sex after marriage

[curling]

Apart from any statements based on faith, numerous studies show that couples that live together before getting married are more likely to get divorced than those that do not (a cut and paste is inculded below of a recent CDC study). Other studies show that the children of people who live together before marraige do more poorly in school and domestic violence is higher among couples who live together before marraige.

Good point. I have heard before but forgot. I wonder what I.B. has to say about this statistic?

 

[slickdadd]

that sounds like a pretty ridiculous correlation.

 

[Lift Chief]

As they say... correlation is not necessarily causation...

It's a common mistake.



Write that down.

 

[velvett]

This article represents less than 20,000 people.


To gain perspective on how this does not respresent enough people to come to any kind of judgement or statistic - NYC has 8 MILLION people living on the island.


8,000,000 vs. 20,000


um yah.

Friday, July 21, 2000 Arizona Republic article by Mike McCloy:

“Maricopa County officials may soon confront an issue that is fiscally minor but politically dynamite: extending employee benefits to unmarried partners of county workers.

“The county’s Human Resources Department is drafting a proposal for providing health-care and other coverage to [cohabiting] employees’ heterosexual and homosexual companions…”

PROVIDING UNMARRIED PARTNER BENEFITS
TO COHABITING COUPLES IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY BECAUSE OF:

*INCREASED RATE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE*

*INCREASED RATE OF DIVORCE IN SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE*

*POORER PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH*

*ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES TO CHILDREN*

*INCREASED ALCHOHOL PROBLEMS*

Increased Rate of Domestic Violence
A study using a nationally representative sample of 6,000 households found that cohabiting couples were 180% more likely to engage in physical aggression toward each other compared to married couples.

A study using a nationally representative sample of more than 2000 19 to 49-year-old adults found that partners in cohabiting unions have more disagreements, fight more often and report lower levels of happiness than their married counterparts.

Cohabiting couples are 180% more likely than married couples to report episodes of hitting, shoving and throwing things, even after controlling for income, race, education and age.

Increased Rate of Divorce in Subsequent Marriage
In a study of 3,300 cases, cohabiting couples who subsequently married had a 46% higher divorce rate when compared to couples who did not cohabitate prior to marriage.

In a longitudinal study of cohabiting couples, it was found that [1] cohabitation increased acceptance of divorce and [2] the longer the existence of the cohabiting relationship, the less enthusiastic the couple was toward marriage and childbearing.

Couples who cohabit before marriage are 90% more likely to divorce within ten years than couples who did not cohabit.

In a study of the experience of cohabitation with 18 to 23-year-old adults, it was found that cohabitation changes young adult attitudes toward marriage and divorce in ways that make them more prone to divorce.

Poorer Psychological Health
Cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness and sexual satisfaction as well as poorer relationships withtheir parents.

Cohabiting couples are 300% more likely to suffer from depression than married couples.

Adverse Consequences
Children born to cohabiting parents are 125% more likely to see their parents breakup before they reach age 16 when compared to children born to married parents.

Children living with a mother and a cohabiting partner have significantly more behavior problems and lower academic performance than children living in intact families do.

A study in Great Britain found that rates of child abuse for children living with married biological parents were phenomenally lower when compared to other child household living arrangements.

Increased Alcohol Problems
In seven-year study involving 1200 unmarried adults aged 18 to 24 years, researchers found that participants who chose to cohabitate during the seven-year study had significantly more alcohol problems than participants who chose to marry. Neither premarital levels of alcohol problems among cohabitors nor other demographic characteristics could explain the greater number of alcohol Problems (cont.) problems among cohabitors. The researchers concluded that there is something peculiar about the status of cohabitation, rather than the characteristics of cohabitors, that causes a significantly higher rate of alcohol problems.


ENDNOTES

Stets, “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, volume 53, August 1991, pages 669-680.

Brown and Booth, “Cohabitation Versus Marriage: A Comparison of Relationship Quality”, Journal of Marriage and Family, volume 58, August 1996, pages 668-678.

Whitehead, quoting sociologist Linda Waite, “How We Mate”, City Journal, Summer 1999, pages 38-49.

DeMaris, Alfred and Rao, “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability in the United States: A Reassessment”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, volume 54, 1992, pages 178-190.

Axinn and Barber, “Living Arrangements and family Formation Attitudes in Early Adulthood”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, volume 59, 1997, pages 595-611.

Bumpass and Sweet, “ National Estimates of Cohabitation: Cohort levels and Union Stability”, Demography, 26, 1989, page 621. See also Balakrishnan, Rao, Lapierre-Adamcyk and Krotki, “A Hazard Model Analysis of the Covariates of Marriage Dissolution in Canada, Demography, volume 24, 1987, pages 395-406.

