early in dating.

My colleagues and I published the first study a few years ago in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Family Psychology. This study involved a national sample of 2,035 married individuals who participated in the popular online couple assessment survey called “RELATE.” We found that the longer a dating couple waits to have sex, the better their relationship is after marriage. In fact, couples who wait until marriage to have sex report higher relationship satisfaction (20% higher), better communication patterns (12% better), less consideration of divorce (22% lower), and better sexual quality (15% better) than those who started having sex early in their dating (see Figure 2). For couples in between—those that became sexually involved later in their dating, but prior to marriage—the benefits were about half as strong.

[…]These patterns were statistically significant even when controlling for a variety of other variables such as respondents’ number of prior sexual partners, education levels, religiosity, and relationship length.

The second study, by Sharon Sassler and her colleagues at Cornell University, also found that rapid sexual involvement has adverse long-term implications for relationship quality. Using data from the Marital and Relationship Survey, which provides information on nearly 600 low- to moderate-income couples living with minor children, their study examined the tempo of sexual intimacy and subsequent relationship quality in a sample of married and cohabiting men and women. Their analyses also suggest that delaying sexual involvement is associated with higher relationship quality across several dimensions.

They discovered that the negative association between sexual timing and relationship quality is largely driven by a link between early sex and cohabitation. Specifically, sexual involvement early in a romantic relationship is associated with an increased likelihood of moving more quickly into living together, which in turn is associated with lower relationship quality. This finding supports Norval Glenn’s hypothesis that sexual involvement may lead to unhealthy emotional entanglements that make ending a bad relationship difficult. As Sassler and her colleagues concluded, “Adequate time is required for romantic relationships to develop in a healthy way. In contrast, relationships that move too quickly, without adequate discussion of the goals and long-term desires of each partner, may be insufficiently committed and therefore result in relationship distress, especially if one partner is more committed than the other” (p. 710).

The rest of the post talks about two reasons why this works: improved partner selection and prioritizing communication and commitment. Improved partner selection occurs because you haven’t committed too much too soon (sexually) and you have time to let things play out to see if you really fit with the other person. And if you take sex off the table, then you have to use other means in order to build emotional intimacy – communication, service, support, etc.

That’s two studies, and there’s a third. Dina sent me this article from the UK Daily Mail about a new study showing the importance of chastity for relationship quality and stability.

Excerpt:

New couples who jump into bed together on the first date do not last as long in relationships as those who wait a new study has revealed.

Using a sample of almost 11,000 unmarried people, Brigham Young University discovered a direct correlation between the length and strength of a partnership and the amount of time they took to have first have sex.

The study showed that those who waited to initiate sexual intimacy were found to have longer and more positive outcomes in their relationships while those who couldn’t help themselves reported that their dalliances struggled to last more than two years.

‘Results suggested that waiting to initiate sexual intimacy in unmarried relationships was generally associated with positive outcomes,’ said the report authored published by the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.

‘This effect was strongly moderated by relationship length, with individuals who reported early sexual initiation reporting increasingly lower outcomes in relationships of longer than two years.’

The study examined four sexual-timing patterns: Having sex prior to dating, initiating sex on the first date or shortly after, having sex after a few weeks of dating, and sexual abstinence.

Each one of these fields yielded different results in relationship satisfaction, stability and communication in dating situations.

Here’s another recent study that shows that if a woman has more than her husband as a premarital sex partner, her risk of divorce increases.

His findings:

Using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships (premarital sex and premarital cohabitation) and subsequent marital dissolution. I extend previous research by considering relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation. 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.

Here’s another study that makes it even more clear.

Findings:

Data from the 1988 US National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) were utilized to assess the impact of premarital sexual activity on subsequent marital stability. Among white NSFG subjects first married in 1965-85, virgin brides were significantly less to have become separated or divorced (25%) than women who had not been virgins at marriage (35%).

[…]The lower risk of divorce on the part of white women with no premarital sexual experience persisted even after numerous intervening and background variables were controlled.

If you’re going to talk to a young person about sex, it’s a good idea to use these studies to explain what you lose by having sex too early in the relationship. Although they may respond with anecdotes to refute studies, studies are important because they represent LOTS of data points, not just one or two cherry-picked cases. My view on all this is the Bible’s view – no sex before marriage. But when talking to people about this issue, I find it useful to have evidence ready in order to be convincing in every way possible.

Previously, I blogged on studies that showed that the number of premarital sex partners increases unhappiness in the marriage, which raises the risk of divorce. Read and be wise about sexuality!

News

Multiple credible witnesses corroborate rape charge against Joe Biden

5 Comments
Democrats in the news media are covering up the Biden scandal
Democrats in the news media are covering up the Biden scandal

In this post, I want to report on the criminal charge filed by Tara Reade with the police against Joe Biden. And list out all the witnesses we have to corroborate her testimony so far. Then we’ll review the mainstream news media’s response to the scandal. Then we’ll see why Joe Biden (of all people) should have no right to legal counsel, due process, or any other basic rights as defendant.

First, a criminal complaint has been filed, according to far-left Newsweek:

Tara Reade filed a criminal complaint with the Washington Metropolitan Police Department of accusing the 2020 Democratic nomination of pushing her against the wall in a Senate corridor and penetrating her with his fingers, according to Business Insider.

