The Marriage Seller Pivot

 

 

 

 

 

 

People who try to convince men to marry (marriage sellers) quite often do a pivot.

They usually start their sales pitch appealing to your own self-interest. They say things like:

Married men earn more money

Married men are healthier

Married men live longer

Married men are happier

Married men have more and better sex

But when those of us who know better point out:

• Married men are also taller, meaning that marriage didn't cause men to be richer, healthier, live longer, be happier, have more and better sex, and get taller. Rather, women are far more likely to marry and stay married to men who earn more, are healthier, are happier, more sexually compatible, and taller.
  
• "Married" men are being compared as a group to all "unmarred" men, which consists of diverse groups, including divorced men and men who can't attract a wife (because they are sick, poor, unhappy, etc.) The stats marriage sellers are trying to use to show marrying benefits men never separate out intentionally unmarried men for comparison, many of whom are wealthier, healthier, happier, and having more, better, and more diverse sex than most husbands.
• Over half of everything a married man earns/owns legally belongs to his wife, who can take it away at any time for any reason, and 80 percent of spending decisions in a marriage are made by a wife, often to buy things a man doesn't want and won't use, so my unmarried counterpart only has to earn 51 percent of what I do to be better off than me.
  
• Men have often been conditioned to think they are losers, failures, or sinners if not married, or that complaining about their marriage is a sin or negative confession, and thus might say they are happy (if husbands) and unhappy (if still looking for a wife) as a result.

...marriage sellers will often pivot. They might try an ad hominem attack, call you bitter, ungrateful (if you're married), selfish, loser, immature, incel, misogynist, or even say marriage isn't a bed of roses for women either (which is an odd way to try to sell it).

The more careful ones, though, will pivot from "You'll be so much better off!" to "You have an obligation to get married." They don't lead with the obligation/duty approach because they know it isn't nearly as appealing as the first approach. With the "obligation" approach, they say things like:

Marriage is good for society
Marriage matures men
The Lord wants you to get married

Those are largely circular arguments or, like the first set, involve supposed correlation rather than demonstrable causation in the direction from marriage to positive outcome. If someone asserts something like "marriage is good for society," ask them to explain how. They'll probably say something about fatherless kids being a problem on society. But if you will not create children and then abandon them, where is the issue? They might say that it's better for a woman to have a husband than depend on government. But those aren't the only options. How about teaching and encouraging women to be truly independent?

There simply is no general Biblical command to marry that applies to every man today, especially not to get a bad contract from a secular state or engage in the common behaviors of today's social concept of marriage. Yes, the Lord, according to the Bible, doesn't want you trying to steal away another man's wife from him, so don't do that. Getting married certainly doesn't stop that! Notice the Bible doesn't tell you what steps to take to be married, as in "Do X, Y, and Z, and then you'll be married." That seems kind of like an important thing to be left out if everyone is supposed to marry.

Prager University even tried to teach viewers that married men are sexier.

Pay attention if you hear someone who effectively dismantles the claims of a marriage seller that married men are better off, and you might notice the marriage seller try a pivot.

Stay free, men.

An Unmarried Individual May Not Be Happier Married

 

There are marriage-selling sociologists and their marks who post graphs that depict married parents as happier than “unmarried,” childfree people.

I’m a married parent. I’d love to tell you that if YOU marry and have children, you’ll be happier.

But there’s no solid evidence of that. It might make you miserable.

The graphs rely on statistical trickery and for marks to not understand that apparent correlation isn’t proof of directional causation.

Who is counted as “unmarried” in those graphs?

• Divorced people, whose unhappiness could be primarily due to their marriage
• People who are too sickly, ugly, poor, or unpleasant to attract a spouse - how happy do you think they are?
• Generally unhappy people, whose unhappiness makes it more difficult to attract or keep a spouse 
• Desperate people who think they’re losers, sinners, failures, or doomed (perhaps taught so by their clergy or cult leaders) for not marrying/multiplying 
• People who are partnered and living like they are married, but haven’t legally married; a state license isn’t going to make them any happier 
• Intentionally never-married, childfree people

The people in that last group could be, as a group, much happier than married people. Marriage sellers NEVER separate them out in the statistics, though.

