Tag Archives: Marital Stability

Study: women who lose their virginity in their teens are more likely to divorce

College students puking in toilet
College students puking in toilet

The UK Daily Mail reports on a study that shows that women who lose their virginity as teenagers are more likely to divorce.


Women who lost their virginity as young teenagers are more likely to divorce – especially if it was unwanted, according to new research.

The University of Iowa study shows that 31 per cent of women who had sex for the first time as teens divorced within five years, and 47 per cent within 10 years.

Among women who delayed sex until adulthood, 15 per cent divorced at five years, compared to 27 per cent at 10 years.

The findings were published in the April issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family.

Author Anthony Paik, associate professor of sociology in the university’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, examined the responses of 3,793 married and divorced women to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.

The study showed, however, that if a young woman made the choice to lose her virginity as a teenager, there was no direct link to a marital split later in life.

If the sexual act took place before the age of 16 women were shown more likely to divorce, even if it was wanted.

Thirty-one percent of women who lost their virginity during adolescence had premarital sex with multiple partners, compared to 24 per cent of those who waited.

Twenty-nine percent experienced premarital conceptions, versus 15 percent who waited.

One in four women who had sex as a teen had a baby before they were married, compared to only one in ten who waited until adulthood.

Only one per cent of women surveyed said they chose to have sex at age 13 or younger, compared to five per cent at age 14 or 15, and 10 per cent at age 16 or 17.

Forty two per cent reported that their first sexual intercourse before age 18 that was not completely wanted.

Fifty eight per cent of the group waited until age 18 or older to have sex. Of those, 22 per cent said it was unwanted, compared to 21 per cent who said it was wanted.

Researchers concluded sex itself may not increase the probability of divorce, while factors such as a higher number of sexual partners, pregnancy, or out-of-wedlock birth increased the risk for some.

If you want a stable marriage, then you don’t have sex before you’re married. There are tons of virgins out there, and there is a huge difference in the quality of romantic relationships when both parties exercise self-control with physical touching. Don’t let it go too far – you lose some of what love and marriage can be.

Which types of relationships have the highest rates of divorce?

A quiz for you, from Ruth Blog.


Same sex couples have had the legal right to form domestic partnerships in several European countries.  Denmark was the first to introduce registered partnerships, in 1989. Norway was second, in 1993, then Sweden in 1995. Data from 2 of these landmark countries, Norway and Sweden, as well as California,  have been studied enough to answer this question:

What types of unions have the highest rates of divorce?

  • Opposite sex married couples: men and women are so different, it is a wonder they ever stay married.
  • Male unions: men are naturally less committed, and less monogamous, so their partnerships don’t endure.
  • Female unions: women get so emotionally distraught over things. A union of two women, without any male counter-balancing their roller-coaster, is very unstable.

Hint: the answer is the same in all three countries!

And here’s the answer:

Female unions seem to have the highest divorce rates, followed by male unions, followed by opposite sex unions.

“For Sweden, the divorce risk for partnerships of men is 50% higher than the risk for heterosexual marriages, and that the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men.”

“For Norway, divorce risks are 77% higher in lesbian partnerships than in those of gay men.”  (The Norwegian data did not include a comparison with opposite sex couples.)

In California, the data is collected a little differently. The study looks at couples who describe themselves as partners, whether same sex or opposite sex. The study asks the question, how likely is it that these couples live in the same household five years later. Male couples were only 30% as likely, while female couples were less that 25% as likely, as heterosexual married couples, to be residing in the same household for five years.

The only contradictory data I have found to this pattern is from the Netherlands. In the Dutch data, same sex couples have a 3.15 times greater dissolution rate than opposite sex cohabiting couples, and a 3.15 x 3.66 or 11.5 times greater dissolution rate than opposite married couples. But, female couples seem to be more stable than male couples.

And not all married heterosexual couples are equally stable.

Consider this USA Today article from 2011 about that.


It’s been proclaimed from pulpits and blogs for years — Christians divorce as much as everyone else in America.

But some scholars and family activists are questioning the oft-cited statistics, saying Christians who attend church regularly are more likely to remain wed.

“It’s a useful myth,” said Bradley Wright, a University of Connecticut sociologist who recently wrote “Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites … and Other Lies You’ve Been Told.”

