Girlfriend has had sex with 12 guys before me

[usernamedox11]

No problem, I'm the OP of this thread and at first I was furious about this stuff, but reading how those women reacted to their sexual partners has lead me to believe that partner count is a double standard and yes I know women should respect themselves but at the end of the day we are humans and we all like to have fun and it's funny how so many guys highly exaggerate their numbers and some women lower their numbers, this is a new era in which women are not ashamed no more and feel more empowered embracing their number of partners just like how males do

That is some hippie BS right there

 

[usernamedox11]

thanks for posting that, this blows applegoo's and danger's theory of low number of partners out of the water.

It's not a theory. I never hypothesized that. I instead saw multiple studies finding that a higher sexual partner count = higher divorce rate and will hold that view until there is something out there that proves the studies/surveys were faulty or if there are new studies with counter conclusions.

BTW, that thread doesn't do anything to refute or strengthen those studies I cited. For example, even if they all did say they were virgins, it wouldn't do anything to strengthen the studies I cited. The amount of girls that are virgins or not virgins has nothing to do with the findings of the studies that have been linked. What you are doing is called a non sequitur.

If you are saying there are girls in that thread who have had multiple partners before marriage but are still married, that still does nothing to refute the findings. In the larger picture, it's like someone saying all studies on cigarettes are BS because their smoker dad never got cancer. In the more specific context of the studies, they didn't say every girl who had more than 1 partner prior to marriage would get divorced 100% of the time. It just found they had a higher likelihood to be divorced as partner count rose.

You've done ZERO to actually refute any of those studies other than talk about a whole different area of marriage (overall divorce rate). If you want to refute the studies, you would have to find studies that have differing conclusions as far as partner count being correlated to divorce.

 

[paradox/paradine]

That is some hippie BS right there

Call it what you may, it does sound absurd I admit with me posting this thread then being all like oh now I'm over it, the fact I've been with this girl quite a while and yes I'm young but with the help of all your responses and with that all women forum post, it has better helped understand and ease my worries, needless to say I'm over it, believe me or don't anyway I acknowledge your response and bid you a good day and I guess this is what is meant by growing up and maturing, Thank you for your input also,I tip my hat to you my good sir

 

[VikingKing]

http://www.womenonlyforums.com/showthread.php/5737-How-many-guys-you-ve-had-sex-with

An all woman forum, check that out guys

"allninja1991, I plan to remain celibate by not being close to any guy. I just don't think boys are worth all the drama & trouble."

Leave it to the Indian women to be a virgin.

 

[Bossman90]

Deal with it or don't, no need for a non-indented page worth of information for this.

no need for the information in general. op you need to evaluate where you stand morally in regards to this situation, if you kind of see her as a ***** and are not found of chicks like this, then simply don't deal with her. Ive told girls to **** off, for stuff like this. Get your skills up and develop the mentality by becoming more successful that you can replace the girl, no harm no foul.

 

[VikingKing]

Look at it this way OP. She is young, and fvcked A LOT of dudes for her age. Personally I wouldn't have a serious relationship with her.

There are women out there that have not been fvcked mercilessly by so many cawks.

I personally think women who are slvts shouldnt be rewarded with commitment.

This obviously bothers you enough to come on here and post about it, so go find one (or more than one) who has the same level of experience as you do. That will make you more comfortable I think.

 

[VikingKing]

But on a side note, i'm going to troll the sh!t out of this site tomorrow.http://www.womenonlyforums.com/showthread.php/7623-help-my-boyfriend-likes-anal lol dafuq. "Re: help my boyfriend likes anal....
Y do you feel it is disguisting The male don't (your hubby) ---> I think a ream job (licking of ones anus) is a little Disguisting but I love it when someone does it to me <---> at 18 and he is around 20 just guessing , The young males like to push it into your anal opening and start to pump right away wrong move got to push it in slow and do not pump for sometime ."

 

[paradox/paradine]

Look at it this way OP. She is young, and fvcked A LOT of dudes for her age. Personally I wouldn't have a serious relationship with her.

There are women out there that have not been fvcked mercilessly by so many cawks.

I personally think women who are slvts shouldnt be rewarded with commitment.

This obviously bothers you enough to come on here and post about it, so go find one (or more than one) who has the same level of experience as you do. That will make you more comfortable I think.

Thank you for your insight but as aforementioned it did bother the **** out of me but it doesn't anymore, I guess I had some mental realization thing that happened upon the time I posted this thread and now but regardless of that I'm more comfortable with it now and in no means of bringing her down because of the number of guys she has slept with, if you read my entire post I admitted to being promiscuous and 0% faithful in my previous relationships and this is my first I've taken serious but once again thank you for your opinion

 

[asa_don]

It is a strawman because for starters it doesn't address whatsoever the point that higher partner counts equates to higher divorces.

the higher partner count is just a fallacy that you people won't let go of. ALL women today have a higher partner count than women did before, not ALL of them are getting divorced, most people that get divorced get remarried so what does it matter? you're not a marrying man, why do you care?

the op potsed a link to a woman's forum, every woman who had sex had multiple partners, the majority were in double digits, are all of them going to get divorced?

what's your "magic number" of a high number partner count? what number is high to you?

