I think you are attributing too much importance to that study.

Maybe the difference is that the kind of people who are likely to have sex before marriage are more likely to get divorces.  And maybe the kind of people who don't have sex before marriage are more likely to stay together whether or not their marriage is any good.

You are assuming that both those groups of people are the same in every way besides the fact that they did or didn't have sex before marriage.  You yourself are going around talking about how people have a choice and make a choice, so how is this any different?  People have a choice to stay together and will make that choice based on their own values as a person.  You are ignoring other factors that influence this statistic you are touting around so much.

And once again none of us are saying that you can't teach abstinence.  We are saying that you shouldn't JUST teach abstinence.

I don't think that being promiscuous before marriage helps experience at all. Only shows what your marriage partner lacks at in the bedroom. If your very experienced in sex, and have a very specific set of desires & wants, and your spouse does not, how is that experience going to help at all?

Studies show that abstenence is the exact opposite of your argument. It leads to less problems, as you don't develop a list of needs & wants by casual sex encounters, only to have your hopes dashed by your partners needs and wants.

From my own personal experiences with abstinence, I can assure you that this is the case. Waiting for the right person, especially your marriage partner, makes for a far better experience, because your anticipating sex together, as a joint act, and learning to exert proper sexual desires, rather than already knowing everything, and hoping that the other attractions you have for that person spill over into the field of sex.

And by your argument that abstenence is like waiting till your 21 to drink, why don't we lower age of consent laws to 12 years old? I mean, if there's nothing bad about it (provided its done safely), then why should it be prohibited at all?

And as I said so does atheism.

However both of those statistics probably ignore confounding factors, the demographics of people most likely to be abstinent and those of the people most likely to be atheist.

Because there's more to a marriage than pure physical attraction? If you abstain from sex from other partners, then your learning about that person exclusively, which has scientifically correlated with lower divorce rates. That's a known fact.

Also, what is personal satisfaction, and how would you not know what that is with one person, fully comitted to what you want?

I think you may not understand the concepts behind waiting for someone, and experiencing sexual intimacy with that partner exclusively. It's a great thing, because you develop your personal system of needs and desires exclusively with that person. Maybe it's that 'ignorance is bliss' thing, but leads to far less disatisfaction when you learn your partner exclusively, rather than dozens of others before you settle down with someone. And again, given the complexities of a relationship - the mental, emotional, physical, and other aspects - why would you degrade your bonding with that person for 'experience'? Are you married, by the way?

Don't you have anything to say about my post mrstickball? Are you in complete, 100% agreement with it?

The percentage of people who are abstinent before they get married is in the single digits, and probably the low single digits.

Honestly I am in the same boat with WessleWoggle in terms of my view on the situation. Sexual compatibility problems can ruin a marriage.

And don't try to sell a bullshit argument that just because you don't know anything else means you will be satisfied with what you have. Some people are just sexually incompetent and either don't care or don't know what they are doing. If anything, having not been with someone else might drive you to extramarital sex even if you choose to stay married.

I've always felt the whole rhythm method was a pretty weak loophole that the church made up way later.  It's not in the Bible.  It's just this weird concept that as long as you're not using a condom or a pill or a patch or anything else to stop the sperm from reaching the egg, you can have all the period sex and pregnant sex you want, because... then there's a small chance that G-d will guide the sperm against all odds into a magical egg.  There are rare girls with pretty constant 20 or 30 day menstrual cycles, so you could have sex every month and not be sinning.  It's just the luck of the draw if you can find one of those girls.

Either way, the whole Puritan sex laws that still haunt America are fucking ridiculous and it used to be the law that rape isn't as bad as premarital sex.  If you rape somebody and get them pregnant, you can pray a little and then marry them and it's all fine and dandy.  The whole system is sexist bullshit that thinks women are whores if they have sex (like mrstickball pointed out), and guys are just young and practicing and fooling around and they'll grow up and settle down eventually.

It's also really hard to preach abstinence only education when it's the official stance of the church that if a priest rapes or molests little boys, they don't have to go to jail, they just have to get relocated to another church in a really small town in the middle of nowhere with half as many cops so they don't get caught next time.

Or when the easiest way to stay abstinent (masturbation) can't be taught anywhere, and when the surgeon general said that masturbation is very very healthy physically/mentally/emotionally and makes it easier to stay abstinent and healthy, she got fired.  Actually, what do you think about teaching masturbation as a safe alternative to sex that can never lead to STDs or pregnancy?

And please refrain from implying that my mother, my father, my sisters, my wife, and myself are all whores.  Some of us choose to have sex, not because we are weak and falling prey to primal sinful urges, but because sex is healthy, natural, and good for you.

No matter what we teach our kids, some will be abstinent and some will get pregnant or STDs at a young age, but if there's a chance that we could educate some of them about the dangers and stop some unwanted pregnancies, we'll be able to decrease the demand for abortions, decrease the spread of STDs and cervical cancers, and save lives.  Teaching a kid how to use a condom isn't going to turn them into a whore.  They will make their decision to have sex or not on their own.  We can't force kids to stay abstinent by hiding knowledge from them, but we can make them smarter and safer, and it is my opinion that failing to teach our kids the truth is bad for the family, the community, and the world.

To be fair, mrstickball didn't say only women could be whores (not that you were necessarily implying that, but just in case).
Also, I don't think you or your family would qualify as "whores" in mrstickballs example if you and your family didn't find premarital sex immoral.  He was saying that if you want to abstain, you can.

I think mrstickball could have chosen a better word that wasn't so attached to degrading women and not degrading men, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise.  I'm just sensitive about that because it's like the whole world treats women like whores and men like suave pimps when they have sex.  But even then, I don't think we know enough about Bristol Palin to call her a whore.  But that whole debate depends on what mrstickball's definition of whore is: a slovenly woman, promiscuous woman, teen pregnant woman, or person who had sex before marriage.  If it's just sex before marriage, then most of the planet is whores.

@bolded: I think that's true and great and should be taught.  I just don't want people to ONLY be taught that, because then when it comes time for them to make their decisions, they're not informed, and are thus more likely to make a bad decision.

I have nothing against abstinence or people who practice it.  My beef is with the people who teach it and refuse to teach anything else (that can save lives) and think that we should be spending tons of federal money on teaching absinence and only abstinence, and hiding the rest of the life-saving truth from all our children.