Another trick common to graphs is to shorten an axis to make disparities look larger than they are. For example, if the data goes from 0 to 100, only showing 40 to 60 on a graph can make differences seem larger than they are.

In the case of the specific graphs we’re talking about, time frame can also matter. If the ages included only go from, say, 25 to 35, that’s definitely not the whole picture.

There are never-married, childfree people who are very happy.

There are also married parents who are miserable. Some even murder their spouse and/or children or are murdered by their spouse or child. That’s extreme, but there are many other things, like abuse, that can be involved without it getting to the point of murder. If you are living free, you can easily leave abusive people.

Don’t be fooled by graphs that rendered and presented in misleading ways.

Consider embracing freedom and making the most of it.

When Marriage Sellers Say Married Men Live Longer

"Married men live longer."

Wow, that sure looks like strong reason to marry, right?

But... as usual, the realities behind the statistics being used to sell marriage to men can tell a different story.

1) Women are more likely to marry and stay married to healthier and wealthier men. Guess what? Healthier and wealthier men tend to live longer. If a couple is living together but she won't marry him because he's ill, then again, he's counted as "unmarried."

2) Divorced men are usually counted as "unmarried." If a man gets ill and his wife divorces him and he dies, he is counted as "unmarried." The suicide rate for divorced men is high, too. What if, instead, those men had learned to be happy without ever marrying?

3) Men who die young are far less likely to have married. What ages are the statistics counting? If they are counting "men 16 years of age and older," that means any unmarried guy who died at 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 can skew the statistics in comparison to the fact that most men who live 40 or more years will have married. To put it simply, if you look at 10 guys who died before age 40 and 10 guys who died in their 70s or 80s, chances are, the older guys were married. It doesn't necessarily mean that marrying kept them alive longer or that the men who died younger died younger because they didn't marry.

Do you see how the statistics might not be making a clear indication that marrying causes a man to live longer?

It is possible that having a woman in his life who nags him to go to the doctor can keep a man alive longer. That's a reasonable consideration. But a woman can do that for a man without a terrible state contract. In fact, I urge men I'm not married to and I will never marry to go their doctors. More people should do that, instead of telling a man to sign a terrible state contract because it might appear to be correlated to longevity.

Finally, even if it could be definitively proven that marrying does, in fact, extend a man's life, let's consider what that would mean. It would mean that he trades decades of freedom, peace, quiet, control over his own finances and life, and everything else about life that Free Men enjoy that the average husband doesn't, for mere months or a couple of more years of convalescence, when he might not even remember who he is or be able to feed or wipe himself. Consider that carefully, guys.

Indeed, the stats are likely turning out as they do because an elderly man’s wife was there to call for help when he collapsed. So he lives a few months longer. If you really want to live longer in that condition, guys, technology can now monitor you and summon help, for much less cost than a wife.

Hey, what about women? Oh, what do you know - married women don't live as long as unmarried women. Shouldn't men avoid being selfish by avoiding marriage, since it appears to rob women of life?

A Common Red Flag When Considering Marriage

A tweet by Brad Wilcox:

New "research by Stanley & Rhoades [indicates...] men & women who cohabited w 2+ partners prior to marriage were 60% more likely to end up seeing their marriage end in divorce or separation"

Well, there you have it guys. Have you shacked up with at least two women, including your current girlfriend/fiancee? Has she? If either of you have, you have another reason to avoid marrying. Your marriage would be doomed!

Sure, the tweet and the report behind it are intended to try to get people who haven't shacked up yet not to do so. But we can still apply it to people who have, who should use the information to avert disaster. DO NOT MARRY!

Wilcox had a whole article about this.

Fun With Statistics - Cohabitation

Cohabitation, or "shacking up," as Dr. Laura (and I) still call it, leads to marriage.

That goes against what Dr. Laura says. Shacking up is one of her main no-nos, in her countercultural preaching. She often rattles off a few statistics (which may or may not be current) to try to bolster her point.

And yet, if someone is a marriage seller, as she is, I can use statistics to point out that cohabitation leads to marriage:

1) Most people in our culture who marry lived together before they married.