Which of course, Dalrock handily refutes, by using the Government's data right here.


The census data is right here. If you look you can see from age 40-59 has a 40%+ divorce rate. Not 50, but close enough. In any case, that still isn't the original argument that partner counts have a high correlation to divorce.

close but no cigar huh? lol. 40% is not even close to 53% the last time i checked, a 13% difference is a million miles away, do you know how many millions of people difference that is? 53% to 40% would be the ultimate landslide in an election counting for millions of people difference. thats why those numbers are crap.

ALL women are having higher partner counts, not ALL of them are getting divorced, when they get divorced they get remarried, then those stats go out the window. go read that woman's forum to see their partner counts if dont want to believe its a normal thing to have higher numbers.

Yes attacking the person. Not me, but Dalrock and his logic. You are using a logical fallacy by attacking HIM instead of his arguments. You do it again in this latest post. Hopefully your next one will come at the figures instead.

i think he's full of sh!t, that's not an attack on him but his faulty argument that you believe, all he's doing is presenting biased information to the far right evangelical christians so they have an "issue", if you want to believe in his faulty logic and skewed numbers be my guest, you're just going to be wrong when he's telling you the wrong thing.

he's full of sh!t because he can't come up with the true accurate numbers to present his argument because of this, he just goes with what sounds good to get gullible people to believe so he can gain status.


Thus, the divorce rate is misleading for a number of reasons. Not all states report divorce statistics. The divorce count is based on the total population, not the total married population. Using per capita at today's population distorts the comparison of current marriages because divorces that happen today arose from a smaller population yesterday.

 

[usernamedox11]

the higher partner count is just a fallacy that you people won't let go of. ALL women today have a higher partner count than women did before, not ALL of them are getting divorced, most people that get divorced get remarried so what does it matter? you're not a marrying man, why do you care?

the op potsed a link to a woman's forum, every woman who had sex had multiple partners, the majority were in double digits, are all of them going to get divorced?

what's your "magic number" of a high number partner count? what number is high to you?



close but no cigar huh? lol. 40% is not even close to 53% the last time i checked, a 13% difference is a million miles away, do you know how many millions of people difference that is? 53% to 40% would be the ultimate landslide in an election counting for millions of people difference. thats why those numbers are crap.

ALL women are having higher partner counts, not ALL of them are getting divorced, when they get divorced they get remarried, then those stats go out the window. go read that woman's forum to see their partner counts if dont want to believe its a normal thing to have higher numbers.




i think he's full of sh!t, that's not an attack on him but his faulty argument that you believe, all he's doing is presenting biased information to the far right evangelical christians so they have an "issue", if you want to believe in his faulty logic and skewed numbers be my guest, you're just going to be wrong when he's telling you the wrong thing.

he's full of sh!t because he can't come up with the true accurate numbers to present his argument because of this, he just goes with what sounds good to get gullible people to believe so he can gain status.


Thus, the divorce rate is misleading for a number of reasons. Not all states report divorce statistics. The divorce count is based on the total population, not the total married population. Using per capita at today's population distorts the comparison of current marriages because divorces that happen today arose from a smaller population yesterday.

You're too concerned with trying to be right instead of just acknowledging people with higher sexual partner count tend to get divorced more so than virgins

Not everyone who has a sexual partner count greater than 1 prior to marriage gets divorced, yes. But the studies found that the more partners, the more likely they'll get divorced, not that getting divorced is automatic.

Sexual partner count can say a lot about a person. A guy who only fvcked less than 2 is probably an AFC. A girl who is a virgin till marriage is likely very selective and is waiting for the right one and will try to be more committed in her relationship than a person who has fvcked multiple people and who also doesn't tie sex as strongly to commitment/bonding.

Look at it like this. You marry 22 year old virgin, fvck her on the honey moon right after getting married, and she is gonna be so inexperienced that she will have feelings of you being her soulmate after that, especially considering the marriage. A girl who has fvcked multiple guys, sex won't really make the bond as strong for her as it would a virgin, inexperienced girl living in lala land waiting till marriage.

It's pretty simple. The females waiting until marriage are the ones who value marriage over a sex life. People who value marriage more will do more to make it work.

Data from the National Survey of Family Growth indicate that "women who are sexually active prior to marriage faced considerably higher risk of marital disruption than women who were virgin brides."
These scholars explain that even when controlling for various differentials between virginal and non-virginal groups -- such as socio-economics, family background as well as attitudinal and value differences -- "non-virgins still face a much higher risk of divorce than virgins."

---

This higher prevalence of marital infidelity among the non-virginal is assumed to be an important factor in their higher likelihood of divorce, while "those who are virgins at marriage are those who go to greater lengths to avoid divorce."

