Getting it on before marrage.

@neeto i did more research on my own in net and figured some recent data from NSFG supporting your claim, but the charts if made out of those data are much milder.. so yeah i kinda agree to what u posted, the funny thing is they dont have much info on men's premarital sexual relationships coz men tend to forget them ._. But there are lotss of differences, women with 2 premarital sexual partners have most no. Of divorces as compared to 3-10 and less than 2! And many other variations exist, so it hasnt been concluded that premarital sex leads to increased no. of divorce as the research also shows that IF YOU ARE ANYWAYS GONNA HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE THEN HAVE ATLEAST MORE THAN 2 PARTNERS! Infact it would be a better approach to look for research which records happy-status among married women and men and its relation to no. Of premarital partners! Coz looking at divorce is pointless as its always possible that person wasnt right for her. The data i got was from NSFG's Recent wave of research done in 2013-2015 and its in spss(statistics software) format so i cant really post the link to it other than saying that u should look into NSFG yourself. SO CHANGE YOUR SOURCES, THEY ARE BAD!

Marriage is outdated imo I have a rule in which potential partners must have a non sexual sleepover prior to anything serious happening and it really can weed out ppl who aren't long term

@Muffin (I think the @ thing is kinda pointless on this site since it doesn't do anything but whatever) I looked again and you're right she did say that after all, My mistake. Not sure why they'd say that though, could have something to do with the fact we used to be a thing.

No thanks, I'll happily wait until the honeymoon. @beowulfboi: A non sexual sleepover? That's an interesting idea.

I probably shouldn't give a rat's ass about this, but whatever. First of all, correlation does not imply causation. There is zero proof that the number of sexual partners is the actual cause for any of the insinuated effects. The data itself may be correct, but nevertheless this is bogus science, because it comes to conclusions the data does not objectively support. Actually, I think they have it backwards, and promiscuity might be the result of something that also influences many of the other given parameters. E.g. it can be expected that girls who begin to have intercourse at a very young age are more likely to come from dysfunctional families and therefore are more likely to develop mental health issues, while their social skills are more likely to remain stunted. As a consequence it is reasonable to assume that they are more likely to be depressed, less happy than the average person, less able to maintain stable relationships, and more likely to be care- and reckless in their behavior, which results in more pregnancies, more STD infections and more cases of single motherhood. There certainly is no reason to believe that any of those promiscuous women would've been less unhappy, less depressed, and more successful with their marriages had they been forced to restrain their sexual urges and live with their first partner for the rest of their life. Now, it would be interesting to hear what conclusions the OP drew from this data.

I wouldn't be here if my mother stayed a Catholic nun. People should focus on safe sex practices more than abstinence. Though it goes without saying that sex IS A RESPONSIBILITY and as such comes with costs. Ignorance won't change the validity of these natural rules. If a couple has a child it should be they that make a proper home to raise such. Failing to do so leads to an endless cycle of frustration. So do what you must, but do it wisely.