2) Couples who don't live together are far less likely to marry each other.

There it is! CONCLUSIVE PROOF that living together leads to marriage!

Right?

Well, in fairness:

1) Many people live together but never marry each other.

2) "Couples who don't live together" includes all those people who are only couples for a few months and then break up; of course they didn't marry.

My overall point is that using statistics can be misleading, as I already pointed out in this post, "Thinking Critically About Cohabitation."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not advocating living together unmarried with a romantic or sexual partner. I generally think it is a terrible idea. But more and more people will not marry someone unless they live with them first. To me, that's all the more reason to avoid shacking up, as I discourage most men from marrying and encourage them to stay free. Despite what Dr. Laura says, when a guy has his girlfriend living with him, it reduces his freedom.

Misleading Marriage Statistics

Let’s consider someone I’m making up, but represents no small number of real men: Guy Sontag. Sorry, if that’s your name. It’s a name I made up for this post.

Guy Sontag has been subjected to severe trauma and he has serious health problems. As a result, he’s miserable, struggling with his finances, and isn’t motivated to pursue sex. And as a result of all of this, he hasn’t attracted a woman who will be a wife to him.

Marriage sellers want you to believe that Guy is sickly, miserable, poor, lonely, and having no or little sex because he’s not married, as if taking on a woman in a secular state legal contract would make him happy, healthy, wealthy, and give him a great sex life. It’s the other way around: he’s not married because a man in his condition is unlikely to attract a quality wife who wouldn’t be another burden on him.

Also consider another man who just went through a bitter divorce initiated by his now ex-wife; there was no lawful way for him to have stopped it. As a result, he’s wiped out financially, he had to move and his life has been completely disrupted, he’s feeling awful, his blood pressure is through the roof, and he hasn’t been having sex.

Both of those men are in the very broad “unmarried” category in the statistics marriage sellers are using.

Don’t you think it’s a bit misleading to lump men like that together with men who are enjoying life, have their act together, want sex and know how to get it, and have intentionally avoided marriage and conceiving children?

There are many men in this latter group who are happier and better off than the average husband or divorced man. You can choose to be one; you have much more control over your life, much more freedom if you’re a Free Man.

The marriage sellers want you to think signing a terrible state contract will make your life better. But there are plenty of miserable husbands who don’t have the money for things they want or even need, are getting little or no sex and “mercy sex” when they get it, and have little control over their own life if they choose to focus on their obligations.

Signing a terrible state contract doesn’t guarantee YOU a better life. Instead, it assigns you costs and obligations you don’t need.

Don’t fall for the trap.

Stay free.

When Marriage Sellers Make One of My Points For Me

The Institute for Family Studies, despite being, overall, a marriage seller, is the gift that keeps on giving. There was another round of trying to convince people they're better of having less sex and less sexual variety. Let's take a look at this graph:


 
That graph was used to try to show people that sexual abstinence before means your marriage will be much more stable.

Look closely,  though. Even the best category shows that more than 55 percent of married people in that category believe their marriage may be in trouble of ending. Remember, this is from an organization that is promoting marriage. A minority of married people think their marriage is "very stable."

Do you want to get into a terrible state contract in which, most likely, you will be worried that you are facing what some men call "divorce rape"?

It gets "better," though. Let' look at the next graph.



According to this, 78-80 percent of married people who "saved sex" are NOT very satisfied with their sexual relationship. Sure, the point they were trying to make - that it's even worse for those of you who've had two or more partners - is true... so don't bother to marry!

Why bother to sign a terrible state contract if those are the odds?!?

When someone implies or outright says that "saving sex" for marriage will mean your marriage will be stable, without fear of it ending, and that your marital sex life will be very satisfying, they are ignoring that for MOST people who marry under those circumstances that's not true! Even just the data from which these graphs come indicate there are many married people who are very dissatisfied with their sex lives, including people who "waited". Those people, and the trade offs and risks shouldn't be ignored.

To be fair, there may be studies that show relationship stability and sexual satisfaction rates are even lower for people who aren't married. That's a "cart and horse" thing, meaning it could be that if people don't think their relationship is stable and the sex isn't great, they're less likely to marry.