---


In a study looking at factors impacting increased marital stability, Brigham Young sociologist Tim Heaton examined how premarital sexual experience, premarital child-bearing, cohabitation and marrying someone of a different religious faith were all associated with greater risk of divorce. Heaton explained, "Dissolution rates are substantially higher among those who initiate sexual activity before marriage." Heaton asserts that divorce is more likely among the sexually active and cohabitors because they have established their life together on "relatively unstable sexual relationships.

---

Seldom do they report not being pressured or forced into sex. Paik also found that females who first had sex in their teens had roughly double the risk of divorce later in life compared to women who had their first unmarried sexual experience in their adult years. He found that teen girls who experienced their first sexual experience with a young man who would eventually be her husband did not have particularly elevated risk of divorce.

For a girl, waiting till marriage takes an extreme amount of fortitude and it speaks to her ability to better use that fortitude to handle the rough spots of marriage in order to make it work. Virginity isn't the cause. It just speaks to the person's general attitude in life. Women who wait till marriage are likely more traditional and would be more likely to consider divorce an extreme bridge they won't wanna cross unless they are absolutely forced to.

A girl who has fvcked 25 guys before marriage? Yeah, she might divorce you just because you aren't "fun" anymore and will just look at you as a "starter husband" in order to justify the divorce.

I tried being respectful, but you are ridiculous. No need for this hippie nonsense that you are spewing.

 

[asa_don]

You're too concerned with trying to be right instead of just acknowledging people with higher sexual partner count tend to get divorced more so than virgins

i am right, that's the point, my sources proved that as well, right if the count is really high then yes a divorce may happen, then again they get remarried so those divorce stats go out the window.

Not everyone who has a sexual partner count greater than 1 prior to marriage gets divorced, yes. But the studies found that the more partners, the more likely they'll get divorced, not that getting divorced is automatic.

you said it was 1 in your pevious post, thats what i disagreed with

Sexual partner count can say a lot about a person. A guy who only fvcked less than 2 is probably an AFC. A girl who is a virgin till marriage is likely very selective and is waiting for the right one and will try to be more committed in her relationship than a person who has fvcked multiple people and who also doesn't tie sex as strongly to commitment/bonding.

very selective or ugly as fvck, those are more assumptions, not everything is an absolute.

Look at it like this. You marry 22 year old virgin, fvck her on the honey moon right after getting married, and she is gonna be so inexperienced that she will have feelings of you being her soulmate after that, especially considering the marriage. A girl who has fvcked multiple guys, sex won't really make the bond as strong for her as it would a virgin, inexperienced girl living in lala land waiting till marriage.

true i agree with that, but MOST women have fvcked multiple guys, not ALL of them are getting divorced, thats the point im making that you and danger refuse to believe.

a 1984 survey concluded that the average number of sexual partners for a woman until marriage was 4, those are still multiple guys, the divorce rate was lower then, women are fvcking more guys than that today, thats why the argument is nonsene.

It's pretty simple. The females waiting until marriage are the ones who value marriage over a sex life. People who value marriage more will do more to make it work.

there's not a lot of females doing that today as there was before, even some of the most religious girls caught feelings and had 1 sexual experience they felt was a mistake.

For a girl, waiting till marriage takes an extreme amount of fortitude and it speaks to her ability to better use that fortitude to handle the rough spots of marriage in order to make it work. Virginity isn't the cause. It just speaks to the person's general attitude in life. Women who wait till marriage are likely more traditional and would be more likely to consider divorce an extreme bridge they won't wanna cross unless they are absolutely forced to.

you can't assume anything my friend, what happens when the husband divorces her? see what i mean? doesn't matter what she was doing, or how she felt.

I tried being respectful, but you are ridiculous. No need for this hippie nonsense that you are spewing.

you just don't want to believe the facts that are presented in front of you, you believe 1 false source that caters to religious evangelicals to sway their opinion of sex being bad

i gave you 10 sources that shows a declining divorce rate, sources that disproves your 53% theory, even danger agrees it isn't 53%, sources that show how the 53% theory is not factual, not to mention the post the op linked to the woman's forum that showed most of them having multiple partners in double digits.

you aren't going to find a bunch hot looking virgins to be your wife someday, if you believe that nonsense you better start believing in santa claus.

 

[usernamedox11]

i am right, that's the point, my sources proved that as well, right if the count is really high then yes a divorce may happen, then again they get remarried so those divorce stats go out the window.



you said it was 1 in your pevious post, thats what i disagreed with

1, according to the studies, is still dramatically less than more than 1.

very selective or ugly as fvck, those are more assumptions, not everything is an absolute.

Ugly b1tches can get laid if they want no problem.

true i agree with that, but MOST women have fvcked multiple guys, not ALL of them are getting divorced, thats the point im making that you and danger refuse to believe.

And where did I say all of them are getting divorced? You're arguing a point I never made.

a 1984 survey concluded that the average number of sexual partners for a woman until marriage was 4, those are still multiple guys, the divorce rate was lower then, women are fvcking more guys than that today, thats why the argument is nonsene.

That doesn't do anything to disprove the correlation. Continuing to talk about the overall divorce rate does nothing to disprove the correlation of more sexual partners = higher likelihood of divorce. Why can't you see that? It's not a logical rebuttal.

there's not a lot of females doing that today as there was before, even some of the most religious girls caught feelings and had 1 sexual experience they felt was a mistake.

