# Divorce and High Count Females



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

According to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected in 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2013. For women marrying since the start of the new millennium:

Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;

Women with 3-9 partners were less likely to divorce than women with 2 partners; and,

Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

And what was the partner count of their husbands? More, less, the same?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Well this should go over well. 

The way you write "females" in the title makes them sound like a lab rat or something. I am sure this will lead to a very cordial thread. 

I would also like to point out that not divorcing is not the same thing as a happy marriage or good marriage. Something that I feel a lot of people mistake. Kind of reminds me of money = happiness. Less likely to divorce really only means that, they are not going to ask for a divorce. If you read on here enough you know that that is not necessarily a good thing. 

I am not sure what any of this proves really.

I personally believe that some people who are very sexually active when they are young may do it to seek approval and that may translate into the kind of neediness that doesn't make for a good marriage. It could also be that people who don't have sex with all but one person do it for religious reasons and that may also be why they don't get divorced too. The point is that doesn't mean they are happy. 

I say all this as someone with a low count who purposely wanted to have one because I just wasn't into having sex with someone I didn't really care about, and how actively wanted someone like me. 

Anyway this should be a fun thread.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Not really surprising. I can see a number of plausible explanations. Without a real study its just a guess, but I'd guess that women who have had fewer partners are more likely to have "traditional" ideas of sex and marriage. That makes them less likely to seek divorce under conditions where less traditional women would divorce. 

From my point of view, a unhappy marriage is worse than on marriage, so I would prefer a partner who would leave me if they were unhappy rather than hide it and stay for the sake of the "marriage". I can't think of anything worse than discovering that your spouse has only been staying with you because they felt the "had to", not because they wanted to.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> According to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected in 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2013. For women marrying since the start of the new millennium:
> 
> Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
> 
> ...



Is the partner count during the marriage? 
Love those studies ().
Let’s all get some virgins then. (Can you break the He-Man during anal?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> According to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected in 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2013. For women marrying since the start of the new millennium:
> 
> Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
> 
> ...


This article does a great job explaining the why's.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/counteri...-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

The most interesting thing about this survey is that this is a recent trend. Prior to 2000s the group with the highest rate of divorce were women with only 2 partners.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Of course! 

Did my partner count influence the decision to divorce? Absolutely! I knew there was better out there because I'd experience it and knew I could experience it again! Not just partners who were more sexually satisfying, but partners who were more satisfying in other areas, as well.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt (Jul 30, 2016)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce.


 That makes sense. They have nothing to compare their mate to so they don't know what they're missing.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

Actually women with 0 partners probably have the lowest chance to divorce because they never were married.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> That makes sense. They have nothing to compare their mate to so they don't know what they're missing.


This is why some men insist on marrying virgins.
No comparison issues lol.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

Ok I haven't been divorced so maybe this is a thing but do they really ask your partner count in divorce proceedings?
How do they get this info?


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

I think there is a rising age of first marriage diff. between decades inter-related with partner count in there that make it a more complicated picture than that graph is showing. I would posit and age of marriage close to 20-24 for the 80's vs. closer to 30 something for the 2000's. You are more likely to have a higher partner count if you wait till 30 something to marry...


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce.
> ...


This!!


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I'd be interested to know the sample sizes for the chart @Lila posted, and the breakdown of number of respondents falling into each number of partners grouping. Is the 0-1 partners group very small compared to others, or do those people comprise a significant number?

Anyway, I don't think these results will change how anyone approaches sex (well, maybe a small fraction of a percent) - most will do what they want, and the results probably won't change very much over time with different surveys.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Married but Happy said:


> I'd be interested to know the sample sizes for the chart @Lila posted, and the breakdown of number of respondents falling into each number of partners grouping. Is the 0-1 partners group very small compared to others, or do those people comprise a significant number?
> 
> Anyway, I don't think these results will change how anyone approaches sex (well, maybe a small fraction of a percent) - most will do what they want, and the results probably won't change very much over time with different surveys.


