Virginity And The Big Bad Wolf

A while back I wrote a post on 10 Critical Things In How To Choose A Wife. Seeing this was a fantasy draft pick, I went all out and described my ideal woman… and carefully covered my ass and said that my ideal woman was spookily similar to the woman I actually married. See how that works, I’m dammed clever sometimes.
Anyway, I did draw some hate for point 6… that she should be a virgin. I said…
“The fewer sexual partners a woman has before marriage the higher her marital satisfaction and the sexual satisfaction she has within marriage. You very much want your wife to sexually imprint on sex with you and completely bond to you. The sex is just going to be that much better over the long term. Not to mention no other ex-lovers lurking on Facebook, sexual diseases, bad experiences and regrets to worry about. The harsh truth to the modern hook up girl is that yes indeed every time you sleep with another man, you damage your long term wife potential. Plus the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and highly promiscuous women before marriage are probably far more likely to cheat on you during marriage.”
What I didn’t know then was not just that I was right, but that I was right to a degree that I am still trying to grapple with. The effect of non-marital partners is not just a minor influence on marital outcomes, or even a moderate one as I had thought, it may in fact be one of the strongest influences there is.
I got put onto the CDC data and the Heritage Study of that same data at The Social Pathologist. Here’s the mind blowing graph that should have you reaching for an adult beverage.
There should be the phrase “ever married” added on the Y-axis on the left.
The good news is that if you’re married to a woman whose only lifetime sexual partner is you, there is a 80.47% chance that she is in a stable marriage, meaning you are in a stable marriage, which rocks. If you head over to The Social Pathologist and read up on the positive effects of education and income and do the math, a well educated, decent job holding virgin is as close to a 100% lock on marital outcomes as you can get. In short according to the CDC… if Jennifer and I divorce, the problem statistically speaking is very probably me. I just love what my tax dollars do.
The bad news is even a single lifetime non-marital sex partner hacks away that 80% success rate down to 53%. That’s a single ex-boyfriend, or a single hook up, the fling in France on that summer vacation. Seriously just one other sex partner decreases marital outcomes by a third. Even if it’s cheating during the marriage as the cause of marital break up, most cheating is never caught and it’s the being caught that really makes the shit hit the fan.
Then assuming you guys can read, the numbers get worse and worse seemingly hitting a 29% plateau from 5-15 partners, then dropping even lower after that. Five sex partners just doesn’t seem to be a whole lot to be honest. That’s just one serious boyfriend for every year of college and then someone serious after that and then future husband. But no, apparently she’s like a fourth round draft pick and not someone to build a franchise around.
Quoting The Social Pathologists summary…
“What this data shows is that sexual partner count is a very good–in fact uncannily good–predictor of the risks of divorce.
How good? One extra partner in a woman is equivalent to negating the protective benefit of greater-than-high school education in a woman, two partners equivalent to having a poverty affected marriage, ten or more partners negates any benefit of income or education with regard to marital risk.
From a statistical perspective, the marital dissolution risk of a woman receiving welfare and a wealthy promiscuous educated woman is about the same.”
On one hand I’m heartened that I have solid proof that Jennifer is a great wife choice. Every so often I get shit on for being “just lucky” that Jennifer is a good wife. You know what, three years of an agonizing long distance relationship, immigration and all the drama of getting together… that was hard, really really hard. I knew who I was working for though. Maybe the little pig that built his house out of bricks was “just lucky” too.
On the other hand, I’m horrified at just how damaging non-marital sex can be. I don’t actually consider someone with five non-marital partners to be terribly slutty. That’s just a couple serious boyfriends and a couple hook ups and the short lived relationship with the guy she really liked but he had a real girlfriend the whole time so she dumped him. (Awkward… she wasn’t actually really in a relationship though, so we just nod and smile and agree that she was the dumper and not the de facto dumpee.)
But apparently there’s not much difference between 5 and 15 according to the stats. And 15 is starting to sound pretty slutty. So maybe 5 is pretty slutty too. I’m very conflicted about that. I mean I know people, I have friends that are 5+… they’re nice. I don’t want to see them as damaged goods, but… 80% vs 29%… um, wow. Just wow. I need that beverage.
There are a ton of women who have already gone out and hit 5+ and can’t unfuck their number back down to zero. I guess all I can say is that these are just odds and that you can influence your outcomes. You can make positive choices and choose to stay the course and fight for a marriage and a love together. We all do make mistakes and not all our mistakes are sexual in nature either. The trick is to learn from them and try and move on into a brighter future. If you’re educated and not broke off your ass, you are by no means automatically falling towards the event horizon of the black hole of divorce. But there is an influence at work that is undeniable.
My hunch is that sex is far more powerful at forging interpersonal bonds than we want it to be. Maybe in plain English all it means is that you really just don’t want to marry someone that has five guys she’s slept with being able to message her on Facebook at random for the rest of her life. It only takes one of them to be The Big Bad Wolf that sticks in her mind… then all your shit comes crashing down.


