March 7, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
43:25
2926 The Truth About Sex: Facts You Won't Believe Are True!
Some shocking trends regarding sexual activity and life outcomes - including the alarming reason why you haven’t already heard this information. There is a mind-blowing correlation in this presentation that you’ve never seen before - and it's important that you know about it! In the first part of “The Truth About Sex” series, Stefan Molyneux looks at first age of sexual activity, the number of sexual partners, single mothers, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, stable marriage, child maltreatment, divorce, crime and happiness statistics. What is the truth about sex – and what information do you need to know before playing the big person’s game which makes real people? Upcoming “The Truth About Sex” presentations will include a look at r/k reproductive strategies, polyamory/monogamy, porn, the impact of fatherlessness and much much more! Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/marriage-sexual-partners-study
So we put together a report, some of which is original, some of which is taken from a Heritage Foundation survey.
Which is really aimed to give you the essential information that you need to navigate all of the challenges of sex, marriage, childhood, and get to the happy plateau of a rich and fulfilled life.
So I hope that you will take the time to go over this.
This may be the most important information you will see this year.
And the Heritage Foundation created a report which examined the connection between early sexual activity, the number of non-marital sexual partners, and overall happiness.
The report used data from the National Survey of Family Growth, a government-funded survey conducted in 1995, to a nationally representative sample of approximately 10,000 women, or a day in the life of Wilt Chamberlain, between the ages of 15 and 44. between the ages of 15 and 44.
Men not included in the National Survey of Family Growth, so not included in this final report.
So, let's just go through a little bit of history before we delve into the present.
One of the fascinating things about studying history, and I have a graduate degree in history from the University of Toronto, you study history, you realize a lot of it is the same damn story over and over again, just with different costumes.
And this idea of a free love, of Just have sex with whoever you want, easy divorce, free and easy abortions, and so on.
It's not the first time that it's been tried, and the results generally tend to be a photocopy, one with a peace symbol, one with a hammer and sickle, which we'll get to in a moment.
So in the 19th century, of course, Marx, Engels, and others promoted communism, and communism, one of its big selling features was free love!
Basically, one giant proletariat Baby oil-soaked orgyfest of egalitarianism.
And it promised free love, easy divorce, free abortions, and so on.
And this is one of the ways in which new ideologies sell themselves to you, is by promising a breakdown of all restrictions.
It'd be like if I created sugarism.
Hey, all the sugar you want!
No negative consequences.
In fact, it will be better for you.
So, of course, after the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, incest, bigamy, and adultery were all dropped from the list of official crimes.
Abortion, which was hitherto illegal, was explicitly permitted by the decree of November 20th, 1920.
And divorce, which had formerly been very hard to get, could basically be got for the price of a postcard that you would mail to your wife, informing her that your union had been dissolved, you didn't need to register your marriages with the Soviet state, or any of that stuff.
And...
This was a massive reversal to almost 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian ethics, in particular the Christian ethics, which said that discouraged sex before marriage and pregnancy resulted in shotgun weddings, or I guess broadsword weddings earlier in the history of the West, and your goal was to stay together and so on.
So this idea that you could dissolve these pair-bonding strategies with no negative consequences, well, let's see what happened.
So, men would impregnate women quite considerably, and then they would leave.
And these were called alpha widows, or can be called alpha widows.
So the alpha males, the most attractive males, would have sex with a lot of women, and then leave.
And then the women would have to try and get child support, because, you know, back in the day, you got pregnant, you had to breastfeed, you would be incapacitated for labor to some degree, so you needed resources to survive.
And under communism, which was promoted, of course, female egalitarianism, felt that to go for child support and alimony was to submit to the patriarchy, so it discouraged that.
So it was really hard to try and get any child support in post-communist Russia.
And what would happen is the men would marry a woman.
If you're a farmer, you'd marry a woman for the harvest time, and she would, of course, throw herself into working for what she assumed was her new family, and then you'd divorce her when the family...
Harvest was done and she'd be on her butt, usually with a baby or two.
So there was, of course, a civil war in the early 1920s.
There was a famine.
Yay, collectivized farming.
A famine in the 1920s.
And, of course, a massive deluge of kids.
Now, what did the communist government say?
See if you can spot this in the modern world.
What did the communist government say to the women if they had kids outside of wedlock?
Don't worry.
Don't worry.
We're going to have government kitchens, government daycares.