All interesting questions. But I think it varies from person to person. 

Interestingly enough, my GF had sense enough to get out of some bad marriages and relationships sooner rather than later. Which I find interesting. She is not vastly experienced but some, just not a lot. 

And until she met me, she had a bad picker. But I kind of picked her anyway, so maybe it would still be bad if I was not so wonderful...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> And what was the partner count of their husbands? More, less, the same?


According to the article, men didn't have as reliable a memory as women for their histories.:wink2:


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> That makes sense. They have nothing to compare their mate to so they don't know what they're missing.


This works the way around too. I was never bothered by or jealous of my wife’s high number, she picked me so I must be doing something right.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

This makes sense to me. If a person has had many relationships that it seems likely that may carry on into marriage as well.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> According to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected in 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2013. For women marrying since the start of the new millennium:
> 
> Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
> 
> ...



I think I read somewhere that women initiate the majority of divorces. Is there a bearing on the point you are making?


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> This makes sense to me. If a person has had many relationships that it seems likely that may carry on into marriage as well.


You think women with more sexual partners are divorcing more often because they're cheating on their husbands?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I think there is more divorce due to greater opportunities for singles, today. 

I think there is a somewhat common occurrence of having a bad picker, or thinking that it will work out even though their gut is telling them something different.

I think there is an issue when there is a great disparity in pasts. 

I know, some men don't want to file for divorce. I think they don't believe she is serious or something. So, she has to file.


----------



## 482 (Mar 14, 2017)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> According to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected in 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2013. For women marrying since the start of the new millennium:
> 
> Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
> 
> ...


This will not end well, lol. 

I agree with others without knowing the size of the experiment and the people polled its hard to give validity to the argument. Do you have a link to the study?


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> According to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected in 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2013. For women marrying since the start of the new millennium:
> 
> Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
> 
> ...



hmmmm. Good stats Upsidedown


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> And what was the partner count of their husbands? More, less, the same?



Look it up. It may be or maybe not


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> This makes sense to me. If a person has had many relationships that it seems likely that may carry on into marriage as well.


I agree Diana, overall on all sides. 

There have been some studies that the more people someone has been with the more likely to cheat. I can look them up but IMO and in my personal experience, they echo true


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Tiggy! said:


> You think women with more sexual partners are divorcing more often because they're cheating on their husbands?



could be... could be both ways. In 2015, a study was done where women initiate 70% of the divorces. I think some may be infidelity related, some financial loss but it would be a good research project for you. let me know what you find


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

The higher rate of divorce is the throw away culture which some of those with high counts have adopted. Others have just been to trusting, which was used by trash men to have a temporary woman on their arm.

Remember hearing an older woman helping another with a wedding last year, and telling the girl, "this is your first marriage. It needs to be something special." :0

One of those keep your mouth shut moments.

If any man ever hears his wife to be, or her girlfriends, speaking in such language, I would advise res-educating, and waiting, or running aways as fast as he can.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

wmn1 said:


> could be... could be both ways. In 2015, a study was done where women initiate 70% of the divorces. I think some may be infidelity related, some financial loss but it would be a good research project for you. let me know what you find


If you want to find out if it's financially related research it yourself, don't be lazy and try to get other's to do the leg work for you (I could make up anything).


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Tiggy! said:


> If you want to find out if it's financially related research it yourself, don't be lazy and try to get other's to do the leg work for you (I could make up anything).


Already looked some things up but trying to be respectful. You are pulling things out of thin air and making accusations that aren't necessarily accurate


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

482 said:


> This will not end well, lol.
> 
> I agree with others without knowing the size of the experiment and the people polled its hard to give validity to the argument. Do you have a link to the study?


https://ifstudies.org/blog/counteri...between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

This should get you everything you need to know.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

wmn1 said:


> Already looked some things up but trying to be respectful. You are pulling things out of thin air and making accusations that aren't necessarily accurate


I haven't made any accusations about anything (if your referring to the question I asked Diana7, that's just the conclusion I made from what she said but was checking if it's accurate or I misunderstood what she was saying).