  1. Miles Anderson says:

    One thought is that I've heard that New Zelander's as a whole tend to hook up for life so you might have some preconceived bias.

    The other is that I know few American women in the single digits must less in the double digits so if I was looking for a mate I'm not sure what to do with this data.

  2. Actually New Zealand women are pushing hard to be the sluttiest on the planet.

    And yeah… I'd have no clue what exactly to do with it either if I was wife hunting.

    It's really a much bigger effect than I could imagine.

  3. This is really mind blowing stuff. 83%. Wow.

  4. I wonder if "non-marital sexual partners" includes premarital sex with one's future spouse. Is the important thing to be her first lover, or to wait until marriage?

  5. Just glanced at this and it's quite early in the morning. But if stable marriage is 5 years, are women who have had more sexual partners not more likely to have got married later? And aren't 1 or 2 more partner count women more likely to have married men who are 1 or 2 partner count?
    What was the age range? I'd be more likely to sit up and take notice if it was a survey of say 50 year old women only and stable marriage was 10 years +.


  6. I wonder how much religion factors into this. Given that there are a veritable heap of religious people, of the kind who believe one should be a virgin before marriage, who flatly reject divorce except in really severe circumstances, maybe some of the one-partner marriages were more stable because the parties believed breaking up was absolutely not an option. "Stable" might not mean "happy" for those couples.

  7. The Social Pathologist says:


    What I didn't know then was not just that I was right, but that I was right to a degree that I am still trying to grapple with. The effect of non-marital partners is not just a minor influence on marital outcomes, or even a moderate one as I had thought, it may in fact be one of the strongest influences there is.

    Although I'm a Conservative commentator, I'm blown away by the data as well. My prior sentiments on "slutty behaviour" pretty much echoed yours, but I'm really re-evaluating your position. I'd never thought it would have as powerful effect as shown. The real kick in the pants is that CDC data reflects this effect across all socio-economic and educational cohorts. It would seem to be an independent effect.

    I'm guessing that there is some sort of bonding dysfunction going on.

    What it bodes for the future though is ominous.


    Teachman, did a study which showed that if premarital sex was confined only to your future spouse then there was no increased risk of divorce.

  8. The Social Pathologist says:


    but I'm really re-evaluating your position

    should be

    ..I'm really re-evaluating my position….

  9. Anglo-Steve says:

    This data should make us question the perception and point of marriage in our society and also sex.

    Whilst it seems disturbing in terms of marriage 'stability' (and Ive not go thru the doc yet to understand what specifically that means) – its quite indicative of the current stage we are in of the evolution of the 'concept' of marriage. Its only recently that divorce has become common. Its only recently marrying for love has become common (and love can be fickle).

    What this data shows me is that currently in our society people want to have their cake AND eat it. So we want to have sex outside of marriage and freedom – but we also want the concept of long term commitment.
    The reality it seems to me is that people dont realise that those two aspects (at least it seems to me) dont necessarily go together.

    As humans our way of relating is going through constant change. Women have gained more control and power in society and relationships – but now they complain about men not being men – a conflict has been created. We have more freedom in terms of who our partners are and sex – but divorce rates are higher than ever. Its an evolution and a question of finding balance. Usually these things operate like a pendulum – it is way to one side (eg no divorce and strict rules on marriage and resultant misery) – then goes reactively too far too the other side – so high promiscuity and divorce rates. There are lessons that can be learned from marriage as it used to be – as well as good things about the way things currently are in my opinion.