Waite and Joyner, “Men’s and Women’s General Happiness and sexual Satisfaction in Marriage, Cohabitation and Single Living”, unpublished manuscript – Population Research Venter, University of Chicago, 1996. See also Amato and Booth, “A Generation at Risk”, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, Press 1997, Table 4-2, pages 258.

Robins, Lee and Reiger, “Psychiatric Disorders in America”, New York Free Press, 1990, page 72.

Whitehead, “How We Mate”, City Journal, 1999, pages 38-49.

Thompson, Hanson, McLanahan, “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources versus Parental Behavior”, Social Forces, volume 73, 1994, pages 221-242.

Whelan, “Broken Homes and Battered Children: A study of the Relationship Between Child Abuse and Family Type”, London, England, Family Education Trust, 1993, Table 12, pages 29.

Horwits and White, “The Relationship of Cohabitation and Mental Health: A Study of a Young Adult Cohort”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, volume 60, 1998, pages 505-514

 

[Generic MALE]

Correlation is not causation, but keep in mind when several studies show strong correlation one can essentially assume causation. These findings are shown in several studies and I believe not one study has shown anything different to dispute the findings.

Many are slow to assume causation when there is correlation - In the 1950's the National Cancer Institute said "if there is a correlation between smoking and cancer it is a small one". As well Dr. Ian G. MacDonald stated in 1964 "for the majority of individuals smoking has a beneficial effect". In 1941 in the journal called Hygea (then the official publication of the American Medical Association) wrote "Exercise is harmful and can lead to invalidism and eventually death. Even the game of golf can be too strenuous. If you must indulge in golf, be sure to break for a smoke and a drink between nines". Also in the 1940's Jack LaLanne opened his first gym/health spa - based on the idea that nutrition and exercise were the keys to good health - he waqs rediculed by the medical community as a health nut.

Its easy to ignore findings especially when it is ones selfish interest to do so - as in the case of National Cancer Institute who may have been bribed in various ways to ignore the reality of cancer and cigarettes, and for individuals when shacking up equals lots of available nut busting. The best evidence we have indicates shacking up, "taking the car for a test drive" - typically ends in more pain and frustration.

And many confuse taking the car for a test drive with stealing the car from the parking lot, driving like a bat out of hell to Mexico and then leaving it abandoned on the side of the road. Auto dealers don't let you test drive the sunnovabitch for 3 years. You get a half an hour. If you can't determine if it is the car for you after doing some reading, some comparison and a reasonable test drive either you are unobservant or just simply out for a joy ride.

Auto dealers know better than to let you just go on a long joy ride. But girls (and guys who often end up burned) don't know any better - or perhaps willingly ignore the warning signs. You don't have to screw a girl 200 times to know if you are going to like sex with her. You do have to get to know them, but their passion can be obvious way before you are dicking them.

But it is pleasurable to simply steal the car for a test drive, not really take care of it or change the oil, knowing you can abandon it by the side of the road when you are good and ready or when it starts to show signs of trouble. It takes more strength to commit to taking care of the car and being fully responsible for its maintenance.

Putting your name on the line of the contract takes guts.

Hopefully getting married/involved in a long term relationship/having sex with the subsequent possibility of bringing children into the world (even if unintentionally), is more important to us than buying a car. If one would not expect to take a car that does not belong to them out and drive the hell out of it and fuck it up and abandon it, then hopefully they would be even more considerate and careful with a human being and their own lives.

 

[Generic MALE]

This article represents less than 20,000 people.


To gain perspective on how this does not respresent enough people to come to any kind of judgement or statistic - NYC has 8 MILLION people living on the island.


8,000,000 vs. 20,000


um yah.

In terms of scientific studies this is just being rediculous. A study of 15,000 people is concsidered a very large study. People here and on other boards post the results of studies concerning anabolics that might involve a couple of hundred people, then base their AS cycle on those results. A study of 600 is a large study, and the results are considered very statistically significant.

When a new drug is released to the general public, it is called phase IV research - it is still being studied te first year and is part of the ongoing research. Only then is the study being done on a group as large as 10,000 people.

15,000 people is a huge study and the results are highly significant for a uniform population - such as the USA - and can be generalized to the entire group.

 

[dusty2]

ok who here is married? who isn't?

 

[velvett]

First off - I'm not trying to insult you personally.

Secondly I'm merely offering my opinion that a study - any study - of 600-15,000 would not personally sway my decision to do or like anything.