Pulling what things out of thin air?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Tiggy! said:


> You think women with more sexual partners are divorcing more often because they're cheating on their husbands?


Maybe, but when a person has got used to jumping from one person to another, it may be hard to stay with one long term. Must say, I know so many good very long happy marriages where they were each others only partners. Some met at school or shortly afterwards.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> According to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected in 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2013. For women marrying since the start of the new millennium:
> 
> Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
> 
> ...


I don't know that I would consider this a problem.

Based on my reading of marriage books, articles on divorce rates, claims by spouses of why they divorced, and comparisons with non-Western culture, it seems that a significant part of our problem lies in the tenth century "invention" that marriage is somehow that one magic relationship we have in our lives that should be one-and-only. While everything else in life is transitory - everything leaves - somehow, there's something about this one that makes it different and somehow we are to overcome human nature and make it work until death. Some people can do it, but the evidence strongly suggest that a majority cannot. Our modern culture, combining the strongest materialism we've ever had, plus an expectation of perfectionism placed on both genders, plus a strong "my rights versus your rights" mindset makes it harder to do.

The feminist movement is, in my opinion, at the cusp of finishing the creation of a sexual revolution that treats sex as a part of human life and not as a punishment for being female. The mores raising virginity to a noble status were created by old white-bearded men seeking to control women through their reproductive systems. In the tenth century, when this was done, it was indeed difficult for women - there were no jobs, no income, and they NEEDED a man, since society only saw to it that men could gain income. That's behind us, and while we haven't reached equality in pay yet, we're not far off. In fact, many of the tech professions actually show a tilt in favor of women, particularly managers.

It was my involvement with the feminist movement that got me in touch with "sex positivity". If you desire sex, and you find someone else who desires sex, and both of you respect each other and nobody is lying to get into bed with the other, then it is a fine thing. Neither of the two people, in any way, have been diminished by having had one more partner than another person.

It's high time for it to be as OK for a woman to have had multiple partners as it is for a man.

Speaking as a man who's had a reasonable (not high) number of partners, I can say this from my limited experience: the women who were all about "saving it for the right one", and "not outside of marriage" and looked down somehow on those who'd had a lot of partners - they were the most riddled with shame for that one time they did it before their first marriage, and even while I was married to one of them, I could see the guilt in her heart when we made love - as if it was still a bad thing, but it was now a requirement because she had gotten married. That **** has to stop.

It's her body. It's his body. If what she's done with her body before I met her bothers me, then she isn't the problem. I am.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

DustyDog said:


> It's her body. It's his body. If what she's done with her body before I met her bothers me, then she isn't the problem. I am.


If there is a strong correlation between high number of partners and divorce rate and you were considering marriage with someone with a high count, don't you think it would be smart to consider the risk? I guess, the easy solution is just not to marry, which works well if you don't plan on having kids in the future.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> Maybe, but when a person has got used to jumping from one person to another, it may be hard to stay with one long term. Must say, I know so many good very long happy marriages where they were each others only partners. Some met at school or shortly afterwards.


Maybe. Not always, by TAM logic we shouldn't still be married - she had a huge number, she was my first and bonus points for sex on the first date (technically before agreeing to a date) and she was cheating. But it's been a “good very long happy marriage”, 26 years no infidelity (and we always thought I’d be the one to stray). I understand we are probably outliers.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

DustyDog said:


> I don't know that I would consider this a problem.
> 
> Based on my reading of marriage books, articles on divorce rates, claims by spouses of why they divorced, and comparisons with non-Western culture, it seems that a significant part of our problem lies in the tenth century "invention" that marriage is somehow that one magic relationship we have in our lives that should be one-and-only. While everything else in life is transitory - everything leaves - somehow, there's something about this one that makes it different and somehow we are to overcome human nature and make it work until death. Some people can do it, but the evidence strongly suggest that a majority cannot. Our modern culture, combining the strongest materialism we've ever had, plus an expectation of perfectionism placed on both genders, plus a strong "my rights versus your rights" mindset makes it harder to do.
> 
> ...


