Think Of The Children

Reader and occasional commenter A Visitor recently alerted me to this post over at Vox Day’s blog: N Matters, a lot.  The key point of the post is this graph:

wolfinger-sex-partners-divorce-figure-1-1

The study, and graph, reaffirm similar findings in the past about how a woman’s N (her sexual partner count) affects the odds of divorce. Studies and charts like this have been discussed before, both on this blog and plenty of others, so I won’t go into depth on it. I do like this one part from Vox’s post, though:

The interesting thing about this study is the way that it shows how the second-greatest risk is marrying a woman with only 2 partners; the researcher’s theory is that this might be the result of over-emphasized comparisons; the woman has just enough experience to realize that there is something else out there, but not enough to realize that most of it isn’t an improvement.

While not sold on it, it is a pretty solid theory. But I digress.

The reason for this post, and the reason for this post’s title, is to emphasis the importance of visual cues. This chart is a powerful visual aid to explain to others the perils of marrying non-virgin women. It is bright, simple to understand and gets the point across without the reader needing to have any skill with statistics.

So for the time being, I will probably use this graph as my primary visual explanation for why I insist on marrying a woman with an N of 0. Setting aside all other concerns (of which I have plenty), the divorce angle cannot be ignored.

Most especially, I cannot ignore the impact divorce might have on any children that arise from the marriage before hand. If I am stupid and marry poorly, knowing that I should do better, than that is on me now. I will deserve it. But my kids don’t deserve to be put through the wringer. They deserve to have a stable and loving home- not one that is ripped apart. In addition, I would never want them exposed to a myriad of “boyfriends” and “step-dads” that their mother (whom I should have never married) will bring into her, and their, life.

Men, there are many ways to respond to someone who tries to shame you into marrying a non-virgin. But few will have quite the punch as pointing out that it greatly increases the chances of divorce, and the impact that will have on your children. Flip their shaming right back at them, and ask them why they want to make it more likely that your children will be put through the horrors of divorce. Ask them how they could be so callous. And remind them to think of the children.

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under Alpha Widow, Blue Pill, Marriage, Marriage Market Place, Pair Bonding, Red Pill, Sex, Sin, Women

15 responses to “Think Of The Children

  1. Verbally stated, assuming I grokk the graph:

    A virgin bride is four times less likely to divorce than a non-virgin bride. The difference jumps to six times less likely to divorce when compared to a bride who has had more than one previous partner.

  2. Zippy, that is my understanding. Mathematically, that is quite significant. From what I recall of other studies, I do not believe any other factor has quite so much of an impact on the likelihood of divorce.

    Of course, as has been noted before, the set of traits which would make a woman likely to marry as a virgin would almost certainly encompass the set of traits which would normally preclude divorce. This graph’s value lies in demonstrating how much of a “tell” that N is when it comes to those traits.

  3. Right — correlation is not causation, but it doesn’t have to be. Virgin brides are 4 to 6 times less likely to divorce, according to the graph. The graph doesn’t say why that is the case, it merely asserts that it is in fact the case.

  4. Michael Kozaki

    This chart is a powerful visual aid to explain to others the perils of marrying non-virgin women.

    Wow. I had the opposite response; 2-5 partners and only a 25% chance of divorce in the first 5 years?! I thought it would be a LOT higher. That means a non-virgin girl N<6 who was good on other traits (say young, religious, good family, or anti-feminist) his chances are very good. I wouldn't have thought so.

    What makes this graph odd is it's only for the first five years. Why? I would want the odds of divorce, period. I guess lifetime marriage is a thing of the past, so people don't care about that part.

  5. @ Michael

    Wow. I had the opposite response; 2-5 partners and only a 25% chance of divorce in the first 5 years?! I thought it would be a LOT higher.

    Keep in mind the overall rate is roughly 50%. So that high in five years? Says a lot.

    That means a non-virgin girl N<6 who was good on other traits (say young, religious, good family, or anti-feminist) his chances are very good. I wouldn't have thought so.

