How would BP respond to these images of CDC divorce data?

i_have_a_semicolon · 2018-12-15T09:57:46+00:00

Here is the most current version of the original article.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752789/

You need to state what you believe these results imply before we can give you an argument against your position, but for me the take away is that people with mental health problems have more sex with multiple partners.

Here4thebeer3232 · 2018-12-15T10:10:16+00:00

Correlation does not equal causation. For example, people who own horses live longer than those who do not. Owning a horse does little to extend your life, but if you can afford to own a horse odds are you can afford good health insurance as well.

A lot of this data follows along similar lines. The data says that women with higher partner counts are more likely to be depressed. Id put money down saying that they were already depressed, and using casual sex as a way to feel better. And a person who lost their virginity before 12 , I'd wager that most likely was not a healthy or fully consensual experience, and absolutely would fuck up their feelings regarding sex and the opposite gender.

Other data points are obvious. A person who has sex with more partners is at higher risk of STDs? You don't say. Or that people who have sex more frequently have a higher chance of unplanned pregnancies? Like, sex has risks. You have more of it, the better the odds that it'll bite you eventually.

Side note: Do you have the data for these questions for men? Seems a bit odd to have done this much research on women's behavior and not have any for mens.

CombatStacey · 2018-12-15T13:47:08+00:00

I'd like to see if anyone has a concise argument against them.

At your service.

Your graphs are old and dated and must be analysed in the light of that. I don't have time to research old pre-1995 data. But you can be certain that much of the data does not apply these days. Give a clear reason why such old data is relevant and I might look at it.

Anyway, I put it forward that the difference in the divorce rate comes NOT from the quality of the women but from the quality of the men.

Exhibit A - marriage and divorce through the decades

Women who sleep with two men prior to marriage are WAY more likely to divorce than women who have MORE men before marriage (see chart). The reason being that the women who slept with more men have more of an idea of WHO they actually want to marry. Usually, women who slept with 2 men pre-wedding slept with hubby and one other man and didn't have enough experience to make an informed decision. The women who sleep with 3-10 men before marriage were able to procure a higher quality man for marriage.

Women who are sexually abused as children or/and who grow up in deprived households etc are far more likely to have more sexual partners at very young ages (10+ men before marriage) - and their lives are more likely to be difficult whether they marry or not. The men they marry are more likely to be abusive/violent/drug addicts/gamblers/cheaters etc. Many of these women might have been able to build solid marriages and families had their men been of a better quality. But that often isn't the case. The men that women from troubled backgrounds marry are likelier to be low quality.

Women who marry as virgins are FAR more likely to be religious. Religious couples have far more pressure on them to remain married and more community support. They are more likely to do things together as a family. The men are far less likely to cheat or have a problem with substance abuse/gambling. The difference is in the high quality of the men and tight community support and not so much the quality of the women.

I REST MY CASE.

killallthenarcs · 2018-12-15T12:54:42+00:00

It is irrelevant what you prefer and why if you're not a quality product yourself.

CombatStacey · 2018-12-15T13:25:58+00:00

I feel like you could replace have “more non marital partners” with “length of time single”. Most people rack up lots more partners , suffer depression, and are less happy when they get divorced, and are less happy the longer they remain divorced.

I wasn’t married but had a low n count when my 7 year relationship ended in my late 20’s. Guess what , I was depressed , unhappy, celibate for a year, and then had casual relationships. Having a high n count didn’t make me “divorced “ and depressed, being divorced made me depressed and being single for a few years in my early 30’s meant my number of partners increased. In the long run, remaining single for a few years was the best thing for me.

Ironically, it was too little premarital sex that ended the relationship, not too much. I was dumped because I had been his first partner , he cheated on me and then told me he wouldn’t marry the first woman he ever slept with.

CatchPhraze · 2018-12-15T11:34:49+00:00

Why are you asking us? We're not the PUA culture that teaches men how to contribute to these stats, or "enjoy the decline". That's those other guys.

For the first graph, why did the study only show woman, what did they want to achieve with that bias? That's what I'd say. I'd also parrot that whole people who have horses live longer thing.

OHG1 · 2018-12-15T14:29:07+00:00

First a caution, survey data sucks and people lie to doctors about their sexual exploits. While young men tend to exaggerate, no one wants to tell their doctor they are having affairs and will even lie on survey data. That being said...