And if you're working hard, your kids can sleep at the government daycare, free schools.
And so basically...
The state will raise your children should you be otherwise occupied.
Well, of course, like a lot of promises from the extensions of state power, what was provided versus what was promised was just a little bit shy of the mark.
And so too many kids, too few institutions to take care of them.
The childcare facilities just turned into absolute hell pits of central planning disasters.
Conditions were so bad that a lot of the kids who were dumped or placed in these institutions preferred to live on the streets.
Now, my friends, choosing to live on the streets in Russia, a little bit different than, say, deciding to live under a palm tree in Tahiti, a little bit colder and a little bit more challenging.
These were called Besprizorni.
Which could be translated as sort of stray children.
In 1922 there were an estimated seven and a half million starving and dying children in Russia.
These can be the fallouts of without evaluation, without examination as to why These pair bonding rules had developed just abandoning and abolishing all prior social conventions without any particular planning or forethought.
This is the kind of mess that can happen.
In Moscow, the number of abortions rose in 1921, so four years after the Seizure of power by the Bolsheviks.
Abortions were 19 per 100 births in 1921.
In 1934, there were 271 abortions per 100 births.
And this is just the statistic for legal abortions.
So, a true catastrophe.
Now, I've got some videos on YouTube.
You might want to check out the story of your enslavement and Handbook of Human Ownership, a manual for new tax farmers.
In which I put forward the argument that, in general, citizens are taxed livestock.
Now, when your livestock is not breeding, you have to do something about it.
And as birth rates crashed and as abortion rates rose, again, we can see this happening throughout the world.
To be fair, abortions in the U.S. have declined considerably to around the same levels as was around when Roe v.
Wade came in.
That may change.
Have something to do with the morning-after pill, which would not be registered as an abortion, but that's a fair fact.
So, the devastation of World War I, Russian Civil War, famine of the early 1920s, and then the even more disastrous famine, particularly in the Ukraine of the early 1930s, just did not allow the population to grow.
And, of course, the Soviets wanted this massive industrialization, and the birth rate was actually declining, and the rate of abortions was increasing.
So the state began to pursue these natalist or pro-birth policies to combat what was functionally an ongoing demographic disaster.
Yes, I am in fact talking about Russia in the 1930s, not Europe.
So between 1936 and 1944, abortion was once again outlawed and criminalized.
Childbearing was encouraged through government subsidies.
Divorce became very difficult and expensive.
Marriages were re-regulated and were not legally recognized unless registered with the state.
And simultaneous to this, medals and honorary orders were established to recognize the contributions to the proletariat of mothers who had five or more children.
Pregnant women were allotted more maternity leave and additional rations, and adult men and women with few or no children were subject to an extra tax.
There is these pendulum swings, right?
I mean, this Victorian prudery and repression, as it was considered, gave way to this unbelievable licentiousness of the Soviet regime.
Then there was a swing back to conservatism, and we can see some of this occurring at the moment in Europe, and in particular in America.
So, this is just an example to show how As they say, there's not that much new under sun or moon, but this has all been done before.
So, let me just pop up to the little corner here, and let's start going into some of this data.
So, let's look at the number of lifetime sexual partners.
I'm not going to read off all of these numbers.
If you're just listening to the podcast, this is one presentation you really want to skip over to youtube.com/freedomainradio to peruse in more detail.
So I'll just describe audio, from an audible standpoint, I'll just describe the trends.
So, age of first sexual intercourse and number of lifetime sexual partners.
So, if you had intercourse when you were 12 and younger, you're going to have almost 21 lifetime sexual partners on average.
And you can see this number declining, and if you are 26 +, you're only going to have 1.8 sexual partners, lifetime sexual partners.
Now, there are, of course, two fundamental reproductive strategies in nature and also within human societies.
One is where you, it's called the spray and pray, or there's other names for it as well.
And what happens is you just have sex with a wide variety of people, and you hope that your offspring make it to adulthood.
And this has a lot to do with fatherlessness, and this also has a lot to do with incredible social dysfunction, as we'll talk about in a few minutes.
The other is where you pair bond and you heavily invest in your children, a stable, cohabiting marital union, at least for the duration of the maturation of the kids, so 20-25 years at the outside, 25 years when the brain finally sort of matures.
And the more sexual partners you have, the more you are biologically programmed to pursue this spray-and-pray reproductive strategy, which is kind of what frogs and turtles and other animals do, whereas mammals tend to focus a little bit more on The long-term pair bonding and investment strategy for kids.