    That graph makes me wonder the question – do we need to re-address what we as individuals want out of a marriage? One thing is for sure – things in our society have changed since the concept or marriage was invented.

  10. Wmjas – You question is important and your hunch correct. As long as her sexual partner turned into the husband he was counted as the marital partner.

    Back in the day Jennifer and I did have some fun together before we were married, but she also had an engagement ring on as well. Didn't go to intercourse until two weeks before the wedding, though I was in a separate country until then, so we'd likely have moved to that much earlier if that factor wasn't there.

  11. I married a virgin (wasn't on my list of musts) and I hope this is true (I also believe sex is for marriage). However, we need to be very careful. A woman who is a virgin because she has a low libido or a flat-out aversion to sex or some personality or mental disorder is not going to be such a good wife.

  12. I did not RTFA, but I would confidently say that attractive, 'educated, job holding virgins' are hen's teeth, especially in any metro area. Highly religious women are probably over-represented in that 80.47 stack.

    Also, if as a male you hold yourself to the same standard of even relative chastity, it works against you in SMV, preselection working as it does.

    This study bodes well for the hamster-wheel-bearing-replacement business.

  13. I think there may be a "correlation is not causation" issue here. The difference between no previous partners and just one is so stark as to point to something else. A women with no previous partners likely has some significant driver for that behavior and it's likely driving the marriage stability stats too.

    For example, strong religious beliefs which mitigate against extramarital sex probably discourage divorce. A very unattractive women may well have had no opportunity for extramarital sex, and knows she'd be a fool to give up what she has, given her low SMV. Some women may be severely introverted hence no previous partners and no desire to quit a marriage and try again.

    Certainly the data can help determine the chances of a stable marriage. I just don't think it gives any insight as to why.

  14. Athol, I think the chart is throwing you off. The chart is only asking whether a woman has been married for 5 years. If you are over 30 and you lost your virginity to your spouse, you have an 80 percent chance of being married for 5 years. No surprise – who's going to hold out that long? If a woman has a normal 5-10 sex partners, she probably accumulated them while unmarried and thus, if married, is less likely to have been married for more than 5 years.

    There's plenty of other literature on this: has a nice review and its own survey. If you look at their conclusions on p. 43 and around, # of prior sexual partners significantly decreases marital satisfaction for men, but not for women. They hypothesize that this is because women get attached more over time, whereas a man used to a wide range of poon will get bored with the same ol' after a while. In other words, if you're a sexually experienced guy looking to have a satisfying marriage, the partner count of your wife may not matter all that much.

  15. My followup is this: are theree similar statistics for men? Alex began to touch on it, but If you are a man what are your odds of staying married if you have had multiple partners over your lifetime?

  16. I am sympathetic to the point being made here, but I've yet to see the evidence that the graph ought to be labelled the way you say it should.

    The graph's y-axis label is obviously wrong, but the footnote to the chart DOES NOT suggest that "there should be the phrase 'ever married' added on the Y-axis on the left."

    You have to clear this issue up before getting to the sweeping conclusions.

  17. some great points here – better get rid of these comments as well…

  18. The Social Pathologist says:

    @Anon 9:34

    Men show increased divorce rates with increasing partner count, but not at the same rate as women. Off hand, men need to sleep with 4 partners + to equal female risk. The double standard may be real.

    Religion is the big negative risk factor for divorce, but even when controlled for this (coming in a later post) risk of divorce(and infidelity) is correlated with partner count)

    BTW, the Heritage report is irrelevant, all the data for the statistics are in the CDC reports. Draw your own graph. The data doesn't change.

  19. R. Stanton Scott says:

    Well, now. It's been a long time since I saw someone arrive at a more dubious conclusion based on social science research. Nothing in this data shows any causal relationship between sexual activity prior to marriage and marital stability or the suitability of women with sexual experience as mates.

    The CDC report you link to above does not analyze the relationship between virginity or the number of previous sexual partners women have and their suitability as mates. It examines instead the probable outcomes of cohabitation and marriage–that is, the odds that cohabitation will transition to marriage, or that a first or second marriage will end, among other questions. This study in no way supports the conclusion you so eagerly accept. In any event, the report itself says that it simply provides a "statistical description, not an exhaustive explanation" of the questions it examines (page 10).

