Abstinence PSA

[HazyRigby]

Teaching a child that remaining abstinent before marriage can bring you a much more intimate relationship with your spouse so that your child and their spouse can start their relationship off on a good, pure foundation is extremely important.

But that's not true for everyone. You can't just make a blanket statement that "intimacy" is stronger if you're both virgins. That wasn't true for me at all.

And as to the person who asked about true sexual differences—I've been that way with someone. Let's just say that his anatomy and mine didn't match, and had I married him before I'd had sex with him, I would have been in for fifty years of nightmarish pain. I'm awfully glad that didn't happen and certainly feel no ill effects from having had premarital sex.

 

[The Bellman]

Teaching a child that remaining abstinent before marriage can bring you a much more intimate relationship with your spouse so that your child and their spouse can start their relationship off on a good, pure foundation is extremely important.

No, it's not important at all. It's not even true. It might have been true for you and your spouse, but that doesn't mean it's true for everyone, and it doesn't mean it'll be true for your children.

Maybe if people learned to wait there'd be less divorce.

Yeah, because those conservative Christians (the group most likely to 'wait') have such a low divorce rate.

 

[chaz345]

From the CDC study that I found it appears that age, race, and income level have more of an effect on divorce rates than cohabitation.

I've said this recently to someone, and I think it may have been you, but the fact that there are other things that have a greater effect does not mean that something(in this case) co-habitation, doesn't have a significant effect, does it?

 

[chaz345]

Thats funny because there IS no real research

You honestly believe that a professor at a major university who is a Fulbright scholar would draw conclusions based on no real research? That is of course something that you are free to do but if I'm going to take your position seriously, I'd be interested in your credentials.

The study that I linked here:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00....0.CO;2-K&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

cites the names of the researchers and the year of the study for several studies that concluded that marriages that started with cohabitation are less stable than those that did not. Are all of those studies not real?

 

[Steezie]

You honestly believe that a professor at a major university who is a Fulbright scholar would draw conclusions based on no real research? That is of course something that you are free to do but if I'm going to take your position seriously, I'd be interested in your credentials.

The study that I linked here:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2445%28199305%2955%3A2%3C399%3APCAMIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

cites the names of the researchers and the year of the study for several studies that concluded that marriages that started with cohabitation are less stable than those that did not. Are all of those studies not real?

I dont know why you cited that study. The abstract itself says "This study examines whether the greater instability of marriages begun by premarital cohabitation can be accounted for by cohabitors' greater unconventionality in family ideology. The hypothesis was largely unsupported" The point of the study wasnt to see if cohabitation was the cause of an un-stable marraige, but to see if ideological clashes were the cause of un-stable marraiges after cohabitation. They went in with a preconception and that rules it out as an un-biased study

And simply because someone has a degree and is a Fulbright does not make them immune from fibbing or using bad research to prove a point.

 

[chaz345]

I dont know why you cited that study. The abstract itself says "This study examines whether the greater instability of marriages begun by premarital cohabitation can be accounted for by cohabitors' greater unconventionality in family ideology. The hypothesis was largely unsupported" The point of the study wasnt to see if cohabitation was the cause of an un-stable marraige, but to see if ideological clashes were the cause of un-stable marraiges after cohabitation. They went in with a preconception and that rules it out as an un-biased study

And simply because someone has a degree and is a Fulbright does not make them immune from fibbing or using bad research to prove a point.

I cited that study because it cites several studies that concluded that those that cohabit have a higher rate of divorce.

You can call it a pre-conception and bias if you want to. But if you actually took the time to understand what was on that page you'd see that they were taking the conclusions from research that was already done. It is that previously done research that supports my assertion,not the study I linked to. So the fact that the study I linked to starts with a conclusion is irrelevant becuase it is not that study that I'm saying supports my assertion. If the research is good enough for other researchers to cite, then in most cases it's going to be good enough for me. It is certanly going to be enough for me to not say that it doesn't exist.


For clarity, the study that I linked doesn't support my initial assertion and I never meant to imply that it did. It does however cite several studies that do support my initial assertion. Research you seem intent on claiming doesn't exist. That someone's else's conclusions are used as the starting point of further research isn't bias. It is simply a demonstration that the researchers doing the new study(on a point that is entirely beside my assertion) see the conclusions as valid.

I realize that a degree and a Fulbright doesn't make someone immune to bias. However it most certainly does mean that suggestions of bias need to be more substantial than " I don't think so" or "that conclusion doesn't make logical sense to me who has no research background at all". Your conclusion of bias is founded on nothing other than the fact that the conclusion is one that you don't agree with and that doesn't make sense to you. Again, unless you've got some comparable credentials, that just doesn't cut it.