“Because if a pastor wants to preach about how Christians should take their marriages more seriously, he or she can trot out this statistic to get them to listen to him or her.”

The various findings on religion and divorce hinge on what kind of Christians are being discussed.

Wright combed through the General Social Survey, a vast demographic study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and found that Christians, like adherents of other religions, have a divorce rate of about 42%. The rate among religiously unaffiliated Americans is 50%.

When Wright examined the statistics on evangelicals, he found worship attendance has a big influence on the numbers. Six in 10 evangelicals who never attend had been divorced or separated, compared to just 38% of weekly attendees.

[…]Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, agrees there’s been some confusion.

“You do hear, both in Christian and non-Christian circles, that Christians are no different from anyone else when it comes to divorce and that is not true if you are focusing on Christians who are regular church attendees,” he said.

Wilcox’s analysis of the National Survey of Families and Households has found that Americans who attend religious services several times a month were about 35% less likely to divorce than those with no religious affiliation.

Nominal conservative Protestants, on the other hand, were 20% more likely to divorce than the religiously unaffiliated.

“There’s something about being a nominal ‘Christian’ that is linked to a lot of negative outcomes when it comes to family life,” Wilcox said.

Here’s a quote from an Oklahoma State University study that confirms the Wright and Wilcox conclusions:

History of Divorce and Religious Involvement

Those who say they are more religious are less likely, not more, to have already experienced divorce. Likewise, those who report more frequent attendance at religious services were significantly less likely to have been divorced. This pattern of findings held using various analytic techniques that test which variables differentiate persons who have been divorced from persons who have not been divorced, while controlling for other variables that might affect the interpretation of the data, such as age, age of first marriage, income, and gender. When both the global rating of religiousness and the item assessing fiequency of attendance at religious services are entered into the same analysis, the attendance item remains significantly associated with divorce history but the global religiousness item does not. This suggests that a key aspect of how religious faith affects marital relationships may be through involvement with a community of faith.

Basically, the more your worldview grounds self-sacrifice over self-centeredness, the more stable it’s going to be.

Related posts

Female superintendent and ACLU fascists ban father-daughter school dances

From the radically left-wing Los Angeles Times. (H/T Captain Capitalism via The Elusive Wapiti)


Father-daughter dances and mother-son ballgames — those cherished hallmarks of Americana — have been banned in a Rhode Island school district after they were targeted by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU, the self-proclaimed guardian of the nation’s liberty, says such events violate the state’s gender-discrimination law. The organization challenged their existence following a complaint from a single mom who said her daughter was prevented from attending a father-daughter dance in the Cranston Public Schools district.

[…]For its part, the ACLU scoffed at the uproar, calling the change “old news” and defending its legal position in a statement laced with a touch of snark. Here it is, in part:

“The controversy that has suddenly arisen in a political campaign over father-daughter dances in Cranston is old news — the matter was amicably resolved with school officials over four months ago. And it was resolved for a simple reason: the school district recognized that in the 21st Century, public schools have no business fostering the notion that girls prefer to go to formal dances while boys prefer baseball games.

“This type of gender stereotyping only perpetuates outdated notions of ‘girl’ and ‘boy’ activities and is contrary to federal law.

“[Parent-teacher organizations] remain free to hold family dances and other events, but the time has long since passed for public school resources to encourage stereotyping from the days of Ozzie and Harriet. Not every girl today is interested in growing up to be Cinderella — not even in Cranston. In fact, one of them might make a great major league baseball player someday.

“We commend the school district for its resolution of the matter, and are sorry to see some people turning it into a political football — a game that they may think only boys should be interested in.”

It’s a well-known fact that daughters growing up without fathers are far more prone to a whole host of behavioral disorders and tragedies. It’s also well-known, among men, that one the major reasons for a man to get married is because of the social respect of being a provider, protector and moral/spiritual leader. When society, under the influence of moral relativism and feminist ideology, decides to denigrate and marginalize fatherhood, we should expect to see the next generation of girls suffering from it. Girls need their fathers. The more we allow our policy to be made by leftists, the more we cheat young women out of their fathers, and the more we leave them open to tragedy.

