4 ms·

Anecdotally, I have seen some disaster marriages and it explains how divorces can happen: >Pregnant shotgun weddings >Knew the person for a few months, moved

Anecdotally, I have seen some disaster marriages and it explains how divorces can happen: >Pregnant shotgun weddings >Knew the person for a few months, moved to stay with them in another state, married and pregnant within 1 year. >Military marriages I imagine these were worse in previous generations. Sex outside of marriage more taboo. I think culturally its become more taboo to get married just to have sex than to live together before marriage.

make3 8y ago
getting married just to have sex is really a brain dead thing to do. Too much risk of horniness affecting the decision instead of it being just about knowing you found someone you expect to be able to spend your life with happily and without drama
- wincy 8y ago
  Yeah since you’re far less likely to get divorced if you’ve never had sex before marriage. Everyone before 1960 was just a complete brain dead idiot and we can learn absolutely nothing at all from our idiot ancestors.
  - make3 8y ago
    Source please on your claim that no sex before marriage leads to longer lasting marriages. That sounds like the kind of thing conservatives would make up without data to back themselves up. Also, even if it were true, longer lasting mariage doesn't mean happy marriage Also I'm talking about nowadays, where people can have sex before marriage without having to become outcasts in their community or risk pregnancy (with protection. there is ofc still a risk, but it's much lower) Getting married just to have sex when you could just have sex and then pick a partner when you really know them & not because you are horny seems like a wiser thing to do
    - gooseifer 8y ago
      Not the original poster, but I've seen it cited before. https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/ https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-li... Which uses data from the CDC NSFG. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_cycle6.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_cycle6.htm
      - make3 8y ago
        yeah, this is possibly mostly a correlation with people being in religious groups were marriage is very frowned upon. you would expect that if sex before marriage is frowned upon, divorce is too
    - ummonk 8y ago
      It's true. You can run the numbers on data from e.g. the NSFG. It's probably not causation but just a sign of religiosity (and hence unwillingness to divorce), though.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Sex before marriage was pretty common before. It just got covered up. There were a whole lot of extremely “premature” babies being somehow born at a healthy weight, but this only ever happened with a couple’s first child. These days, pretty much the only people who never have sex before marriage are religious extremists. Those people also tend to believe that you can be tortured for eternity if you get a divorce, which probably reduces the incidence somewhat.
    - mkaziz 8y ago
      > These days, pretty much the only people who never have sex before marriage are religious extremists That's an incredibly ignorant and inflammatory thing to say.
      - monocasa 8y ago
        Nah, it's pretty much true, as someone from the bible belt even. Hell, it was always true. The point of a diamond on the engagement ring was because it was assumed that you had kicked the tires on that part of the relationship, and the engagement fell through, then that woman had something she could sell as a nest egg for her new life as a forever alone spinster, being the 'broken woman' that she was.
        taeric 8y ago
        I think this is assuming diamonds are a long held tradition. Pretty sure that is a rather heavy fabrication.
        monocasa 8y ago
        Well, all traditions are heavy fabrications. As far as diamond engagement rings are concerned, it's about a century old tradition at this point, so four or five generations. That's a pretty long time for the purposes of this discussion. And this comes form someone who didn't get their fiancée a diamond ring for various reasons.
  - taeric 8y ago
    There are a ton of implications here that I don't buy. I could just as easily claim you are far less likely to get divorced if you aren't really given the option. Socioeconomic dependence being what it is. By all means, though, keep your ideological superiority.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    The only stats similar to this that I've seen was based on number of partners before marriage other than the one you married, in which case 0 had the lowest divorce rate. Waiting for marriage with the person you married was not measured nor reflected in the stats.

make3 8y ago

getting married just to have sex is really a brain dead thing to do. Too much risk of horniness affecting the decision instead of it being just about knowing you found someone you expect to be able to spend your life with happily and without drama

wincy 8y ago
Yeah since you’re far less likely to get divorced if you’ve never had sex before marriage. Everyone before 1960 was just a complete brain dead idiot and we can learn absolutely nothing at all from our idiot ancestors.
- make3 8y ago
  Source please on your claim that no sex before marriage leads to longer lasting marriages. That sounds like the kind of thing conservatives would make up without data to back themselves up. Also, even if it were true, longer lasting mariage doesn't mean happy marriage Also I'm talking about nowadays, where people can have sex before marriage without having to become outcasts in their community or risk pregnancy (with protection. there is ofc still a risk, but it's much lower) Getting married just to have sex when you could just have sex and then pick a partner when you really know them & not because you are horny seems like a wiser thing to do
  - gooseifer 8y ago
    Not the original poster, but I've seen it cited before. https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/ https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-li... Which uses data from the CDC NSFG. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_cycle6.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_cycle6.htm
    - make3 8y ago
      yeah, this is possibly mostly a correlation with people being in religious groups were marriage is very frowned upon. you would expect that if sex before marriage is frowned upon, divorce is too
  - ummonk 8y ago
    It's true. You can run the numbers on data from e.g. the NSFG. It's probably not causation but just a sign of religiosity (and hence unwillingness to divorce), though.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Sex before marriage was pretty common before. It just got covered up. There were a whole lot of extremely “premature” babies being somehow born at a healthy weight, but this only ever happened with a couple’s first child. These days, pretty much the only people who never have sex before marriage are religious extremists. Those people also tend to believe that you can be tortured for eternity if you get a divorce, which probably reduces the incidence somewhat.
  - mkaziz 8y ago
    > These days, pretty much the only people who never have sex before marriage are religious extremists That's an incredibly ignorant and inflammatory thing to say.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      Nah, it's pretty much true, as someone from the bible belt even. Hell, it was always true. The point of a diamond on the engagement ring was because it was assumed that you had kicked the tires on that part of the relationship, and the engagement fell through, then that woman had something she could sell as a nest egg for her new life as a forever alone spinster, being the 'broken woman' that she was.
      - taeric 8y ago
        I think this is assuming diamonds are a long held tradition. Pretty sure that is a rather heavy fabrication.
        monocasa 8y ago
        Well, all traditions are heavy fabrications. As far as diamond engagement rings are concerned, it's about a century old tradition at this point, so four or five generations. That's a pretty long time for the purposes of this discussion. And this comes form someone who didn't get their fiancée a diamond ring for various reasons.
- taeric 8y ago
  There are a ton of implications here that I don't buy. I could just as easily claim you are far less likely to get divorced if you aren't really given the option. Socioeconomic dependence being what it is. By all means, though, keep your ideological superiority.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  The only stats similar to this that I've seen was based on number of partners before marriage other than the one you married, in which case 0 had the lowest divorce rate. Waiting for marriage with the person you married was not measured nor reflected in the stats.