They would still be less likely to be divorced at 1 premarital sexual partner vs a girl with 5, but more likely to divorce than a virgin.

you can't assume anything my friend, what happens when the husband divorces her? see what i mean? doesn't matter what she was doing, or how she felt.

Ok, it still doesn't change the fact that if a female, in particular is very committed, they are less likely to divorce. Most divorces are initiated by women.

you just don't want to believe the facts that are presented in front of you, you believe 1 false source that caters to religious evangelicals to sway their opinion of sex being bad

i gave you 10 sources that shows a declining divorce rate, sources that disproves your 53% theory, even danger agrees it isn't 53%, sources that show how the 53% theory is not factual, not to mention the post the op linked to the woman's forum that showed most of them having multiple partners in double digits.

53% or not (it depends what source you want to believe), the MULTIPLE studies (not just one source like you keep saying) still found a correlation.

That is not a proper rebuttal to the studies. In order to properly and logically refute the studies, you would have to find studies that did not find a correlation between partner count and divorce. That is my point. You aren't logically refute the correlation.

This is what this "debate" is like:

I say the sky is blue.

You refute me and say it's not blue because Brittney Spears doesn't shave her armpits.

Arguing the overall divorce rate is not a proper rebuttal to the correlation.

you aren't going to find a bunch hot looking virgins to be your wife someday, if you believe that nonsense you better start believing in santa claus.

Right because I said there were a bunch of hot virgins out there? Stop putting words or associating things to me I never said. Stop the straw man tactics. It's retarded.

 

[asa_don]

1, according to the studies, is still dramatically less than more than 1..

you mean those false studies you believe to be true, in 1984 the average number of partners for a woman was 4, not ALL of them were getting divorced, the average number is higher today, that refutes your more than 1 theory of divorce and lack of bonding when it used to be 4. 4 is still more than 1 right? lol

Ugly b1tches can get laid if they want no problem.

of course they can, but its the homely ones who are mostly the virgins

And where did I say all of them are getting divorced? You're arguing a point I never made.

you said anything over 1 is a divorce risk, the average number of partners for a woman is 4, so according to your false theory of 1 that would mean ALL are getting divorced if you believe in your false theory.

That doesn't do anything to disprove the correlation. Continuing to talk about the overall divorce rate does nothing to disprove the correlation of more sexual partners = higher likelihood of divorce. Why can't you see that? It's not a logical rebuttal.

when more women today are having more partners and the divorce rate is declining like i proved, that makes your theory false and incorrect.

They would still be less likely to be divorced at 1 premarital sexual partner vs a girl with 5, but more likely to divorce than a virgin.

again, you dont know that, you are only assuming that because you believe in the "magic number" of 1

Ok, it still doesn't change the fact that if a female, in particular is very committed, they are less likely to divorce. Most divorces are initiated by women.

not from my experience, all the divorces that i have witnessed it was the man who wanted out more than the woman.

53% or not (it depends what source you want to believe), the MULTIPLE studies (not just one source like you keep saying) still found a correlation.

there is no 53%, that is a bullsh!t stat that has been disproven.

That is not a proper rebuttal to the studies. In order to properly and logically refute the studies, you would have to find studies that did not find a correlation between partner count and divorce. That is my point. You aren't logically refute the correlation.

This is what this "debate" is like:

I say the sky is blue.

You refute me and say it's not blue because Brittney Spears doesn't shave her armpits.

Arguing the overall divorce rate is not a proper rebuttal to the correlation.

i refuted you because your theory you believe in is bullsh!t, if you gave some true stats i would agree with you, you just want to argue your false information that was disproven.

Right because I said there were a bunch of hot virgins out there? Stop putting words or associating things to me I never said. Stop the straw man tactics. It's retarded.

you're the one talking about marrying virgins, you're not going to find a bunch of hot virgins hanging around, the hot girls are going to have multiple partners, that goes over your 1 theory of divorce.

i said if you think you're going to find a bunch of hot virgins you better start believing in santa claus, thats the truth, because that disproves your 1 theory, hot women are going to have more than 1 partner

 

[usernamedox11]

you mean those false studies you believe to be true, in 1984 the average number of partners for a woman was 4, not ALL of them were getting divorced, the average number is higher today, that refutes your more than 1 theory of divorce and lack of bonding when it used to be 4. 4 is still more than 1 right? lol

You've done nothing to prove why they are false.

Did you go to college? I'm not even joking. This is getting frustrating and you are so locked in your head that it is ridiculous.


Let me try and make it perfectly clear for you what the studies found:

Virgins are less likely to get divorced than all other women.

A women with 1 premarital sexual partner is more likely to get divorced than a virgin but less likely than a women with over 1.

None of the studies concluded that all women over 1 partner before marriage get divorced, rather that it is more likely.

If you can't understand that, this is a hopeless case.

you said anything over 1 is a divorce risk, the average number of partners for a woman is 4, so according to your false theory of 1 that would mean ALL are getting divorced if you believe in your false theory.