Related posts

New study: relationship quality diminished by early sexual activity, especially for women

Regarding the studies on the consequences of sexual activity that Mathetes wrote about before on this blog, I had something to add.

I thought these comments from Stuart Schneiderman about those studies were interesting. He writes about the response of feminists to the paper’s finding that women are more affected by early sexual activity, (the paper calls it “relationship tempo”), than men.


As you might have guessed, feminists are torqued by this study. Witness the bilge offered by Amanda Hessat the DoubleX blog.

To her confused mind, a woman who has a happy marriage might, in her heart of hearts be unhappy. Because it does not satisfy her personhood!

In her words:

What the Daily Mail doesn’t say is that half-year stretches of celibacy may make a woman more satisfied in a long-term relationship, but they don’t necessarily make her a more satisfied person.

In the feminist life plan women are supposed to find happiness on their jobs, not in their relationships. This is convenient for feminists since an ideological commitment to their cause tends to be a relationship killer.

Hess points out, correctly, that not all women want long term relationships. Some don’t even want to get married.

If she is suggesting that women who sleep around are perfectly contented with their love lives, she is, as I see it, deluded.

Besides, if women are being pressured into having sex before they want to—which is a main reason why women have sex too early—then one reason is that a sufficient number of their sisters have been giving it away for free, thus skewing the marketplace.

Why don’t writers like Amanda Hess recommend that the women who are giving it away for free change their ways? Why do they always assume that women who want to get married need to act in a way that is not going to help them achieve their goals?

Feminism is the denial of gender differences. What follows from women thinking that they are no different from men when it comes to sex? Pain. Just so everyone knows, I was appalled that everyone was having sex so early according to that study. I’m in my mid-thirties and have not so much as kissed a girl on the lips. The research just doesn’t support rushed physical intimacy as a legitimate pathway to marital stability and a high quality relationship. That’s my goal, so I don’t rush physical intimacy. We should all make an effort to make relationships more about communication and co-operation. If we care about the next generation, then we will do what it takes to provide them with a stable environment in which to grow up.

Related posts

New studies shed light on the expected outcomes of sexual behavior

This is a guest post by Mathetes entitled “Reasonable expectations of risky sexual behavior”.

One of the enlightening, and sobering, aspects of being an informed Christian is knowing how the world works, and then seeing a world that behaves oppositely. It is like watching an accident as it occurs, knowing how it happened, what objects collided, who was at fault, and yet being unable to stop the carnage.

In our country the social carnage is most often carnal. We see the lives of others being disordered because of stupid sexual choices. And the consequences of these choices can be known by those who are willing to step back and examine the evidence.

Case in point. Risky sexual behavior is present in most places where feminism and the sexual revolution has taken a firm footing. A study in New Zealand highlighted the sexual behavior of students.

The study found that students aged 17 to 24 displayed “low condom use, multiple sexual partners and unintended pregnancies.”

Our intrepid researcher is Rebecca Psutka, and she informs us that: “Sexual health is an integral, but often neglected component of overall wellbeing, but if there is very little information it is difficult to set priorities for improvement and to monitor progress.”

Oh Rebecca, if only you knew. She operates out of a mindset where more information will supposedly change behavior. But this behavior that she decries is not a result of too little information. If there’s one thing the students know, it’s how to know one another.

Of the 2922 students who responded, 69 per cent said they were sexually active. The average age they lost their virginity was 17.

One in five said they had three or more sexual partners in the past year and almost one-third said they had been drinking the last time they had sex.

And what message does the student welfare vice-president, Rory McCourt, have to say to this eminently useless waste of a college education. Not much, besides the normal platitudes that one would expect from a college administrator. Rory’s solution is one that would make every educator proud. He and his ilk have tried their best to make sure that “messages on safe sex and drinking responsibly were circulated around campus.”

So yeah, the adults are particularly clueless about the whole sexual education business. Rory tells us that “There’s literally thousands of stories out there about it. It’s something that we have to tackle.”

So, they have to tackle the problem of unsafe sex by making sure the thousands of stories that are already out there will somehow become more noticeable. What’s that definition of insanity again? Oh, yeah, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

I know what you’re thinking. The solution is easy. Say it with me: more condoms!