But yet again, I must point out that these studies and surveys never distinguish intentionally free men who run game to find out how stable their lives are and how satisfied they are with their sex lives. There are men who are loving life and thriving free of a supposedly exclusive or marital relationship, and some them are also very happy with their sex life.

More Fun With Statistics - Body County and Marriage

Life on the Carousel

In an effort to discourage what they see as unfair competition, people like Dr. Laura will tell unmarried women something like:

 "The more sexual partners a woman has before she marries, the less she'll enjoy marital sex."

How exactly is that determined?

We can't compare people to themselves. No one person has had both experiences - having many sexual partners before marrying and having few or none before marrying. So how can anyone know?

This is how it is determined. Usually among other questions, they ask women who are or were married:

• How satisfied they are/were with their marital sex life
• How many partners they had before they married

Then, they notice that there appears to be some correlation.

Let's be clear about a few things though.

1) This is based on self reporting. People who have had few or no sex partners before their marriage have nothing for comparison. It's like giving a starving person plain rice. How happy is that person going to be with rice? Very! As far as sex, it's basically saying "I like sex" or "I'm happy with our sex life" even if they're having sex four times per year.

2) Who has few or no sex partners before marrying? Very religious people. Many of them consider it a sin or even a "negative confession" to say that they are anything less than thrilled with their marital sex life. Also, some unattractive women don't attract many sex partners. Of those who do marry, they're probably going to be happy.

3) There are many women who saved sex for marriage and then had a terrible sex life.

4) There are women who had "many" sex partners before marriage and have a great marital sex life. They tend to be women who like sex a lot and have a high drive.

5) What people who use this tactic are advocating is that you make vows and sign a state contract with someone before finding out if you're sexually compatible. It is VERY different to have no sex at all before marrying and to get very sexual with one person before marrying them. The latter often get lumped together with the former, even though with the latter, if they realize they're not sexually compatible, they are far less likely to marry in the first place.

6) It means something that the people who use this tactic don't apply to anything else. If a woman never goes to a nice restaurant before she marries, won't that make the experience of going to one with her husband that much more special? So an unmarried woman should decline offers to go to a nice restaurant, right?

There are many women who get bored of sex. If those women have had many sex partners before they married, then they might hit that wall of boredom earlier in their marriage. Incels and some others (like Dr. Laura, "purity" purveyors) say a woman's ability to bond, and thus enjoy sex more, gets damaged more the more sex partners she has (like a piece of tape that gets reused and reused loses effectiveness). But for any individual woman, there's no assurance that she'll enjoy sex a lot if she's waits and she won't enjoy it much if she doesn't.

Again, these studies never separate out women who have decided not to marry at all, are enthusiastic about sex, and don't have moral qualms about unmarried sex. Some of them enjoy sex very much. I know my first serious girlfriend enjoyed sex a lot even after having many partners. Or at least she was very effective at pretending to.

Married Men Are Taller

 

 

 

The quickest and most simple way I know of to counter marriage sellers who say married men are happier, healthier, wealthier, live longer, or have more sex is to point out that married men are taller.

Did marriage make the men taller, or is it more likely that taller men are more likely to attract a wife?

Remember, divorced men are counted as unmarried.

Also, intentionally unmarried men are never separated out in the data. Men who are desperate to marry (some of whom have been religiously indoctrinated from the earliest ages that they must marry), including those who are poor, sickly, unhappy, etc., and divorced men, are lumped together with men who have intentionally avoided marriage and are doing well, happy with life.

Don’t fall for the trap. Stay free!

It's National Masochistic Self-Destructive Male Week!

Well, that's not what they're calling it. Leading up to one of the worst days of the year, marriage pushers have decided this (February 7 - 14) should be "National Marriage Week USA".

Ugh...

So of course, they're marriage marketers are trotting out the same misleading statistics and fairy tales.

A good example is Sheila Weber's piece I found at Fox News.

The misleading headline is "Better Sex, Better Health, More Money: What Men Really Get Out of Marriage".

More than ever, today’s young men question the value of marriage to increase their happiness and well-being.