1. Why isn't it okay? It's okay with me. I just don't want to sleep with one. How would I know what her count is? She isn't going to tell and, if I ask, I'm sure not to have a chance with this hypothetical woman. 

2. You don't have a right to tell anyone how to feel. Folks can't help having the feelings they do. What is possible, is for those who dislike the actions of high count individuals to treat them with respect for all humanity. We all deserve that. 



When trying to be like others, and not accepting who I am, I have always been hurt. In fact, I am even more aware of nuances in speech at those times. Sorry they hurt your feelings and hers.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce.


OK everyone calm down... I am going to focus my studies starting with groups of women AND men that have 0 partners to try and find out why they are the least likely to divorce. I am headed to a monastery tomorrow and promise to get to the bottom of this. 

I feel kinda stupid though, cause if someone has NEVER had a partner it would seem as though they might answer "N/A" for the question, "have you ever divorced?"

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> If there is a strong correlation between high number of partners and divorce rate and you were considering marriage with someone with a high count, don't you think it would be smart to consider the risk? I guess, the easy solution is just not to marry, which works well if you don't plan on having kids in the future.


There's a risk of splitting up even if you're dating, or never marry. Better to risk marriage to someone you love who is a great match in many ways - despite a high count - and who enjoys sex, than marry someone who may have a low count, but not even know if they enjoy sex and sexual variety. Besides, the very low 0-1 count people are a minority, are often religiously motivated, and as such would be a very poor match for me. My ex was very low count, and a terrible sexual partner. Glad to be rid of her. My current partner is high count - like me - and we have as good a marriage as anyone we've heard of (and maybe better).

Anyway, my experience doesn't necessarily match statistics, but there is a - possibly wrong - assumption that divorce is bad, and not having any partners prior to marriage is good because it helps avoid this bad thing. IMO, divorce isn't bad - it is often a very good thing. And it may even be a better thing for some low-count people than staying in their marriage.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

It's about disparity, not count. If I have a high count and she has a low count, and we seduce each other and end up married, how the eff is that compatible? 

Someone, please? 

Do you just forget about compatibility where sex is concerned in the hopes of getting a woman who will suck it and swallow or want tied up or something, figuring, she will rock my world? What about rocking hers? She's going to need a heap more than you have to offer. And she'll be interested in getting down, not teaching you how to do everything. It will suck the life out of her sexual fantasy.


----------



## vincent3 (May 31, 2018)

DustyDog said:


> It's her body. It's his body. If what she's done with her body before I met her bothers me, then she isn't the problem. I am.


It isn't a matter of either person being "the problem." This is just an area in which they're incompatible. One person might feel that the high count of previous sexual partners reveals a fundamental difference in outlook. It's the person's prerogative to feel that way, but the person should of course be tactful when declining the relationship.

There have been a few comments suggesting that a high count of previous sexual partners is good, because it means the person is highly sexual, experienced, or adventurous. Some people are low-key about sex and don't see the intensiveness of it as a high priority. There are many kinds of people, and most want somebody who is compatible with them.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

2ntnuf said:


> It's about disparity, not count. If I have a high count and she has a low count, and we seduce each other and end up married, how the eff is that compatible?
> 
> Someone, please?
> 
> Do you just forget about compatibility where sex is concerned in the hopes of getting a woman who will suck it and swallow or want tied up or something, figuring, she will rock my world? What about rocking hers? She's going to need a heap more than you have to offer. And she'll be interested in getting down, not teaching you how to do everything. It will suck the life out of her sexual fantasy.