    The Heritage Foundation document you link to comes a bit closer, though you have to remember that it comes from a conservative think tank with an agenda. You can and should expect think tanks like this to define terms and massage statistics in a way that makes the data match the conclusion they seek. Their definition of stable marriage, for example, takes only duration into account, with no analysis of marriage quality. What looks "stable" because it has lasted more than five years may look much less so when including other factors. And Alex correctly points out that women who waited to marry will be more likely to have sexual experience but less likely to have been married for five years, but waiting for marriage is the cause of their failure to be in a "stable marriage," not their sexual past.

    It also makes little sense to focus on a single independent variable such as the number of sex partners confessed by females without analyzing the effects of other variables, including the number of sex partners the male partner has had, age and reason of first marriage (e.g., settling, pregnancy, arrangement by parents), socioeconomic status, religion or lack thereof, and what you call "sexual market value" of both partners.

    This looks a lot like simple slut shaming to me. You find women with sexual experience distasteful and you wish to shame them, so you look for reasons to justify doing so. Heritage is happy to provide it, but has to massage data to do so. I find it disappointing that you so readily accept the conclusion simply because it fits your preconceived ideas about sex, virginity, marriage, and women.

  20. Beau Nertaun says:

    I would guess that girls who are virgins when they get married tend to be very religious, the same sort of people who wouldn't get out of a marriage even if they were miserable in it. Not to deride them–I think most people are too casual about the commitment of marriage. Just saying. I would guess that accounts for most of the drop from 0 to 1.

    In any case, this ship has sailed long ago for me. I am far from a virgin, I never meet any virgins, and I am skeptical that I'd have lots in common with a virgin. So, I'll just have to put faith in the girl I marry as an individual, and use game to do my best!

  21. Beau Nertaun says:

    clarification: I'm not saying religion accounts for the whole thing–I definitely believe there's a relationship here–just saying the 0 to 1 drop is probably largely explained by that.

    Another thing is, if you marry your first sexual love, that probably means you married the person who gave you the strongest dopamine rush "in love" feeling. I envy people for whom this works, because they must have had much better instincts than I did. My first was a terrible choice! But I was in love with the cosmos.

    Finally, if you married your first sexual love, you probably wouldn't necessarily know how to go about cheating. That's unromantic, but I definitely believe it's a factor. I have never cheated on a gf, but the temptation is stronger now that I have studied game and know how easy it is :/ downside to game

  22. I have two initial thoughts upon reading this:

    1) Where is the equivalent data for men?

    2) This equates stable marriage with long marriage. It is not a measure of happiness or fulfillment. I envision a narrative of a woman who never had sex before marriage being miserable in her marriage, but staying with her husband because she believes no one else could find her attractive. Now, there are questions of commitment and when a woman decides she is unhappy enough to get out, and I can see the narrative that a woman who delays sex until marriage is more likely to work on an unhappy marriage for longer than a woman who does not delay gratification.

    Of course, there is the huge issue of correlation is not causation, and I can't be sure how scientific this study is, but it is a fun place to start a conversation.

  23. Add me to the list of people who see a spurious relationship between these two variables. The factors that go into keeping a woman chaste prior to marriage must also feed into keeping her married.

    Of course, that cuts both ways. A woman who can keep her virginity intact is almost certainly a disciplined woman, so the chances that she'll remain faithful are higher.

  24. @Athol… you earn two points from me for use of the phrase "[they] can't unfuck their number back down to zero". I love it.

    Now, regarding the argument that correlation doesn't equal causation and that there's a third/spurious correlation going on… that's a strong possibility. But one needs to be wary of using that fact to draw the wrong practical application of the results. It may indeed be that religiosity or a trait of discipline is at work here and is responsible for both the lower partner count and greater marriage "stability" down the road. But the bottom line predictive result remains: if one seeks a high likelihood of marital stability, one of the best observable predictors is a low sex partner count. One can argue the academic genesis all day long.

    Maybe a parallel example can help here: It's well established that the greater one's education, the greater the likelihood one will end up with relatively high annual income. Now, it may be that diligence, a high IQ, or some third personal factor is at work here and responsible for both outcomes (i.e., IQ assists higher education AND high income). But when advising my kid, I'm still telling him to go to college (or else give me a darn good reason/alternate opportunity for not).