This is important, because she can be held criminally responsible for making a false charge. This is not a frivolous woman making a frivolous charge to smear someone she doesn’t know. She worked for him, and she filed a criminal complaint against him.

In addition, she actually told people about the alleged sexual assault at the time it was committed.

The far-left Business Insider reports:

In March, when a former aide to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden accused the candidate of sexually assaulting her in 1993, two people came forward to say that the woman, Tara Reade, had told them of the incident shortly after it allegedly occurred — her brother, Collin Moulton, and a friend who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution.

Now two more sources have come forward to corroborate certain details about Reade’s claims. One of them — a former neighbor of Reade’s — has told Insider for the first time, on the record, that Reade disclosed details about the alleged assault to her in the mid-1990s.

“This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it,” Lynda LaCasse, who lived next door to Reade in the mid-’90s, told Insider.

The other source, Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the mid-’90s, told Insider that she recalls Reade complaining at the time that her former boss in Washington, DC, had sexually harassed her, and that she had been fired after raising concerns.

Now, you might remember that we had a Senate trial and a media circus that lasted for months and months for SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. But Christine Blasey Ford never made a criminal charge against Kavanaugh, nor did she have any witnesses to corroborate her story. So we have to take Reade’s charge seriously – this time, there’s an actual case.

But Biden’s allies in the media don’t want Biden or his endorsers to reply to the charges, and they don’t want to investigate or report on the charges.

The Washington Free Beacon notes:

In the two weeks after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward with her accusation against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, CNN published more than 400 items on its website related to the allegations. By contrast, it didn’t publish a single item on the sexual assault accusation against Biden until April 17, more than three weeks after Reade recounted her story in a podcast interview.

Since Reade’s allegation was made public, Biden has been interviewed multiple times on major media networks, including twice by CNN’s Anderson Cooper. For some reason, the former vice president has yet to be asked about the accusation. Thus far, his only public response has been to deny the allegations via a statement from a campaign official.

I want to see a Senate trial that starts tomorrow and lasts until election day so we can find out what Joe Biden really did to Tara Reade. Only Republican senators should be allowed to call witnesses. The defendant should not be allowed legal counsel or the right to call  witnesses, or see the charges, or see the evidence against him – as happens on college campuses when male students are accused by women. And every day that the news media don’t report on the trial, I will know that they think that women must be presumed to be lying when they report sexual assault at work.

This is interesting, from The Post Millennial:

Since 2011, hundreds of students accused of sexual misconduct have filed lawsuits against their universities alleging they were denied due process by campus disciplinary panels.

Thanks to the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX, a law that requires colleges to prevent sexual discrimination, harassment and assault, a student’s right to fair process has not only been significantly impaired, but in some cases, eliminated entirely. Many universities still use the Obama-era guidance to this day.

In reality, this world of unfair and false accusations that has forced hundreds of young men to sue their universities, was orchestrated and executed by none other than Joe Biden—a man who now finds himself ensnared in the same environment he helped create.

I know that a lot of Democrat women believe that sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape are common in the workplace. So it will be interesting to see how they vote in November. Many of these women will have experienced something like what Tara Reade says she experienced. Will those women come forward and vote for Joe Biden anyway? If so, what will that tell you about their allegiance to “feminism”?

News

Why did Democrats send Wuhan Coronavirus patients to nursing homes?

3 Comments
All of the worst-hit counties are urban Democrat strongholds
The worst-hit areas are all urban counties in Democrat states

Democrats sure have been enjoying their new powers to control the choices and freedoms of individuals during this Chinese virus pandemic. And it turns out that they’ve been making it worse with some very poor – or deliberately evil – decision-making.

Here’s the story from the New York Post:

Of all the missteps in the early days of the coronavirus crisis, New York state’s Health Department may have committed the worst: ordering nursing homes to accept residents who tested positive for COVID-19.

Instead of quarantining the folks most vulnerable to the disease, the state encouraged its spread: 85 percent of the state’s confirmed deaths from the bug are people over 60, with nearly a quarter of all corona fatalities coming in nursing or adult-care facilities — and at least 2,210 such deaths tallied in the city.

And when asked why these residents and workers weren’t better protected, Gov. Andrew Cuo­mo answered Wednesday, it “wasn’t our job.”

[…][T]he state has allowed casualties to mount, with some homes even having to leave the dead in their rooms for lack of a place to store them.

[…]Mayor Bill de Blasio, meanwhile, has been sending coronavirus patients to the city’s public nursing home on Roosevelt Island — where staff and local officials say the virus is spreading to its vulnerable, high-risk residents. Many are wheelchair-bound and/or chronically ill. Wrong place to be in tune with the governor, Mr. Mayor.

I was having a conversation with a millennial evangelical Christian recently who thought that people cities were smart, and that rural people won’t take the virus seriously. I asked him how well things were going for New York City. He didn’t have an answer to that. (He hasn’t read a book in years, and just gets his opinions from TV and movies).

He’s all in favor of a continued shutdown, but I happen to know that his employer is in dire straits financially. He hasn’t put two and two together yet to see how the shutdown (and the trillions of dollars of spending to prop up businesses and workers) is affecting him. The TV says the shutdown needs to continue, and he believes it.