So this is not just, you know, variety.
Hey, it's a spice of life.
But this fundamentally undermines social cohesion and social stability.
Really, civilization itself.
The more sexual partners you're likely to have, the more society is programming itself for short-term reproductive strategies and a lack of investment in children.
So...
Number of sexual partners per year outside of marriage.
And if you are sexually active, if you become sexually active between the ages of 13 or 14, you have a sexual partner turnover rate that is four times higher than those who become sexually active in their early 20s.
If it's 12 or younger, you have almost two new partners per year.
If you are in your early 20s, it's 0.3 per year.
These are, again, foundational things to understand when we try to figure out what's going right and wrong with society.
Let's look at sexually transmitted diseases.
Age of first sexual intercourse is If you are 12 or younger, then you are likely to be infected at a rate of 20%.
20% of those will be infected.
18% of girls who began sexual activity at the ages of 13 or 14 have contracted syphilis or gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital warts or genital herpes, or self-report a high likelihood of HIV. And as you can see, once you start to get into your early 20s, mid-20s, it goes down to 4.9%, 26 +, 4.3%.
And of course, some of these sexually transmitted diseases stick around for your whole life, can interfere with fertility, can have serious health consequences.
So this, again, is important.
Early sexual activity makes you much more likely to be a carrier of STDs.
Number of non-marital sexual partners, STDs.
And this is, have you ever been infected?
And remember, the cutoff is 44 years old.
So if you've had 21 or more non-marital sexual partners, then you're almost 42% likely to have ever been infected with an STD. And you can see this number scaling back down to, if you've only had one non-marital sexual partners, it's 4.9%, so 8 or 9 times less.
So this is important as well.
STDs are a scourge and an expensive scourge on society.
One of the reasons why medical costs continue to go up around the world, and particularly in the West, is because of the prevalence of STDs.
So what are your odds of ending up in a stable marriage?
A stable marriage is if you're 30 or older and you've been in a marriage for five or more years.
It doesn't mean a permanent marriage, but at least it means you're not just So, contrasted with women who began sexual activity in their early 20s, girls who initiated sex at ages 13 or 14 were less than half as likely to be in stable marriages once reaching their 30s.
If it's 12 or younger, you have a less than 19% chance of being in a stable marriage.
If you started in your 20s, 66%, 68% likelihood of being in a stable marriage.
This is very important when it comes to choosing your partners in the future.
This is the data you need to know to make an informed decision.
If you looked at this kind of graph when you were considering things like investment returns or stability of a portfolio, you'd be very interested in this stuff.
This is even more important than any of that.
This is going to Help you to determine your best chances to avoid the emotional and financial catastrophe of divorce.
So, number of non-marital sexual partners, women, 30-plus, instable marriages.
Of course, if you want to get married, you want to stay married, and that's usually what the vows have implicit in them, until death do us part, for better or worse, in sickness and in health.
So look at these odds.
If you only have had sex with the man that you get married to, then you have a greater than 80% chance, when you're over 30, of being in a stable marriage, of retaining a stable marriage.
If you've had one sexual partner outside of your husband, or future husband, then this drops from 80.5% to 53.6% chance of maintaining a stable marriage.
And as you can see, this goes down and down and down.
It's mostly dose-dependent, but not entirely.
If you've had 16 to 20 non-marital sexual partners, your odds of staying in a stable marriage are only 17.8%.
Compare that to over 80% for zero.
There is a reason why deferral of sexual gratification and monogamy And marriage were focused on in prior cultures and societies.
There was a reason for it.
And I'm not sort of talking about the values and virtues and how it was communicated and all of that.
I may have issues with that.
But there was still a reason why this stuff happened.
To throw all of this stuff out without understanding the negative effects is problematic, to say the least.
What about out-of-wedlock pregnancy percentage?
Look, this is not to be negative towards a single mother's But the reality is that the welfare state is almost exclusively the single mother supplement state.
If you take the father, the provider, traditionally, out of the equation, the needs of the mother and the children don't vanish.
They're still there, and they're filled by state power.
So if you care about taxes and debt and deficits and poverty and children in poverty, then reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancy and single motherhood is...
Of primary importance.
And so over half of all girls who start sexual activity at the ages of 15 or 16 will become pregnant out of wedlock, which means without the stability of a regular provider.