  25. R. Stanton Scott says:

    Except, mni, that a low sex partner count is not an "observable predictor" of marital stability.

    The education-income correlation is not a parallel example, since the social science data supports it much more strongly.

  26. As a woman with a college education, relatively high socioeconomic background, and a single-digits past, I would say this chart has a lot of merit. I wish I had remained a virgin until I met my husband, because the other men were not worth it. Obviously I can't turn back time and become a virgin again, and I am very committed to my husband, but if I could erase all those other guys from my past I would in a heartbeat.

    Long term relationships are just not the same as a real committed marriage. And if a woman doesn't see a man as suitable for marriage that's a huge sign she shouldn't sleep with him. I wish I had known this before I lost my virginity (to another virgin, my first boyfriend), because I knew he wasn't the "one." Sadly I didn't learn and continued to get into relationships with men that weren't right.

    My husband is not a virgin either, but his partner count is lower than mine. I feel a bit of shame and sadness over my own past, but I'm lucky that he was willing to overlook it, since I never hooked up casually and am clean and have other qualities to make up for this deficiency. Still I would tell women to save it for marriage, not for religious reasons but for their own sake.

  27. says:

    "What I didn't know then was not just that I was right, but that I was right to a degree that I am still trying to grapple with"

    Athol, you are one funny bastard.

  28. yep thats me the exception to the rule… college educated, involved with my religion, my husband was my first..and altho we stayed married for 14 years…. dated for 5 before that…the marriage is now in the past.

    I love your site… I have rread all the archives… thanks so much for all your honesty and insight.

  29. For you guys out there, statistics be damned, marrying a virgin is no guarantee of marital happyness or stability. I can relate my mother's story. My father was my mother's first love, sex partner, marriage, kids, everything. They divorced when I was a child. Their break-up was long and messy, my father was cheating on my mother. They were separated. After all this my mother still would have taken him back if he would come. Only after learning that my father had a child with another woman did my mother start to lose hope of it ever working out. It was my mother whose heart was completely and utterly broken (she was taking antidepressants for years and years afterwards, only recently stopped).
    My conclusion: for young and immature (which it would have to be if the participants are going to be virgins) marriages to work out well extreme luck has to be involved. Otherwise I'd assume that most of the stable ones are unhappy. Had my parents stayed together I think they'd have been unhappy.
    For young ladies I think it would be a good idea to get some experience with relationships before marrying and having kids because you don't want to experience the pain of break-up for the first time when kids and divorce are involved. If you've been heartbroken before then at least you have some idea of what you are dealing with. Of course the ideal would be to never experience it, but unfortunately this isn't a coice any of us can make for ourselves. And how many of us are that lucky?

  30. The Holy Grail of the Virgin Wyfe is a dream that dies hard for men, I'm afraid. Grasping at some formula to guarantee a happy marriage and avoid divorce hell? No such animal out there.

    Judge on the here and now; not what someone did before they met you. People can and do mature greatly in those early years.

    Someone pointed out that The Heritage Foundation is a conservative Christian organization and that their results may have been "massaged" – I'd bet those results have had an intense shiatsu, deep tissue massage – and there's no "happy ending" for anyone branded a slut.

  31. Ken said "I married a virgin (wasn't on my list of musts) and I hope this is true (I also believe sex is for marriage). However, we need to be very careful. A woman who is a virgin because she has a low libido or a flat-out aversion to sex or some personality or mental disorder is not going to be such a good wife."

    Agree. You should be able to pick up on most of this before the marriage though.

    Many people commented on religion being a factor. I agree, just don't see it as a huge factor. The divorce rate difference between religious and non-religious isn't huge.

    Corelation is not causation I agree, but that's an awful lot of corelation.

    My point is sexual partner count is clearly some sort of negative effect on marriage stabilty.

  32. R. Stanton Scott says:

    Except, Athol, sexual partner count is not "clearly some sort of negative effect on marriage stability," at least not if you depend on these studies to support this claim.