I am paraphrasing what the studies have found, which you never took the time to read. If you did, you would realize you are being ridiculous, if you don't already realize it and are just doing it to troll.

Any marriage is a divorce risk. None of the studies said that marrying a virgin is bulletproof. Rather that a virgin is less likely to get divorced than a person with one premarital sexual partner. And a person with one premarital sexual partner is less likely to get divorced than two.

That's it. Stop making up stuff to debate.

when more women today are having more partners and the divorce rate is declining like i proved, that makes your theory false and incorrect.

Um, no. That doesn't say anything about the correlation of more partners = more likelihood of divorce. Those with 4 partners, for example, get divorced more than a virgin or a female with one partner according to ACTUAL statistics.

The above CAN STILL HAPPEN EVEN IF THE DIVORCE RATE IS DECLINING. THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPICS.

OVERALL DIVORCE RATE != FACTORS THAT CORRELATE TO AN ACTUAL DIVORCE

Jesus.

not from my experience, all the divorces that i have witnessed it was the man who wanted out more than the woman.

https://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/wo...e-why-do-they-want-to-get-married-567068.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/rela...-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men.html

http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/faq/emotional/who-initiates-divorce-men-or-women.html

there is no 53%, that is a bullsh!t stat that has been disproven.


i refuted you because your theory you believe in is bullsh!t, if you gave some true stats i would agree with you, you just want to argue your false information that was disproven.

No, you didn't refute the STUDIES (NOT THEORY). Instead, you are rambling on about a whole different topic: OVERALL DIVORCE RATE

Seriously, I've met girls more logically coherent than you.

And if you want to refute overall divorce rate just for fun, that government website I linked shows it to be 53%. 6.8 new marriages per 1000 people in 2011 and 3.6 out of 1000 failed...53%, from the government website and linked on wiki. But who gives a sh1t? I'm not talking about the actual divorce rate and I don't give 2 fvcks what it is. Who gives a sh1t if it is 53 or 40?

Oh, you have another one that is 40%? Big fvcking deal. It has nothing to do with those studies.

Danger and I are talking factors that correlate to divorce and you are talking about overall divorce rate...

When I said 53%, I wasn't talking overall divorce rate, genius. Rather, the actual DIVORCE RISK.

Look at this chart:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s1600/teachman

I cited it incorrectly, actually. 52% minimum divorce risk for a woman with more than 1 partner and a maximum risk of 90%, depending on other factors.

you're the one talking about marrying virgins, you're not going to find a bunch of hot virgins hanging around, the hot girls are going to have multiple partners, that goes over your 1 theory of divorce.

i said if you think you're going to find a bunch of hot virgins you better start believing in santa claus, thats the truth, because that disproves your 1 theory, hot women are going to have more than 1 partner

How old are you? What the fvck does attractiveness have to do with those studies?

 

[asa_don]

The more partners a woman has had, the more likely she'll cheat or get divorced in marriage. Anything over 1 sexual partner prior to marriage will net you a minimum divorce rate of 53% and it gets worse as the numbers rise because women learn more to separate sex from bonding.

wrong, read again below, your phony faulty stats have been disproven

there is no 53% divorce rate



The 50 percent statistic is very misleading, if not completely wrong. "The demographics of divorce are routinely reported wrong, calculated wrong or misinterpreted," says Robert Hughes, a former professor in the Department of Human & Family Services, College of Human Environmental Science, University of Missouri-Columbia. Hughes says that for every two marriages that occurred in the 1990s there was one divorce. "This does not mean the divorce rate is 50 percent [because] the people getting married in a single year are not the same ones getting divorced," he says.

No one is really certain about how the 50 percent number imbedded itself so deeply in popular imagination. "The assumption has been (by those who have not studied it carefully) is that the 50 percent number came from someone noticing that, in the U.S., we have about 2.4 million marriages a year and 1.2 million divorces a year. Hence, 50 percent of married couples divorce," says Scott M. Stanley of the University of Denver.

"No serious demographer ever looked at the approximately 2.4 million marriages a year and the 1.2 million divorces a year to arrive at the 50 percent number. That is a misunderstanding that began early in the debate about that the divorce rate reality - a misunderstanding that is, unfortunately, widely perpetuated," Stanley says

Thus, the divorce rate is misleading for a number of reasons. Not all states report divorce statistics. The divorce count is based on the total population, not the total married population. Using per capita at today's population distorts the comparison of current marriages because divorces that happen today arose from a smaller population yesterday.

http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/main/u-s-divorce-rates-and-statistics-1037.shtml


http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/05/19/divorce.rates.drop/


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=0

http://goodmenproject.com/marriage-2/5-reasons-divorce-rate-has-fallen-in-us-and-uk/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-chern/divorce-rates-declining-i_b_3023122.html

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/health/Divorce-Rate-Falling-138929519.html

Divorce rate at an all time low

http://www.beachpsych.com/pages/cc130.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...later-life-figure-looks-set-drop-further.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-11-divorce-decline_N.htm

http://www.justinlong.org/2014/02/divorce-rate-falling-in-america/

In honor of the recent anniversary celebration for my wife & I (2/4, 19 years), let me remind us all: the “50% divorce rate” is a myth.