For the most part, again, there are some common law and shack-em-up situations that work out well, but in general.
And as you can see, this is very dose dependent.
What are your odds of having a baby out of wedlock?
If you start sexual activity in your mid-twenties, 15.8%, as opposed to 75% out-of-wedlock chance if you're 12 and younger when you start having sexual intercourse.
Number of non-marital sexual partners.
Out-of-wedlock pregnancy percentage.
Society has a huge interest in promoting stability within marriage and promoting stability of provision for children.
So if you're a virgin, at the time of your first marriage, you have a 1.7% chance of having an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Now, if you have had 16 to 20 sexual partners, you have a 55.2% chance of having an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Again, mostly dose-dependent, and as you can see, if you've had premarital sex with your first husband, so it's 1.7% out-of-wedlock pregnancy percentage if you're a virgin.
If you've had premarital sex, it goes to 16.3%, almost a tenfold increase.
Out-of-wedlock childbearing percentage.
And this is very important as well.
Age of first sexual intercourse.
So if 12 and younger, 43% out of wedlock childbearing percentage.
If you go down to starting your sexual activity in your early 20s, down to the single digits, 9.1%, 8.4%, and so on.
11.7% of mothers who began sexual activity in their early 20s were living in poverty when surveyed, compared to 27% who began at ages 13 or 14.
Look, we all know this is a basic reality, that sex is a big person's game that makes real people.
And those people, those children, those babies, I'm a stay-at-home dad, have been for six years, those children need enormous amounts of time, energy, and resources.
And those resources have to come from somewhere.
And if you've noticed your tax rates ever increasing and the national debt's ever increasing, of course some of it has to do with the military-industrial complex, some of it has to do with rent-seeking by large corporations, but some of it also has to do With the giant sucking sound of resources required for the raising of children, which is why the light-fingered regulations and taxation of the fingers are riffling through your wallet, leaving it much bearer.
Percentage of children born to unmarried women.
One-third out of every 100 children conceived each year will be aborted.
One-third will be born out of wedlock.
And one half of those born to married parents will see their parents divorced before they reach the age of 18.
This is a catastrophe for the children, as we will get into in a few minutes.
But if you look in 1950, about 4% of children were born to unmarried women.
And it seems to have leveled off in the last few years, but it's over 40% now.
And this just means the government has to get bigger and bigger and bigger.
And social transfers from the unborn, I mean, you're basically stealing from the infants children-to-be in order to give money to their unwed mothers and to give medical resources and to give schooling and educational resources to the mothers now, which is a huge and challenging problem.
We're having children dropping them into a well of poverty because there are not stable providers around.
What about a woman's chance to have had an abortion?
Well, if you've not had sex outside of your marital partner, 7.7% of the women in the age range mentioned at the beginning of this presentation have had an abortion.
This is very dose-dependent.
By the time you get to 21 or more non-marital sexual partners, a woman is more than 50% likely to have had an abortion.
Abortion, of course, is a tragedy for the mother.
It's a tragedy for, obviously, the fetus that does not get to live.
And whatever we can do to diminish The prevalence of abortion, I think, would be a good thing.
And again, there's reasons why sexual restraint was preached early on.
Now, sexual restraint, to be realistic and fair and to avoid the stigma of, you're just a square, you're a prude, man, you just want us to not even have any sex.
But the reality is that people who are in stable long-term marriages report the happiest and best sex lives of men.
Everyone.
So, when people are saying, well, you know, it might be a good idea not to cast sperm and eggs around like you're playing lacrosse.
It might be a good idea to wait and focus on one person you're going to have sex with for the rest of your life.
Nobody's saying, and therefore don't have sex.
What they're saying is, that's going to give you the best sex.
That's going to give you the most sex, the most satisfying sex, and that is the reality of what the data tell us.
So, it's not anti-sexual.
It's not anti-pleasure.
It's not anti-hedonism of the marital bedroom.
What it is is saying, well, look, if you wait, it's going to be better.
I mean, you'll have much less chance of getting a disease.
You'll have much less chance of having an abortion.
You'll have much less chance of having a divorce.
And all of that will contribute to, you know, a happy tsunami of sexual pleasure for your whole life.
So it's sort of like don't eat your dessert before your main course.
How can you have any pudding if you haven't eaten your meat?
So if you look at women who had sexual activity began in their early 20s, they've only had 12% of those who have had an abortion.