    You and I have very different takes on what “very good” constitutes.

    What makes this graph odd is it’s only for the first five years. Why? I would want the odds of divorce, period. I guess lifetime marriage is a thing of the past, so people don’t care about that part.

    Keep in mind that people married recently have only been married for a short time- not long enough to compare to those married for 20+ years. [Someone who married in 2009 hasn’t been married ten years yet, so you can’t do a comparison to someone married in 1999 at the ten years mark.] So you have to have a basis of comparison- hence, the first five years.

  6. Novaseeker

    It’s also interesting that virgins have become less risky than in the past. More than a 50% decrease from 1980s to 2000s. I suspect this has to do with a substantial decrease in the number of them over the period, meaning that the people who remain in the category have the other characteristics that tend to lead to dramatically lower divorce rates.

  7. @ Novaseeker

    Yes, I saw that too. I think you are right. Perhaps one reason is that virginity is now pretty much only found in the devout. There were probably more secular virgins in the past, who were more concerned about shame than what was right and wrong. Once society became pretty ok with the hook-up culture, then they faded away, mostly.

  8. Wintery Knight already posted on a few days ago, and I was gonna comment on it as well but you beat me to it!

    https://winteryknight.com/2016/06/07/new-study-women-who-have-fewer-premarital-sex-partners-have-lower-risk-of-divorce/

    First 5 years is not much though, considering that the usual common divorce time is the so-called “7 year itch” which shows up in marriages of about 7-15 years. That’s probably where the rest of Teachman statistics come from where it jumps up to 40% overall for first marriages.

  9. Michael Kozaki

    DG, You and I have very different takes on what “very good” constitutes.

    Well, remember that 25% includes ALL the losers with an N=2-5 – tats, bad home life, drugs, etc. So when one culls a fairly religious, intelligent woman who wants a big family from this pool odds must improve least X2 (say 10%). Pretty good.

    Now, I agree with DS above though that who knows about after 5 years. Lots of women blow up families at any age nowadays, but the smart ones generally don’t (look at Hillary or Huma, for example). So say, 20% lifetime? Not bad. That’s just one spin of Russian roulette :-). For Weimerica, that’s inspiring!

  10. MK

    Two more caveats to DS 5 year point: 1) no divorce doesn’t mean a guy’s marriage isn’t a living hell, and 2) N-count is only one metric, and not the most important (N-count may merely mean restrictive parents).

    Best marriage metrics for girl selection? a) Humility, b) anti-feminism, c) open desire for a large family, d) open desire for male headship, e) love of religious authority, and f) finally intelligence and BMI. I would select for all of these but f over virginity. Perhaps I’m just tainted by knowing virgins who will never divorce (trad RC) but from the outside I would call marriage failures, and plenty of non-virgin converts who prob have n-counts but make great marriage successes (from the outside).

  11. Pingback: The Children Always Lose the Most – BlendingAme

  12. Exfernal

    I believe you intended to type wringer instead of ringer, Donal.

  13. @ Exfernal

    Corrected, thanks.

  14. Original Laura

    Something else to factor in would be the timing of the prior sexual activity. A girl who started lying to her parents and sneaking around at age 15 is a much bigger marital risk IMO than the girl who had her first sexual experience as a sophomore or junior in college, even if their “n” counts are identical. Either one might end up being an Alpha Widow, but if you are a sneaky liar at age 15, you will probably be one till the end of your days.

    Similarly, the girl who dates (and sleeps with) a normal-seeming guy who later turns out to have serious issues, and then breaks up with him is usually going to be lower risk than the girl who dates a series of obvious “bad boys.” Even if your marriage to her lasts until your death, she may choose another bad boy as the stepfather for your children.

    Very interesting that the divorce rates for virgins has gone down over the past 30 years.

  15. @ Laura

    That is a good observation. The first girl is showing a lot more red flags in her activity than girl 2, who is caught up in the “playbook” the world expects women to follow these days.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s