  33. Alpha Maledom – "What I didn't know then was not just that I was right, but that I was right to a degree that I am still trying to grapple with"

    I do mean exactly that though. I do think there's an effect at work here, but these stats suggest it is much stronger than I had ever thought possible. A nice 5-15% positive influence on marital outcomes for lower partner counts would have made my day. A 80 to 20% spread is very concerning.

  34. It's an interesting correlation that matches my own experience. It's harder for a sexual bond to form (probably for men and women alike, but perhaps moreso for women) when you've sexed quite a few people.

    Having said that, virginity is no silver bullet. My ex was a virgin when we married, and it blew up on us really over the course of a few years. I think the comment about marriages with virgins in them containing people who are often too young to be married rings quite true to me. At the same time, leaving aside the 0 vs 1 disparity, which I think is explainable in other ways as commented above, there is a 'sweet spot' of sexual experience in men and women alike, beyond which it becomes a negative. For a man, it's not great because he will eventually be very tempted to cheat on his wife if he has the kind of Game/attraction that allowed him to rack up easy access to women sexually when he was single. For a woman, it's not great because of the constant comparisons of husband to exes who were bad boyfriend/husband material but Gawd were they good in the sack. I know your site is trying to prevent the latter, but I think you'd agree that a goodly number of women who have 5+ partners are going to have an ex who is probably naturally a better lover than the husband is, and we all know that leads to marital chaos in this culture.

  35. Thanks Nova – and if she's had 5+ partners and she ranks you 4th best… oy.

    And I do agree that virginity is not a silver bullet. Gone on over long it starts to have a bad odor all it's own.

  36. Duke of Earl says:

    Hi Athol, in regards to the point about the difference in divorce rates between religious and non-religious not being huge, that's true.
    The difference between them on getting married in the first place? That's another story.
    A relationship that never developed into marriage can't ever show up in divorce statistics.


  37. solomongroup says:

    My eldest sister was a virgin when she married at age 20. It's been 14 years and two children later, and they are still going strong. It had nothing to do with her sexual purity in my opinion, but rather she was raised to value commitment, honor her word, respect her husband, and be a good mother. The virginity thing was a byproduct of that.

    She also graduated college and works at a bank in a lower level managerial position. So she's no "kept" woman.

    A good woman with a solid upbringing is hard to find – especially when all women try to play the virgin or near virgin card when they start looking for a husband. Promiscuity is simply a tell for men when weeding out the liars. The more men she's been with, the less selective she is, the more risky behavior she's willing to engage in, and the less she values access to her body. None of these traits are feminine.

    A promiscuous woman has many more problems than just promiscuity.

  38. From a woman's point of view, I was a virgin when married the first time, primarily for religious reasons but also for the romantic reason that I believed our marriage would be stronger if I "saved myself for him" and "he was my one and only.". He was a few years older and had had 2 or 3 previous sexual relationships.

    Marrying as a virgin was the worst mistake I ever made.

    First of all, it immediately made the marriage one of inequality. I brought an emotional "gift" to it that he did not.

    Second, we came to sex as "tutor" and "student" rather than two loving equal partners, and, since sexual roles carry over into regular life, did damage to the relationship.

    Third, as I became more sexually adept and aware, I began to wonder about other men and resent that I was never going to have a basis to compare and make up my own mind.

    Fourth, I wondered if the reason he was so delighted with my virginity is because he thought he wasn't as good sexually as other men and really wanted me never to know that.

    Marital stability? Sure. I stayed married for 10 years; I had made a vow and was going to stick with it no matter how miserable I became…I was religious, remember?

    Finally I grew out of that stage and we divorced. I had several loving and exciting sexual relationships as a single woman before settling down with husband #2.

    He never asked how many partners I had had. He was affectionately appreciative of what I had learned along the way. He was confident of how he stacked up sexually with the previous men in my life. He was proud and honored by the "gift" I brought him….not the gift of ignorance of sex, but the gift of my choice…that I chose him above all others.

    We've been happily married for 15 years–not because I'm bound in misery by moral constraints, but because, fully informed, I chose this man and I love my life.

    Those of you who marry virgins, remember that she is always wondering how you stack up. Best make sure she is trapped by something…religion, financial dependence, children…so she doesn't check out the competition.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Hmm, keep spinning that wheel….