A high number of sexual partners does not necessarily equate being adventurous in what one will do sexually. All it means is that the person who has a high number had sex with a lot partners. Very often a woman with a high number of partners has had a lot of ONS, most ONS do not include much in the way of adventurous sex.

Nor does a lot of sex partners mean that the person has had a lot of sex. A woman who has had 100 partners in a 10 year time might just have had 100 ONS or at least sex only a few times with on man. So in her lifetime she might have had sex somewhere between 100 to 200 times.

A woman who was married for 10 years, on the other hand, will most likely have had a lot more sex. Even at sex twice a week, that's 1,040 sexual encounters with her partner/spouse in 10 years. if they had sex almost daily, that's as much as 3,640 sexual encounters.

Sex is much more likely to be adventurous in a long term relationship where the couple gets to really know each other and to feel safe enough to really open up and explore.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

EleGirl said:


> A high number of sexual partners does not necessarily equate being adventurous in what one will do sexually. All it means is that the person who has a high number had sex with a lot partners. Very often a woman with a high number of partners has had a lot of ONS, most ONS do not include much in the way of adventurous sex.
> 
> Nor does a lot of sex partners mean that the person has had a lot of sex. A woman who has had 100 partners in a 10 year time might just have had 100 ONS or at least sex only a few times with on man. So in her lifetime she might have had sex somewhere between 100 to 200 times.
> 
> ...


I must admit, I will not lie.

I hate it when math and sex are both present, between the loving words, between the sheets.

Holding another loving person close, as close as is physically possible, sounds so cold when numbers separate the act, count more than the feelings of love.

When a man is pounding hard his female mate and she is counting his thrusts, measuring his pace, comparing his efforts, mathematically to some other shtick.

Math belongs in the classroom, not in the bedroom.

The TAM topics we discourse on, cool the intercourse to follow.

Alas! :|


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> A high number of sexual partners does not necessarily equate being adventurous in what one will do sexually. *All it means is that the person who has a high number had sex with a lot partners.* Very often a woman with a high number of partners has had a lot of ONS, most ONS do not include much in the way of adventurous sex.
> 
> Nor does a lot of sex partners mean that the person has had a lot of sex. A woman who has had 100 partners in a 10 year time might just have had 100 ONS or at least sex only a few times with on man. So in her lifetime she might have had sex somewhere between 100 to 200 times.
> 
> ...


That's the part that gets to me. 

Why do some seem to think it is better to have had more partners, if the sex is so bad? Seems like it wouldn't be worth it. 

I would expect a woman who was or is married to have a lot more sex that is more adventurous. The difference is, she is committed to one man... even if it ends some day. 


Thanks for that. I already understood those things and still came to the same conclusion, though it reads like I was a bit triggered that evening. Don't remember why or what caused it.


----------



## SeattleWill (Aug 8, 2018)

sokillme said:


> Well this should go over well.
> 
> The way you write "females" in the title makes them sound like a lab rat or something. I am sure this will lead to a very cordial thread.
> 
> ...


The studies also looked at happiness in marriages. Women who married their first partner have the happiest marriages. Women with 10+ partners had the last happy marriages.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> A high number of sexual partners does not necessarily equate being adventurous in what one will do sexually.


Yup. My wife was/is high numbered and ultra “vanilla”. 

She never hid either, so I’m good.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

SeattleWill said:


> The studies also looked at happiness in marriages. Women who married their first partner have the happiest marriages. Women with 10+ partners had the last happy marriages.


I have read enough threads on here and other places to know that just because people think they have a "happy" marriage doesn't mean they know any better or that it is a good one. 

So many threads where the spouse from an outsiders point of view is terribly abused, they will at first talk about their marriage as a very happy one. It's only in hindsight with the benefit of another better relationship they they realize how much they settled.

Nah, I don't believe this anymore. I am more inclined to believe ignorance is bliss.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt (Jul 30, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> Maybe, but when a person has got used to jumping from one person to another, it may be hard to stay with one long term. Must say, I know so many good very long happy marriages where they were each others only partners. Some met at school or shortly afterwards.