I'm going to say promiscuity is a symptom not a cause, and I base this based on the very promiscuous women I have for friends.

Being a swinger, most of the women I know have had 10+ non marital partners, while married. My wife would be in the 20's by now, and thats not including women shes been with.

She's also very stable, very secure, not depressed, not on medication etc. We've had no extra STDs, we've had no surprise pregnancies, or any other stat you want there.

Its not "how many dicks you take" which I see causing a problem but just a symptom. Messed up people will have more unstable relationships, may seek more validation through sex, etc.

Of all my female swinger friends, most are very high achievers in what they do. All are middle class or higher, most are master level educated or higher. Most are in a very long term relationship.

About the only negative thing I see is fewer kids. This is a swinging problem, as kids makes being a swinger pretty difficult, so I see a lot of couples who start in their early 30's without kids put them off, put them off and then woops its kinda late. We have kids which is why we are not very active, they come first.

But all those extra dicks are not somehow turning these women into depressed balls of crazy.

2018-12-15T16:03:44+00:00

Here's the problem with the graphs: they do not represent the data found in the purported 'source'.

The CDC/NCHS 1995 data from the 1995 National Survey on Family Growth, tellingly, doesn't collect data past '10 or more' lifetime sexual partners (there's no evidence for the '21+' category included on the graphs, let alone literally anything over 10+), and doesn't collect 'happiness' survey data except in the case of pregnancy (the overwhelming majority of the report is dedicated to... you guess it, family growth. Childcare, family planning, STI testing and prevention). The data tables on 'partners in the past 12 months' and 'lifetime partners' don't line up with the numbers on the graphs, and don't provide the necessary additional data, beyond race/ethnicity, income, and marital status, to draw the conclusions drawn by these figure.

These graphs are what we in the scientific community usually call 'fake'. Anyone with Excel can make a graph, it turns out, and write 'CDC, 1995' in the corner.

Drippyskippy · 2018-12-15T10:51:57+00:00

Why do I get the feeling that the people who keep posting this BS just want someone to punish all the sluts who are not having sex with them?

RoyalAugur92 · 2018-12-15T11:56:21+00:00

In other obvious news, women are fucking prudes. What else is new?

Unconfidence · 2018-12-15T16:41:18+00:00

Wow, data from 1995, convincing. It's almost as though sampling now-50+ year-old women is going to have a strong traditionalist bias shown among the statistics.

flamingoinghome · 2018-12-15T15:06:42+00:00

u/Here4thebeer3232 said most of what I think needs to be said, but I just wanted to add a heaping teaspoon of HOLY FUCK to the one about "early intercourse." 12-and-13-year-olds can't consent to sex. So, those people are rape victims. So NO SHIT rape victims are more likely to have issues than people who weren't raped. I....I don't know if terps think that bloops are okay with statuatory rape, or...

Bekiala · 2018-12-15T15:44:44+00:00

It would be mored interesting if it had charts on men too. Showing only studies of women leaves me wondering if the findings are only typical for women or is it true for all people? I kinda think it would be true for men as well as women.

I often think that promiscuous people of both sexes were sexually abused which causes lots of problems throughout their life.

MGTOWtoday · 2018-12-15T16:07:53+00:00

To me it seems to make sense that the more promiscuous women are, the more depressed they become and the harder time they have if keeping a stable and enduring relationship.

Maybe those old Bible thumpers were onto something when they said that you should wait until marriage.

2018-12-15T20:46:07+00:00

There's a study that suggests premarital promiscuity causes lower marital sexual satisfaction, which causes general lower marital satisfaction and could be an explanation of the higher divorce rates of people who had sex before marriage compared to those who didn't.

People who had sex before marriage also have affairs more than people who didn't have sex before marriage which could also be a cause of the higher divorce rates.

There are undoubtedly more findings and correlations but that's all I know about.

Also, men's premarital promiscuity does not affect marital satisfaction and stability as much as women's premarital promiscuity, so I think (like the incels say, I can't believe I'm agreeing with them) that it could be logically assumed that virgin women are able to pair-bond more than non virgin women in general. Sex releases more oxytocin in women than in men, so it would make sense that when a woman has sex with just one man, she emotionally bonds to him more than when she experienced this act that releases oxytocin also with other men, making it kind of "over used" and less valuable. I think the suggestion that virgin bond more than non virgin women could be another explanation of the lower divorce rates of virgin women compared to non virgin women.