If you start at the age of 12 or younger, it's 34.7% and almost 30% at the ages of 13 or 14.
And again, abortions are expensive and time-consuming in terms of medical resources.
What are your likelihood, what are your odds of becoming a single mother?
And being a single mother means that you just have far fewer resources to provide to your children.
It's just a basic reality.
Only so many hours in the day.
If there's two parents around, you have at least twice the resources in general to provide to your children.
So if you're 12 or younger, when you first have sexual intercourse, you have a 65.4% What are your likelihood of becoming a single mother?
This is very dose-dependent.
If you start having sexual intercourse in your early twenties, it's down to fifteen point seven percent.
About a quarter odds.
That is very important stuff.
Number of non-marital sexual partners.
What are your odds of becoming a single mother if You have only had sex with your husband, 7.1%.
If you've had 21 or more sexual partners, it's 57%.
And this is dose-dependent.
And like a lot of these graphs, you can see how from 0 to 1, it's a huge jump.
It's a huge jump.
So from...
If you've only had sex with your husband, 7.1% chance of becoming a single mother.
If you've had sex with one other man outside your husband, over four times as much, 30.2%.
Likelihood of becoming a single mother.
So...
We're going to start to get into some of the data that is original to this presentation and I would argue essential to understanding where society is heading and what has been happening really since the post-war period.
So this chart, the fill is underage children of single parents per 100,000.
And the red line is percent single mother families.
So, of course, from 1968, we're looking at just over 10% to 26 or so percent now.
And this is a very, very rapid change.
This, of course, is just over 40 years.
Now, what you can see, and we'll talk about this when we talk to social violence and criminality, on the right-hand side of this graph, there's an increasing gap.
And what that means is that there are more single mothers that continues to grow, but the single mothers are having fewer children.
And this gap really began to show up in the late 90s, early 2000s, and has really created the largest gap in history now between these two.
So this is important as we go forward to remember that there are more single mothers, but they're having fewer children.
Now, what are the challenges of becoming a single mother?
Well, First, we talked about this, is that you just tend to vote for bigger government, more redistributionist government, more socialist policies, more government programs.
And statistically, this is quite well borne out, the single mothers trend towards voting Democrat, and married women tend towards voting Republican.
And that's because married women don't want their husbands to be taxed too much to pay for And again, not to be negative towards single moms, all we've ever seen in the media and in presentations of this information is, you know, the noble, heroic single moms who are doing a stellar job of raising their children and doing just as well as if they'd been a husband.
Statistically, that's the complete opposite of the truth, but we know the effects and power of propaganda, so I want to sort of be clear on that.
Every reasonable, decent, moral human being, and I certainly count you, and hopefully me in this category, is concerned about the welfare of children and is fundamentally opposed to any conditions and situations which increase the likelihood of child abuse.
Child abuse is so foundational to social dysfunction that when child abuse rises above a certain level, society's doom is almost guaranteed.
I've actually got an audiobook reading of Lloyd DeMoss' The Origins of War In child abuse, which you can get for free at freedomainradio.com, which I hope you will check out.
So let's look at what keeps children the safest.
Rates of maltreatment by family structure.
Married biological parents is incredibly low.
It's incredibly rare for either serious or moderate child abuse to occur in married biological parent unions.
Next highest, and it's a significant increase, Significant increase.
Three to four times higher.
Unmarried parents are three to four times more likely to abuse their children.
Single parents higher still, though it's not quite as high.
The most dangerous familial environment for a child is single parent with partner.
And this generally means a woman with a live-in boyfriend.
So for serious child abuse we go from 2.6 for married biological parents to 20.8 rates per thousand single parent with partner.
Moderate child abuse goes from 4 per thousand married biological parents to 33.
7, 8, 9 times higher.
33 for a single parent with a partner.
The most dangerous place Of course, the safest place for women as well is not off-campus, but in a married permanent partnership.
Let's look at problem behaviors of children.
Parents' marital status.
So, the red columns are divorce, and the right columns are divorce.
Intact marriages.
Lied about something important, far more likely to happen for children of divorce.
Stole from a store, many times more likely, almost four times more likely.
To have stolen from a store, children of divorce.
Damaged school property, slightly more likely.
Gotten drunk, almost five times more likely.
Hurt someone enough to need a doctor, almost twice as likely.
Had to bring parents to school, 6.6 versus 3.1.
Skipped school without permission, almost twice as likely.
So these are problem behaviors.