Ms Edmond said there had not been a major public campaign on condoms or contraception for many years. ‘We obviously have some sexual education happening in schools, though that’s a bit haphazard and inconsistent. As a country, New Zealand doesn’t have an up-to-date sexual and reproductive health strategy, and that’s something we’d like to see.’

Yeah, that’s the reason. Students don’t know enough about sex and how to stop pregnancies. Sure. Unfortunately there’s that annoying fact that the students do indeed know how to stop unplanned pregnancies:

The study found one in 20 students had, or had contributed to, at least one unintended pregnancy.

Of those pregnancies, 74 per cent of women and 72 per cent of men reported that it was aborted, while a further 19 per cent of men did not know the outcome.

What about that mysterious 19 per cent? Well, unless the girl moved away, or she was placed in an underground dungeon, and the guy never saw her again, we can guess the outcome … adoption, right?

So actually, the students know all about birth control, and how to get rid of a pregnancy.

Now, given that this might be classified as bad behavior, perhaps the students realize what’s happening and will try to end these coital escapades. Not likely.

“No-one has sex unless they’re drunk,” said Stella Blake-Kelly, 21.

“The university can ply them with as many brochures about sexual health as they want – drinking the way that young people do, a lot of your common sense just goes out the window,” Ms Blake-Kelly said.

Harry Evans, 20, agreed. “I know very few people who haven’t had a dumb, alcohol-fuelled sexual experience.”

Molly McCarthy, 21, said students were more likely to have unprotected sex when they were “wasted”.

“When else do you think it’s appropriate to go home with someone you’ve just met?”

First-year students living in halls of residence were particularly likely to take risks, she said.

“You’re in such close confines. You’ve gone out drinking together, you come home together – all the ingredients are there.”

And there we are. The students know what’s going. We see what’s going. Our educators are dim-witted enablers. And the behavior goes on.

Seeing that these casual encounters are taking place, what effect are they likely to have on adult relationships? Or put another way, what’s going to happen to all these students as they search and try to maintain adult relationships?

A US study “found those who waited to have sex were happier in the long-run.”

“Women particularly benefited from not leaping into bed at the first opportunity. Marriage also seemed to make them happier than co-habiting.”

The researchers note that:

“Courtship is a time for exploration and decision-making about the relationship, when partners assess compatibility, make commitments and build on emotional and physical intimacy.”

“The rapid entry into sexual relationships may, however, cut short this process, setting the stage for “sliding” rather than “deciding” to enter co-habiting unions.”

“Around a third of the men and women said they’d had sex within the first month of dating, while about 28 per cent waited at least six months, the Journal of Marriage and Family reported.”

“Analysis of the data clearly showed the women who had waited to have sex to be happier. And those who waited at least six months scored more highly in every category measured than those who got intimate within the first month. Even their sex lives were better.”

“The link was weaker for men. However, those who waited to get physically involved had fewer rows.

The researchers said couples may benefit from taking things slowly.

‘A strong sexual desire may thwart the development of other key ingredients of a healthy relationship such as commitment, mutual understanding or shared values,’ the report said. ‘Good sex is sometimes confused with love; some couples overlook problematic aspects of their relationship that ultimately matter more in the long run.’”

So we see the end result of the risky student behavior. The students are setting themselves up for long term relationship pain and failure. And this goes along with what we know about biological bonding – the more sexual partners you have, the more difficult it is for you (especially the woman) to bond with your mate. In practical terms, studies have shown that the more sexual partners you have the more likely you are to divorce.

So our bright students are doing the exact things that will set themselves up for future relationship failures.

I work with my church’s youth group quite often, and I’ve always dreamed of giving a Sunday school lesson titled: “Your worst life now and forever: how to fail at life”. Joel Osteen might not preach it, since it wouldn’t sell well, but it would make for a good talk.

First step: sleep with random people, when you’re young, while you are drunk, so that your conscience and biology will be dulled and you’ll be more likely to have casual encounters as you get older.

Further steps would include: don’t use birth control, abort your pregnancies (to ensure an increased risk of breast cancer and moral guilt and anguish), have children out of wedlock, and divorce your mate.

It’s a perfect plan – for disaster. And it’s one that students have already mastered.