Barna’s studies have found that one-third of all Americans who have been married at least once, have been divorced at least once. The Census Department also has a chart of “ever-married, ever-divorced” at http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf. This goes into much greater detail. Table 6 of this document shows a significant variety in the % ever divorced by age, and the statistics are very interesting indeed. Of those over age 15 (and I presume this includes never marrieds; e.g. this is not ever-married ever-divorced), about 20% of men and 22% of women have been divorced at least once. About half of those are not married now (that is, the rest remarried).

Ever married = 67% of men, 72.8% of women.
Ever married men = 77.6 million
Ever married women = 89.7 million
Ever married, total = 167.3 million

Ever-divorced men = 23.7 million men.
Ever-divorced women = 27.6 million women
Total ever-divorced = 51.3 million

% of US adult population (incl. never-marrieds) ever divorced: 21.4%
% of US ever-married population that has been divorced at least once: 30.6%

(We see Barna and the US Census statistics are in pretty much agreement.)

The divorce rate in America was 4.7 per 1,000 population in 1990, and it has been on the decline–down to 3.9 per 1,000 population in 2009. (This is the rate of divorce; e.g. for every 1,000 people, there were 3 divorces this year, affecting 6 married people).

If you’re not getting married because of the 50% divorce rate, well… time to find another reason. He who finds a wife finds a good thing.

You've done nothing to prove why they are false

i've given you 10 sources to prove your theory and numbers to be false, the op posted a thread showing women having sex with double digit partners.

the divorce rate is not at 53% like you claimed, that is a myth, the divorce rate is declining each year, the average number of partners used to be 4, not every woman is above 1 partner will get divorced, hot virgins aren't in abundance, you are wrong on all accounts. what more can i say? you refuse to believe solid facts, nothing more i can say to you man, keep believing in santa claus.

What the fvck does attractiveness have to do with those studies?

it has everything to do with your false studies

people are virgins for two reasons, either its by personal choice or they are too ugly to have sex, most people who remain virgins by choice aren't good looking, attractiveness plays a huge role.

attractive people are going to have sex, attractive women are going to have more partners, if you want a wife with low numbers its going to be with an unattractive woman most likely, the attractive girls will have at least 4 or more partners, the average used to be 4, you feel 4 is too high, thats not my problem, refuse to believe but its you who holds the ignorance.

 

[usernamedox11]

Danger,

asa_don probably knows he fvcked up and can't legitimately debate the higher partner count = more likelihood of divorce, so he is instead having a debate with himself about the overall divorce rate and is using straw man tactics in order misrepresent what we've said in order to save face. It's either that or he is legitimately not very smart and really can't comprehend that overall divorce rate and partner count are two different topics.

It's a waste of time.

 

[asa_don]

Danger,

asa_don probably knows he fvcked up and can't legitimately debate the higher partner count = more likelihood of divorce, so he is instead having a debate with himself about the overall divorce rate and is using straw man tactics in order misrepresent what we've said in order to save face. It's either that or he is legitimately not very smart and really can't comprehend that overall divorce rate and partner count are two different topics.

It's a waste of time.

no, its you that fvcked up, you gave a bullsh!t 53% divorce rate that doesn't exist, women are fvcking more men, that means a high number partner count, the divorce rate is below 30%, you are fuil of sh!t with your over 1 sexual partner theory, keep believing in santa claus.

On what basis do you consider the higher partner count a fallacy?

because MOST women have high partner number counts today, the average used to be 4, now its a lot higher, even fat chicks are fvcking 6 or 7 men before they get married

are you in a relationship? do you know how many men your woman has fvcked before you?

what's a high partner number count to you? you refuse to answer that question. give me a ball park number.

Which numbers are crap? The 50%? Ok fine, but still 41% is a large risk to take for marriage.

53% is a lot different than 41%, those numbers are skewed because not everything is being reported. you and applegoo admit that you are wrong and i was right about that. there is no 53%

it isn't 41% either, you're listening to a guy who is giving wrong numbers, the divorce rate is actually below 40%, some say 38%-28% its all a projection, not all accurate.

Which of course doesn't address the original point that the more partners a woman has, the higher risk of divorce.

there's always a risk of divorce, most women today getting married have high number counts, the divorce rate is below 40%, not all those women are getting divorced since MOST women have high numbers.

what's a high number count to you? you wont answer that question.