So there seem to be a lot of factors.

red__aaron · 2018-12-15T13:36:18+00:00

If you read the abstract the correlation between mental health issues and sexual partners is not statistically significant. The correlation between number of partners and substance abuse is. The graph isn’t super helpful

2018-12-15T18:36:13+00:00

Correlation does not equal causation

2018-12-15T20:43:27+00:00

These graphs can be torn apart to high heaven, most of them look like the correlations wouldn't be significant statistically, and they say nothing about the sample these numbers were drawn from, which could make a huge difference in what the graphs can be trusted to answer. Bar graphs are easily manipulated and these clearly were. I'm not super academic, but I'm educated enough to know that I can't form an opinion on anything based on these graphs alone.

OfSpock · 2018-12-16T01:33:10+00:00

Maybe someone can explain chart number three to me. The title references happiness but the X axis is labelled 'Percentage of sexually active women aged 15-44'. Y is number of sexual partners. Where does the happiness level come in? The number on the bar appears to be the X axis figure.

Similarly graph 4.

decoy88 · 2018-12-15T09:47:56+00:00

I think people who are repressed are more likely to lie about their circumstances and their satisfaction with them

EDIT: I also think not everyone is built for monogamy, but many more people than that try anyway

2018-12-15T09:41:37+00:00

Hey OP, can you please make a small edit to the body of your post to summon the automod? Thanks!

JSC077 · 2018-12-15T19:05:43+00:00

Numbers don't lie. Thanks for posting it.

Eartherry · 2018-12-16T07:31:38+00:00

Response? I'd rather women be able to choose a path that would make them less happy than forcing them to take the path that would make them more happy by comparison. Only because I'd know it was orchestrated by a force that stands to benefit from women having fewer options.

ChubbaWubbaButt · 2018-12-16T08:47:04+00:00

Im not really shocked tbh. I mean the STD one? Pretty obviously easy. You sleep with someone and 50/50 they are either clean or not. You can't get lucky every time that theyre clean. Granted, i also don't care unless its incurable.

As for the others... I kind of support it. Mostly from observing my parents relationship. My mom didn't really date before meeting my Dad and my Dad on the other hand only dated a few before being my mom. While my aunt dated a lot and is currently cheating on her husband. Like the stats show, its not ALL women who date a lot end up in less durable marriages. Its just a higher percent.

Unfortunately, I recently learned in a cognitive psychology class that if you tell people "hey this example doesnt represent the whole" that for some reason people will dismiss that entirely and continue to use it as a representation for the whole group, in this case women. Regardless of logic, our brains want to use it as a heuristic for the whole group.

I think people start dating too young & don't take dating seriously enough these days. Or maybe they need anxiety like I have lol Im constantly horrified by the idea that "hey if i date this person it can only end two ways: breakup or marriage". Dating isnt a game, its the lives of two people.

But as for just random sexual encounters... I don't know. I don't know how to factor that in, I don't know how it emotionally or mentally affects people. Does it make them take relationships less seriously? Do they become unhappy with just one partner? I don't know.

Oh, also Id love to also see the stats on men, if possible? Its never fair to only look at one side

2018-12-17T12:45:08+00:00

I don't have an argument against the data, but I'd ask the obvious question: "where is the analogous data for men?"

Any thinking person should be asking that question before making conclusions.

TriadFamilyTimes · 2018-12-15T18:24:25+00:00

I'd say two things. Most of those statistics, like STD rates, are no brainers. More partners = more risk.

The ones that aren't, like self reported marital happiness, I tend to question.

I look at the percent that are "in stable 5+ year marriages" and I'm wondering is that like who is in one of those at the time they were surveyed? Is that people who have had a 5 year marriage, specifically, and 5 year relationships are not included? Focusing on marriage in a time when people trust marriage less than they used to seems like a bad bias. I'd like to read the studies that produced these because just the graphics don't tell us much of any worth. Correlations without causation aren't of much use.

Title	How would BP respond to these images of CDC divorce data?
Author	Redditor1220
Upvotes	28
Comments	206
Date	December 15, 2018 9:03 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/a6dv83/how_would_bp_respond_to_these_images_of_cdc/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/how-would-bp-respond-to-these-images-of-cdc.258540 https://theredarchive.com/post/258540

Comments