Of course they do. Men eventually catch on. We see what is going on around us. We see what has happened to our fathers, our uncles, our brothers, our friends. We see what happens to them when they marry. We see what happens to them when they get divorced. We see when something is a bad deal. We see the brides, who literally the day after the wedding, chop off their hair and start gaining weight. More men are opting to live a better life than that.

The U.S. marriage rate has dropped dramatically (from 70 percent in to 50 percent in four decades) and marriage is getting replaced with new habits of long-term dating, late marriage and long-term cohabitation.

Better get used to it.

Marriage is Still Vastly Popular

Tom Leykis keeps repeating that the 2010 U.S. Census showed that for the first time ever in the Census, there are more unmarried adults than married adults.

I’ve heard before that there are now more unmarried “households” than married, which would be significantly different than what Leykis is saying, because each married household would have TWO adults, and many of the unmarried households would have just one adult, meaning that married adults would still significantly outnumber unmarried people.

But... either way, what does it mean? Tom focuses on it to point out that 1) marriage is dead (and I agree that it very well may be dying) and 2) more and more people are thinking/acting like him.

Well hold on there a minute.

Tom advocates not only not marrying, but not having children, not living with anyone else, and not being in an exclusive relationship at all. People who are sticking to that are a tiny percentage of the population.

The overwhelming majority percentage of Americans will get married at least once. Even most of those who never have a marriage ceremony will shack up or otherwise share quarters and/or have children.

Even ardent fans of Leykis will call in an admit that they "fell off the wagon", especially when his show wasn't being distributed live because he was waiting for his contract with CBS Radio to run out (and was getting paid). They got into relationships, many marrying, many having children.

So again, let's assume he's right – there are now more PEOPLE unmarried than people married, rather than it applying to households and not individuals.

Why would change be in effect?

1) People are getting married later. Rather than marrying at 17, 18, 19, 20, people are getting married at 25, 30, and 35. So there are more unmarried 25 year-olds than there used to be. BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL MARRYING.

2) Widows/widowers are living longer. BUT THESE PEOPLE WERE MARRIED and many of them seek to get married again.

3) People are divorcing earlier, living longer after divorce, or waiting longer before entering into another marriage after a divorce. THESE PEOPLE WERE MARRIED and many of them seek to get married again.

4) More people are living in what are essentially commonlaw marriages, which is definitely not what Leykis would advise.

5) Marriage strikers/MGTOW/Leykis 101 Students who are deliberately avoiding marriage.

I'm also curious as to whether the Census classified people whose spouse is in prison, hospitalized, or temporarily working elsewhere/deployed as "single" or "unmarried" (as I know some statistics have) or correctly counted them as married?

Married people OR married households STILL make up almost as much of the population as all of bachelors/bachelorettes/spinsters, same-sex, divorce, single parent, divorced, widowed, and marriage strikers COMBINED.

Now, maybe there is an ongoing trend and marriage rates/lengths will decline significantly. Leykis seems to think so. The other day he was citing polling of “Millennials” and their attitudes towards marriage, and that they don't think it is so important. I can believe that, and it is not surprising they also think there can be marriages without a bride or without a groom. It's part of the same issue. However, as those people age, most will marry and have children, and even those who don't will see other people do it, and a whole lot of them will change their opinions about the significance of marriage and what marriage is and isn't.

Please don't misunderstand me. I’m not saying everyone should marry and raise children. I'm certainly not saying that the legal realities of marriage today are good or beneficial for men (and even many marriage advocates will admit that marriage is for the benefit of children and women, not for men). I'm not denying that demographics are changing. And personally, for reasons I think I've explained in other postings, if I had to do it over again I can't say I would get married. What I AM saying is that statistics are funny things. The way Leykis talks, you'd think that there majority of people are now thinking and living like him (or at least, how he advocates because he has been married himself, but now advises against it). Clearly, that's not the case. All you have to do is look around. Almost all women have either been married or want to marry (or, at least have a wedding).  An overwhelming majority of men alive now who've never been married will get married, enthusiastically or reluctantly.

[Bumped up because of news in September 2014 that stated this statistic again]

Crime is Down Which Should Be Surprising, Given That..