  40. Anonymous says:

    I married a virgin I don't resent not having other men at all, and I'm not trapped, neither I am religious, we don't have children and I don't need his money and my husband doesn't have competition. So please stop the virgin-shaming please just because you didn't enjoyed yours, doesn't mean all virgins are secretly wishing to cheat.

  41. Anonymous says:

    The thing no one tells you about being a virgin until marriage is how great the sex experience is on your marriage night. I was a virgin until I got married at 27. I was a virgin until I was 18 b/c I just didn't see the sense in jeopardizing my future (AIDS was just out and a death sentence) stayed a virgin until I was 21 because I would lose my full ride & get kicked out of college if I got pregnant and stayed a virgin b/c I became a Christian and the big man is straight forward about his expectations. My whole journey I kept hearing how I was a "fool" to wait. How I was missing out. All I can say is no one told me how unexplainable, great, amazing, and freeing the feeling would be to have my first sexual encounter with my husband on our wedding night. I am stuck to that man like glue. Anytime I feel squirrely I go back to that first experience and know I can never match that feeling with anyone else. I tell my husband my private area is customized to only him. The thought of having another man in "there" is kind of sickening to me. I am convinced if more young women and men knew how exciting and great the sexual experience is when you wait till marriage instead of constantly hearing how great promiscuity is more would wait.

  42. Anonymous says:

    I happen to agree with that. The whole sex experience should be done with someone you are giving yourself freely, not because everyone is telling you are a fool if you wait or cool of you do it. But because every single cell of each other bodies is tied to each other forever, no doubts, no alcohol just you and him…
    I would recommend it to everyone, but of course people probably think we are exaggerating and that experience with many people is better. Oh well Cest la vie.

  43. superenigma says:

    There is a lot of good points here. However, Athol, I see very little of the causation you do in these statistics.

    Many people have pointed out the countless variables ignored by these statistics. Probably the most important is that women who waited to marry will be more likely to have sexual experience but less likely to have been married for five years.

    I suspect that you are simply seeking a rational explanation for an instinct that we men have to be wary of women with many previous partners. Before we had modern medicine, after all, STIs were hard to detect and cure so we needed an evo psych strategy to evade them.

    I am a 25 year old man. My girlfriend and I are the same age and we got together about 1.5 years ago. I was a virgin then. She has had about 11 sex partners before me (I neither know nor care about the exact number). We have been tested and there are no STI issues. She displays a lot of devotion to me so I am sceptical of this claim that people with more partners are incapable of bonding.

    Are you telling me that I should make an issue of this, or that I should be on the lookout for infidelity?

  44. Athol Kay says:

    Superenigma – If things are going well between you both, then they are going well. The stats are just stats, and partner count is influence but not destiny.

    Infidelity is a risk with any relationship. Even double virgin ones.

    Just curious, what brings you here? You have a deeper question you are seeking answers to.

  45. My sexual partners outnumbered my husband's 3 (which included me) and yet I am the one who has remained faithful, loving and supportive. He is the one who in the last 13 years has taken every opportunity to cheat. I know about the Thai prostitute because he came back from a deployment with herpes. I caught him online sending explicit pictures. It was only recently when he rededicated himself to our marriage that all of my suspicions were confirmed. I think studies like this are biased and feed the male mentality that women need to be virgins but men can be whores. A marrige takes two people. Once I married I NEVER even considered cheating and it wasn't like I didn't have opportunities living amongst 22,000 Marines. My husband had the same mindset most men do when it comes to sex. I need to sleep with as many people as I can. A world full of virgins would be nice but not plausible. And in a world where 50% of marriages end in divorce basing the success of a marriage on a woman's virginity seems entirely unfair. Sometimes men can be the problem in the marriage too.


    The more partners a man has BEFORE marriage the less likely he is to be satisfied with his wife. And the same goes for women.

    So it's not about the wife being pure. It's about BOTH being as pure as possible considering their respective ages. Obviously a man and woman getting married are not likely to be virgins. But if they have only had a limited number of partners, it will increase their chance of remaining happy in their marriage.

    My fiancee and I are in our early 30s which nowadays is considered a "young couple" getting married since everyone is postponing marriage. We have only been with less than 5 people each. I don't know her exact number nor do I care because it's very low. Same goes for me.

Speak Your Mind