Sadly, there's the _*other *_side of the story that you see quite often where one of the "one and only" partners starts wanting to see what it's like to experience OTHER people because they've only been with one person their entire lives. I see that played out quite regularly on infidelity boards - it's pretty common. The second I see a post where a BS starts out with, "we were each other's _"firsts and onlys"_ I kind of roll my eyes because to me, it seems almost a given that ONE of them is eventually going to get curious and want to stray.

That's why I'd NEVER marry a man who had no experience at all or precious little. Nope. No thank you. :grin2:


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> Sadly, there's the _*other *_side of the story that you see quite often where one of the "one and only" partners starts wanting to see what it's like to experience OTHER people because they've only been with one person their entire lives. I see that played out quite regularly on infidelity boards - it's pretty common. The second I see a post where a BS starts out with, "we were each other's _"firsts and onlys"_ I kind of roll my eyes because to me, it seems almost a given that ONE of them is eventually going to get curious and want to stray.
> 
> That's why I'd NEVER marry a man who had no experience at all or precious little. Nope. No thank you. :grin2:


When one of these "one and only" folks has friends who make sleeping with others sound like an exciting and wonderful life experience that must not be missed, and tell them how to do it, removing the fear, loneliness and difficulties that are inherent in sleeping with someone you don't know, it starts to look very attractive. Once done, it's too late to go back to what you were, a person who believes themselves to be valuable, rather than just another lay, like "everyone" else. Quotes to emphasize I know it's not everyone, though I use the terminology as I've heard it used. 

There are those who always wanted to sleep around and will do it with a little encouragement. Those folks really don't know themselves very well. I respect those folks less. I think they harm the one they claimed to love, basically lying to them and themselves, whether intentional or not. I feel they did not take their commitment seriously enough. 

I agree with you, though. You speak of compatibility. That's important as you have displayed here. However, I agree with @Diana7, too. 

We don't generally explain all the nuances well. Nor, do we have the patience, many times, to allow others to explain and really listen. I don't mean "do as told" when I post "listen". I mean "hear and think about" what was conveyed.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

As with many of these studies and the responses they get, the underlying premise is that somehow marriage is the holy grail that all should strive for. Dusty Dog has the right idea. I agree with most of what he posted. IMO, high partner count may lead to a higher divorce rate because quite frankly that person probably should not have gotten married in the first place. And as others have said, the 1 partner contingent probably has a very large religious overlay that frowns upon divorce, so they just stay together regardless of how things are. Also, as someone else posted, remaining married is NOT the same as being happy. That is premise I was talking about initially.


----------



## hope4family (Sep 5, 2012)

Ynot said:


> As with many of these studies and the responses they get, the underlying premise is that somehow marriage is the holy grail that all should strive for. Dusty Dog has the right idea. I agree with most of what he posted. IMO, high partner count may lead to a higher divorce rate because quite frankly that person probably should not have gotten married in the first place. And as others have said, the 1 partner contingent probably has a very large religious overlay that frowns upon divorce, so they just stay together regardless of how things are. Also, as someone else posted, remaining married is NOT the same as being happy. That is premise I was talking about initially.


I am tracking with your sentiment.

I would be more interested in a study that went out to discover if there was a correlation between when you start having kids, education level, and of course become sexually active in general to see if this correlates more towards happiness and less towards divorce rates. Both as individual components, and altogether. 

As to the statistics currently presented by the number of partners. To me, that's only part of the story. Ie some people have to kiss a lot of frogs before they find the one while some either give in and settle or just weren't marriage material. 

Just to emphasize, this all should depend on whether or not you look at marriage as the holy grail. When to many it could be a piece of paper, a legal drawback, a religious spiritual commitment, a significant relevance of emotional attachment (the one and only), an abusive expression of patriarchy traditions, or an arranged transaction.


----------