Report after report indicates that crime, especially violent crime, is down in recent years. The economy is terrible, and yet crime is down. There goes the common Leftist idea that that poverty causes crime (it is more likely that crime increases poverty, actually). Crime was also low during the Great Depression.

But some common ideas frequently promoted by social conservatives (and I can be considered a social conservative on most issues) also have to be questioned:

We are told that:

1. Unmarried men are more prone to violent crime because marriage tames men.

and

2. Viewing "adult" material makes men more disrespectful and violent towards women (at least, that's what some ugly stupid b---- told me... kidding... just kidding) and increases crime.

And yet...

A. We have more unmarried men than ever before. That is because of and increase in:  1) divorce, 2) shacking up, 3) men who never marry, 4) and the age at which men first marry.

B. Free/almost-free easily-accessed adult material of all sorts is ubiquitous and sources that are happy about that and dismayed by that both agree more and more people are viewing it.

C. Crime rates are down significantly.

Can anyone explain how all three of these things can be simultaneously true? Are we really to believe that crime rates would be down even more if A and B were not true... if all of the adult material went away and 21-year-old guys who aren't even Mormons or Baptists were getting married and staying married? And how can that be proven?

It is possible, even likely, that correlations have been blamed when other correlations are really the issue? For example, maybe being unmarried doesn't make a man more likely to commit violent crime - maybe committing violent crime makes a man less likely to attract and keep a wife? Of course, there are plenty of married men who commit violent crime and plenty of women who stick with violent men.

I have heard that more adult material actually correlates to a decrease in rape, which would help explain a drop in the violent crime rate.

Are the crime rates all cooked?

Can it all be attributed to "three strikes" getting the most active and violent criminals off the streets?

I'm beginning to suspect Sociology is nothing but a bunch of snake oil and that nobody really knows anything, and that any study dealing with sociological issues can be interpreted any conflicting way.  As Dennis Prager (a social conservative who does not buy the "smut causes crime" line) says, either studies confirm common sense or they are wrong.

What say you???

It All Started With That Dagnabit Telegraph Machine

As usual when I nitpick about something on Dr. Laura's radio show, I'll state that I love her show and books and agree with almost everything the says. She's made my life better and that of so many others.

On to the nitpick.

Dr. Laura's made no secret to her listeners of her concerns about technology. She had made comments about grown, married men being on Facebook ("even though" she tells her listeners to comment on Facebook). She recently noted what our technology is doing to our personal relationships and culture, and I think some (not all) of her concerns are like being concerned that the invention of the spear was cutting down on fathers showing their sons how to hunt without a spear.

On this past Friday’s show, she talked about "online dating". I don't think people really date online, though. They may communicate, they may have exhibition/masturbation sessions, but the issue that was really being addressed was finding a date online.

She tends to put research into her commentaries, and this was no exception. She said "1 out of 10 sex offenders uses online dating." My initial reaction to that stat: Is that all?!? I would think most sex offenders, like 7 or 8 out of 10, would use online dating, the rest either being too old to "get" technology or not wanting to violate probation.

This also brings up the question I always have with the phrase "sex offender". Are we talking about a 35-year-old man, now a model citizen, who, when he was 18, was prosecuted for having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend? That's a far cry from someone who rapes a stranger or molests his relatives. It's like saying "sexual harassment". There's a difference between complimenting a woman on her new hairstyle and telling her you're going to fire her unless she does you.

I'm confident more than 1 in 10 sex offenders walks the aisles of supermarkets, so if someone asks you for your number or e-mail address when they meet you in a supermarket, look out!

Then Dr. Laura, based on that stat, made a common statistical error by saying it means that "one out of ten guys you find online is a sex offender". Nope! At least, not based on the stat she cited. That one in ten sex offenders uses online dating sites does NOT mean that one in ten guys on those sites is a sex offender. I won't bore you explaining that, but if you don't see what I mean, just trust me. Or ask someone who understands statistics.

She went on to say that online dating industry is bigger than the porn industry (which is good, because we all know that porn can lead to terrible things, like... dancing).

