Statistical Vindication of the Superiority of Pre-Marital Sexual Abstinence

That sounds like a scientific paper title. If you ever write for a technical journal, basically your header will encapsulate the conclusion of your research. Goes to show I really was paying attention in my writing-intensive elective seminar.

As I scrolled through the latest argument about sex on my university forum, I saw that the resident third-wave feminist had levied a research study's conclusions against a guy commenting on the same "slut survey" I wrote about in this post. He had said that he couldn't see why anyone would take pride in 'owning' the word slut and expressed that there must be something wrong with them. Feminista Number One's response made use of data from a blogspot article by The Social Pathologist to claim that women who had several sexual partners were less likely to divorce than women who had had a few, or women who had had numerous partners. This was supposedly evidence of the superiority of having more than one sexual partner. 

Nevertheless, FN1 couldn't deny the results also showing that virginity prior to marriage was far superior to any number of sexual partners, in serving as a predictor for the success (non-divorce over an extended period) of their first/only marriage. Intrigued, I went on to click on the link and peruse the article.

Here are some quotes of interest from the article at the blog link:

"...divorce rates are the lowest for those with zero pre‐marital partners. That part is unambiguous. Virgin brides are the least likely to divorce, all else equal. But why do  divorce rates rise with one or two premarital partners only to reverse and drop after two or more sexual partners? And next, why do divorce rates reverse and climb back up after the pre‐marital partner count goes into the double digits?"

"My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5‐9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience....Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5‐9 pre‐marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men."

From a table constructed by the analyst,

"One can see that the divorce rate is nearly 50% for women who had only one pre‐marital partner and if that partner did not develop into her husband. The divorce rate falls to half the above rate (25.6%) if a woman later marries her first and only pre‐marital sex partner. However, both these divorce rates are higher than the divorce rate for virgin brides. Pre‐marital sexual experience with one’s future spouse does not beat out having no pre‐marital sex at all."

Thanks, Feminista Number One!

I initially thought I was going to be led  to a pro-3WF site where I would have to read between the lines. As it turns out, that's what FN1 was doing, herself. Intriguingly, the study cited was called the National Survey of Family Growth and was published by the Heritage Foundation. So FN1 is reading research spearheaded by conservatives. One can only hope she doesn't fail to be persuasively influenced by her dabbling in the enemy's camp, over time.

It should be noted that it isn't the mere fact of virginity or sexual activity that has an effect on marital success, but what it implies, either in terms of the type of character or decision making that went into the choice to have or abstain from intercourse, or in terms of the type of effect that such a decision consequently has on that person. But if you're a foolish person, doing the right thing without knowing why is not morally wrong, it's just less beneficial to you; nevertheless, since it gives you time to figure out a coherent ethic justifying your choice, you will reap the reward for it over time, even if you do "the right thing for the wrong reasons." 

~ Rak Chazak

Anatomy Lesson: Major TMI Warning

This is the warning symbol for explicit details that may bother some people. Turn away now unless your curiosity is stronger than your stomach.

I learned something new about sexual anatomy that changes a few things. The content of this post will touch on a body part connected to people's expectations of intercourse, particularly when it concerns virginity.

Now that I've given enough advance warning, let's delve into it. When you get past the typical High School level Sex Ed, chances are you find out some further details on your own, and in this investigation might learn that 'penis' and 'vagina' are a bit simplistic, there's more going on down there. You might learn about something called the hymen, which the prevailing popular wisdom tends to say is skin that stretches across the walls of the vagina and is broken during first intercourse, resulting in the ubiquitous bleeding that is popularly associated with a woman 'losing her virginity.' I recall that in middle school, the 'vulgar tongue' referred to it as "popping the cherry." Different sources would give you different facts regarding how much blood was expected.

What I found in almost every instance of its description, be it in books, online articles or in casual (very casual) conversation, was that the hymen is supposedly a taut membrane of skin that completely occupies the space somewhere in the vagina, and rips off the vaginal wall, or at least rips straight through the middle, when it is penetrated, either by a penis or a tampon. It never grows back. 

This is wrong. Apparently there is a wide misconception about it, but this is anecdotal and I suppose my own experience isn't extensive enough to make this declaration objectively. Nevertheless, because of this misconception, it appears that the "popular wisdom," again, in terms of advice given to males who are having intercourse with a virgin, is to be quick, making sure to break through fast so that the pain doesn't drag out. Much like the notion that ripping off a bandaid quickly hurts less than pulling it off slowly.

Terrible advice, it turns out. In reality, the hymen is not a "single use tissue," but does in fact grow back. That's because it, like the labia majorae/minorae, is not something that just gets in the way and makes female anatomy confusing, it's a functional anatomical feature that, to my best understanding, helps keep the vagina sanitary by limiting dirt and debris or infectious agents from getting inside.

I wanted an image of filters arranged in a row. The concept is that a little less gets through each step.

And how does this happen? That's because it isn't completely closed off. You may encounter descriptions that say that it has holes in it. Whatever does this mean? Now it makes sense to me. Because it isn't a taut membrane but a sort of valve, and not an obstacle to tampons, fingers, penises etc, it has the ability to open and close depending on the frequency of sexual activity. Think of it more like one of those circular gates, like a lens cover on some cameras, [edit: a SHUTTER] and which you can see in the opening scene to James Bond movies:

It can open and close. And it does open, and stay that way with sustained intercourse over some time. So the prevailing opinion that guys should thrust real quick because it has to hurt, so get it over with, is misguided and hurts women. The reality is that it's better to go slowly. It doesn't have to be painful. And over a little time it will get to a point where it won't be an obstacle anymore. Patience is romantic, guys. 

I understand the idea of waiting doesn't make much sense if the cultural expectation is that you might only be having sex with a girl one time. But then, the whole idea of having sex with someone and being sexually intimate without being emotionally and intellectually intimate, and having a commitment that creates a basis for the physical ecstasy to be much more enjoyable and satisfying, doesn't make much sense, either.

This concludes the anatomy lesson. Let's hope it helps at least one couple, somewhere.

~ Rak Chazak