So now you are saying the US Gov Census data is wrong?

i'm saying that your guy is wrong who is using the wrong numbers to get gullible people to believe him so he can gain prominence.

you believe those false numbers, he is only projecting his numbers, they are not accurate

gov census data says 72% of people are still married to their first spouse despite the high number partner count that you and applegoo continue to cite.





here are the new and accurate divorce stats from 2014
https://www.barna.org/family-kids-articles/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

http://www.nationalreview.com/home-...ages-end-divorce-and-other-myths-nancy-french
“There is no such thing as a 50 percent divorce rate. It’s never been close,” she told The Blaze. “Right now … 72 percent of people are still married to their first spouse — that’s Census Bureau data.” She explained her analysis of the marriage data to The Blaze:




And of the 28 percent who are no longer married to their first spouse, Feldhahn said that a good chunk of those people were married when their husband or wife died and were never actually divorced. So, theoretically, the divorce rate must fall somewhere below the 28 percent mark.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-about-marriage-and-divorce-completely-wrong/


Social researcher ShauntiFeldhahn is on a mission to debunk some of the rampant myths she says cloud perceptions about marriage and divorce.

In her new book, “The Good News About Marriage,” the author tackles a number of misconceptions that she believes are damaging to the institution of marriage: that half of marriages end in divorce, that church-going couples divorce just as often as the general public and that most marriages aren’t happy.

Feldhahn, who conducted an extensive eight-year research study on the subject, claims that the actual divorce rate has never even gotten close to 50 percent, that churchgoers have significantly lower divorce rates and that most marriages are actually successful..

“One of the biggest patterns that I’ve seen over the years as a social researcher is that there’s one common denominator about whether marriage survives or fails,” she told TheBlaze. “If a couple thinks they’re going to make it, they generally do. The outcome is very different if they think, ‘This is never going to change. We’re never going to make it.’”

The perception that half of all marriages end in divorce, she says, results in a cumulative cultural negativity about marriage..

“There are certainly some things that we believe that are a concern about marriage that are accurate,” she said. “It is true for example that many, many more people are cohabiting today than they use to and there are some issues with that in terms of marital success.”

But when it comes to discouraging factors, she believes marriage myths are needlessly bringing people down..

“There is no such thing as a 50 percent divorce rate. It’s never been close,” she said. “Right now … 72 percent of people are still married to their first spouse — that’s Census Bureau data.”..

And of the 28 percent who are no longer married to their first spouse, Feldhahn said that a good chunk of those people were married when their husband or wife died and were never actually divorced. So, theoretically, the divorce rate must fall somewhere below the 28 percent mark...

Feldhahn believes that knowing how much lower it is than the oft-times touted 50 percent provides more hope to couples.

Feldhahn believes the 50 percent figure comes from a variety of experts who are making a projection: sociologists and demographers who believe that, at some point in the future, the divorce rate will eventually be 50 percent....

“Those projections are too pessimistic. Starting in the 1970s — that’s when those projections started — when no-fault divorce started, the divorce rate skyrocketed,” she said. “Suddenly there was this explosion in divorce … it has fallen according to the crude divorce rate … 32 percent since 1980.”

Despite these changing social tides, Feldhahn said that the divorce rate projections have never really been adjusted.

And after digging into marriage data compiled from the Barna Group, a research firm, the author said that she discovered something entirely surprising about the divorce rate for practicing Christians.

When comparing Christians to the general population, Feldhahn said that asking the question nominally presented some problems. For instance, if someone says they are a Christian, it doesn’t necessarily mean that person is a practicing believer.

So, Feldhahn partnered with Barna and re-ran their data to focus in on church attendance in the past week — one of the clearest indicators of how deeply one practices his or her faith. While the divorce rate was similar for nominal Christians and the general public, she found something profound among practicing believers.

“The divorce rate dropped by 27 percent between those who went to church last week,” Feldhahnsaid. “The theory is that attendance in other worship faiths would have a similar impact — being part of a community where people are around you will notice when something is going wrong.”

Determining the actual divorce rate is difficult and it varies based on a variety of factors, including the number of times a person has been married and how one defines divorce.

“But the Census‘ average divorce rate is 31 percent and Barna‘s is 33 percent based on a simple “have you ever been divorced” question (this includes those who have been divorced and later remarried as well), giving a lens into what the proportions might look like.


“When it comes to divorce, Feldhahn truly believes that “we have been believing a complete myth.”.


An expert on relationships, she has spoken extensively with TheBlaze in the past about the secrets to having a happy matrimony, “positing that most couples are actually quite happy..


Find out more about “The Good News About Marriage” here.

 

[usernamedox11]

no, its you that fvcked up, you gave a bullsh!t 53% divorce rate that doesn't exist, women are fvcking more men, that means a high number partner count, the divorce rate is below 30%, you are fuil of sh!t with your over 1 sexual partner theory, keep believing in santa claus.

LOL, I never gave an overall divorce rate, genius. I recommend this book:http://www.amazon.com/Scholastic-Su...5297645&sr=8-1&keywords=reading+comprehension

After you read it, come back and we can debate the correlation between partner count and divorce, not overall divorce rate.

By the way, this is what theory means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t

As you can see, I never gave a theory. Rather I spoke of what multiple studies have found between partner count and divorce.

In order to logically argue the correlation, you would NEED to cite studies that haven't found a correlation between sexual partner count and divorce. Even if you think the overall divorce rate is declining (which I don't care if it is or not), it doesn't mean that there isn't a correlation between sexual partner count and divorce. They aren't mutually exclusive.