She cited a stat that said one of three women who meet men online, have sex on the first encounter. I do not think that has anything to do with online dating. The use of websites in general, and online dating in particular, are so common now that it is safe to say that these women would be doing this no matter how they met guys. Dr. Laura's comment reflected her overall attitude towards fornication: "Men are making out like bandits." That, as I've said before, implies that women don't enjoy fornication or get anything out of the dates. Yes, women tend to enjoy married lovemaking more (as do men), but many of them are getting orgasms, attention, ego boosts, free meals, or other things they want that they would not be getting if they weren't fornicating.

Anyway, the tips Dr. Laura went on to give about online dating, such as meeting in a neutral location, were very good. Even the best matchmaking services are simply ways of meeting people, and may be a way to keep in touch while dating. Nobody should assume that what someone has said about themselves is true or that the personality that comes across through the online communication is a thorough representation of the person. It takes spending time in person together in different circumstances to get to know that other person and see if they are what you need in a girlfriend/boyfriend, partner, or spouse.

Married Men Get More Sex - Part Two

I hear/read that married people have more (and more satisfying) sex than people who aren't married. As someone who is now married, this hasn't been my experience – probably because we have young two children. (See Part One) And there are plenty of people who claim experience that goes against this well-known data.

Why?

Even without my own personal experience, we know that: 1. Statistics can be misleading, and 2. Individual cases can be different. For example, if marriage is 90% likely to mean more sex, then there is 10% for whom remaining unmarried means more sex, or at least the same amount.

Here are some considerations for studies/polls that say married people have more sex than unmarried people:

1. We don't know how much sex any particular person would be having if that person had chosen a different path. In other words, we don't know how much sex married John Doe would be having if he had decided to shack up instead, or just had a series of steady girlfriends, or stayed single but dated. We don't know how much sex bachelor Mark Smith would be having if he had married instead.

2. Perhaps the kind of people who are likely to have more sex are the kind of people to get married to begin with. (I discussed both of these first two points before.) Let’s face it, a young, healthy, tall, outgoing, rich, attractive man is more likely to attract a wife or a sex partner. He can attract sex partners without being married.

3. How is the data obtained? Anonymously and alone? Couples meeting with counselors? Unwritten memories – like when morbidly obese people swear they've been eating nothing other than 1000 calories a day of low-fat, low-suger food for the past two years? Are these people keeping a journal? As "liberated" as women are these days, many will lie about how much sex they have had outside of marriage. Women will frequently lie about sex outside of marriage toward claiming fewer partners and encounters than they have really experienced, because they don't want to admit to behavior that they think will make them look slutty. Conversely, married people may overstate the amount of sex they are having becauase they think that is what they are supposed to say.

4. Mixing the USA or Canada or Great Britain or the Netherlands in with Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh or Guatemala or Malaysia or whatever doesn't quite work. Even comparing rural areas in the USA with major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles makes a difference. Some places are more discouraging – by law or socialization or general culture – to unmarried sex than others. Check the bar/club to church ratio. Of course the average unmarried person living in a small town where everyone belongs to the same Baptist church or Mormon stake (I think that's what they call it), with or near family is going to be having less sex than the average married person. But what about the bachelor who lives in a condo tower in the middle of a densely populated area where nobody knows - or cares - that he brings various women he barely knows back to his pad?

5. "Unmarried" is a huge category. It can include: a) 10-17 year-olds, b) people in comas or otherwise severely physically limited including very elderly widows, c) people with hormonal imbalances and thus no sex drive, d) the incarcerated , e) the deployed, f) monks/priests/nuns who have taken a vow of celibacy, g) others who have resolved to abstain until marriage h) LGBT, i) people in the process of getting divorced or are newly divorced, j) people shacking up, k) unmarried people with a regular partner but not living with that partner, l) people who are single – you get the idea.

The best studies will compare people who are married to people who are unmarried who are the same ages, roughly the same economic status, and in live in close proximity, breaking the categories of "unmarried" down into sexually active people who a) shack up; b) do not shack up but have a steady partner; c) play the field.

There's a lot more to discuss about this topic, so this series will continue.

[Read Part 3, in which I give a disclaimer about moral considerations.]