Take for example Nielsen ratings for television - they only use 5000 households to create a rating - would you use this as a guide for showslet's say to let your children watch or choose your evening entertainment?

People can do what they want and will base their actions in life on whatever criteria they feel is valid.

For me 15,000 means nothing - but if I really want to try something I will and come to my own conclusion, whether it's a computer hard drive, trial prescription drug, a relationship or a marriage.

In terms of scientific studies this is just being rediculous. A study of 15,000 people is concsidered a very large study. People here and on other boards post the results of studies concerning anabolics that might involve a couple of hundred people, then base their AS cycle on those results. A study of 600 is a large study, and the results are considered very statistically significant.

When a new drug is released to the general public, it is called phase IV research - it is still being studied te first year and is part of the ongoing research. Only then is the study being done on a group as large as 10,000 people.

15,000 people is a huge study and the results are highly significant for a uniform population - such as the USA - and can be generalized to the entire group.

 

[Lift Chief]

In terms of scientific studies this is just being rediculous. A study of 15,000 people is concsidered a very large study. People here and on other boards post the results of studies concerning anabolics that might involve a couple of hundred people, then base their AS cycle on those results. A study of 600 is a large study, and the results are considered very statistically significant.

When a new drug is released to the general public, it is called phase IV research - it is still being studied te first year and is part of the ongoing research. Only then is the study being done on a group as large as 10,000 people.

15,000 people is a huge study and the results are highly significant for a uniform population - such as the USA - and can be generalized to the entire group.

For that smoking example you gave up above there are probably 10 other examples where correlation was assumed to be causation... and that was incorrect. This is much more common than the reverse.

What if those couples that tend to live together before marraige tend to be say less independant, and it is actually the lack of independance that is the cause of the higher divorce rate, not the fact they lived together before getting married.

So the living together is a common trait of people who have this personality trait that makes divorce more likely. This is just an example, but you get the idea.

Something like smoking and cancer is a very linear relationship; a relationship that was not understood 50 years ago because they did not have the scientific know how to understand what happens in the body when a cigarette is smoked.

The relationships people have with one another and the reasons for divorce are so varied that it would be absurd to assume a linear correlation as would be reasonable in your example of smoking. It is not a cut and dry cause and effect scenario we are dealing with: the cancer can be traced back to the cancer causing agents in cigarettes.

I can guarantee you that divorce could not be attributed back to living in the same house before marraige. It's just not that simple. Again, it's a mistake to assume correlation is causation.

 

[I.B. Orpheus.]

Originally posted by Generic MALE
Apart from any statements based on faith, numerous studies show that couples that live together before getting married are more likely to get divorced than those that do not (a cut and paste is inculded below of a recent CDC study). Other studies show that the children of people who live together before marraige do more poorly in school and domestic violence is higher among couples who live together before marraige.

Good point. I have heard before but forgot. I wonder what I.B. has to say about this statistic?

Ok here is what I have to say about that. I haven't had the chance to read all 100,000 words of the research you guys posted, but I read a similar statistic that said::::
people who live together before getting married about 42% likely to stay together for over 10years as opposed to 53 or 55% of people who wait until they get married to live together, meaning that out of 100 couples who live together before they get married only 42 of them stay together past the 10year mark after marrige, and people who wait until they get married about 55 of them make it past the 10year mark.
My take on this study is that......
the study took into acount the time people where together after they go married and not the time before......... Lets say that if it takes you 11 years to grow appart from your mate, what ever the reason, you guys stay together for 11 years and just grow appart and separate after 11 years...... if you got married 4 years after living together then... you hit your 11 year mark at your 7th year of marrige, while a couple that gets married first hits their 11 year mark at their 11 years of marriage. it is simple math.

about the kids of non-married parents doing poorly in school and such, ::::: the reason why there are fukedup people in this world is because there are fukedup people having kids, and you are never going to stop that from happening, most women whom have 3 kids by different dads are usualy no getting married with every one of those kids dads, the kids suffer either way, fukedup trailor park people whom live in "free union" are usualy this way because they rotate mates all the time and can't afford to buy a differet 7k wedding band at the flea market every month, these people make up a large part of the statistics that serve the propaganda of the "Big Church" (like Big Tobacco).
If i could load and Uzzy with bullets tipped with RU486 I'd do a drive by from here to Alabama making sure to stop in West Virginia on the way.

My post about becoming sexualy confortable before marriage where ment for sane/stable/mature people not for every "Cleatis the Yuk Tooth Yokel" outhere, If I had it my way I would pay to give every wiskered face trailor park trash a vasectomy.