This is what your argument is:

"Because the divorce rate is declining, sexual partner count isn't correlated to divorce"

That's like saying: "fish swim in water thus Freddy Krueger is real."

In logic what you are doing is called a non sequitur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

I am done here. You are clearly an illogical turd and unworthy of an honest discussion as you can't even grasp or comprehend what people are saying. You instead use straw man tactics to misrepresent what I say or have been saying and you then have a debate with yourself. This is fruitless and pointless.

 

[asa_don]

LOL, I never gave an overall divorce rate, genius

you're lying, you said this below, that looks like an overall divorce rate stat to me.

The more partners a woman has had, the more likely she'll cheat or get divorced in marriage. Anything over 1 sexual partner prior to marriage will net you a minimum divorce rate of 53% and it gets worse as the numbers rise because women learn more to separate sex from bonding.

your 53% divorce rate stat is bullsh!t, it doesn't exist, its below 30%, you are wrong, you are reading the wrong studies put out by far right christian evangelical think tanks like the heritage foundation.

your 1 number partner theory is bullsh!t as well, most women have over 1 sexual partner anyway, that is a fallacy

all of this proves you wrong, 72% of people are still married to their first spouse, the majority of those women 72% had sex with over 1 partner, your 1 partner theory is bullsh!t because most of those high number partner count women are still married.


The 50 percent statistic is very misleading, if not completely wrong. "The demographics of divorce are routinely reported wrong, calculated wrong or misinterpreted

This does not mean the divorce rate is 50 percent [because] the people getting married in a single year are not the same ones getting divorced,"

That is a misunderstanding that began early in the debate about that the divorce rate reality - a misunderstanding that is, unfortunately, widely perpetuated,

Thus, the divorce rate is misleading for a number of reasons. Not all states report divorce statistics. The divorce count is based on the total population, not the total married population. Using per capita at today's population distorts the comparison of current marriages because divorces that happen today arose from a smaller population yesterday.

“There is no such thing as a 50 percent divorce rate. It’s never been close,” she told The Blaze. “Right now … 72 percent of people are still married to their first spouse — that’s Census Bureau data.”

And of the 28 percent who are no longer married to their first spouse, Feldhahn said that a good chunk of those people were married when their husband or wife died and were never actually divorced. So, theoretically, the divorce rate must fall somewhere below the 28 percent mark.

the 50 percent figure comes from a variety of experts who are making a projection: sociologists and demographers who believe that, at some point in the future, the divorce rate will eventually be 50 percent

“Suddenly there was this explosion in divorce … it has fallen according to the crude divorce rate … 32 percent since 1980.”

Rather I spoke of what multiple studies have found between partner count and divorce.

all of this proves your studies wrong, you won't admit to being wrong, i cant help you with that, nothing else i can say to you man except believe in your fallacies

keep believing in hot virgins, keep believing in hot women with low number counts, keep believing in santa claus, maybe he will put a hot virgin under your tree lol.

 

[usernamedox11]

you're lying, you said this below, that looks like an overall divorce rate stat to me.



your 53% divorce rate stat is bullsh!t, it doesn't exist, its below 30%, you are wrong, you are reading the wrong studies put out by far right christian evangelical think tanks like the heritage foundation.

What I said there wasn't an overall divorce rate, genius. I've been trying to explain that to you, but it's either your reading comprehension sucks or you are purposely trolling. I was citing the study that said anyone with over 1 premarital partner (I'm guessing you don't even know what that means) had a 52% (thought it was 53 at time of post) divorce risk. This was based on survey size OF ABOUT 6500 WOMEN. A decent sample size. The 52% divorce RISK IS BASED ON THE SAMPLE SIZE IN THAT PARTICULAR STUDY, NOT THE OVERALL US DIVORCE RATE, genius. Does everything have to be spelled out to you? Anyone who is somewhat intelligent reading will be able to tell you are completely absurd. Based on your grammar and your illogical thinking, you've obviously never been to college or grad school. You have ZERO idea how these studies work.

Arguing overall divorce rate in the country is a whole different topic and is not a proper rebuttal to the study.

Again, if you knew how to think coherently and logically, you would know you actually haven't done anything to disprove the study as you are talking about a completely different topic (overall divorce rate) and not the correlation between sexual partner count and divorce (which is what the study was about, with a sample size of 6500 or so women).

TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS.

THE SAME WAY A HAND IS DIFFERENT FROM A MOUTH.

Is that making sense to you now? Or do I need to teach you the alphabet first?

keep believing in hot virgins, keep believing in hot women with low number counts, keep believing in santa claus, maybe he will put a hot virgin under your tree lol.

Lol...are you like this in real life? if so, sad case.


It's like that saying, don't argue with dumb people or they'll bring you down to their level. A good thing for me is I know when someone is being illogical/absurd and will refuse to acknowledge their BS and argue on their terms. At first I thought you were just trolling or being illogical, now I realize you are both illogical and didn't even understand the specifics of the Teachman study. I will now point and laugh at you.