In kids of divorce.
These all cost money.
They all cost resources.
Now, let's look at this track.
Violent crime and single motherhood from 1960 onwards.
Violent crime rate rises to track with single motherhood.
Now, there is a gap here on the right-hand side.
The violence tended to peak in the early to mid-90s.
It's been declining since.
Now, there are a number of reasons for that, and nobody knows for sure what they are, least of all me.
I would hypothesize that the internet, video games, and so on have all created a better-to-be-indoors situation to vent.
Plus, of course, single moms are having fewer kids, and therefore there's going to be a drop in violent crime.
So again, this is not explanatory.
There are lots of different ways that this could be occurring, but it's important to note the initial trend.
And it may not be single motherhood in particular, but But let's look at how violent crime and divorce track in the United States, 1960 to 2011.
Now correlations, these are statistical ways of comparing disparate trends.
So a 1.0 is a perfect correlation, a photocopy, a photograph.
Zero is no correlation.
Anything more than half is something really worthy of attention.
So the...
Correlation between rates of divorce and violent crime or numbers of divorce and violent crime is 0.85.
Incredibly strong.
Divorce has been declining, of course, and I think this is another reason why violence is declining.
This is truly staggering.
Look at these correlations.
Divorce and property crimes.
The divorce rate and property crime rate has a correlation of 0.96.
0.96.
That is staggering.
The argument could be made, and I made it in the Truth About Robin Williams video, that divorce is itself a kind of property crime.
But children of divorce seem to have pretty lax...
A pretty lax relationship to respect for property rights.
So this is why you need an alarm system.
This is why your car has gone missing.
This is why you have problems.
This is why you don't feel secure.
This is why you roll your windows up.
Because there has been this epidemic of divorce.
Which again is beginning to level off.
And we're going back into hopefully not too much of a pendulum swing the other way.
But.96.
Anything which makes divorce easier.
Get stuff stolen almost in a direct correlation.
Now, this is not to say everyone has to stay in miserable marriages and so on, but the reality is, statistically this has been well borne out, that the majority of people who...
Get divorced, which they hadn't.
And the majority of people who don't get divorced are glad that they didn't, sort of five years later.
It's not a huge percentage excess, but a lot of people get divorced prematurely.
And of course, if you've got a revolving door of sexual partners, then divorce is going to be easier for you psychologically, although harder for you in the long run psychologically, and harder for society as a whole.
Let's look at Canada.
If we look at divorce and crime, violent crime and divorce correlation is 0.77.
Again, quite significant.
You can see these lines trending up and down in a very similar manner.
Property crime and divorce.
Again, two different countries, two different data sets.
We've got a.92 correlation.
Look, when parents get divorced, there's lots of fights about property.
Lots of lawyers are coming in and lots of arguments that children could be treated as property.
Well, I want them and how are we going to be traded and so on.
The dehumanization of property, battles over property, a lack of respect for property that's endemic to divorce may drive this.
Although, of course, that's just a rank hypothesis.
But this is why divorce was hard earlier on.
Up until the 1960s, it took a decree of Parliament to get divorced.
I don't think anyone's suggesting we go back to that.
I'm certainly not.
But the important thing is that divorce has been socially destigmatized.
Divorce in the past, even in cases of abuse and addiction and significant dysfunction, was enormously discouraged, largely for Religious reasons.
Erin Pizzi, who's a noble and heroic feminist warrior for truth and virtue, who's been on this show, and you can see interviews with her here, when she opened up the women's shelter back in the day, many decades ago, women would show up black and blue, and the priests and the rabbis would all descend upon the women and order them to go back to their husbands.
And this is, of course, terrible stuff and should not be countenanced.
However, this has kind of changed now to the point where the significant majority of divorces are initiated by women, and the number one reason, the number one reason for the women initiating divorce is not abuse, not alcoholism, not neglect, but dissatisfaction.
Eh, kind of rubbing me the wrong way at the moment.
Mushroom cloud where the family portrait used to be, and then you get soulful pink songs.
So...
Mothers living in poverty percentage.
Age of first sexual intercourse, 12 and younger, a third of you will end up living in poverty.
And if you start later in life, late teens, early twenties, it goes down to 11.9%, 11.7%.
So, a third of the likelihood to end up in poverty if you delay sexual gratification, at least with someone else.
What about happiness?
What is going to make you happy?
Well, if you are 12 and younger when you have your first sexual intercourse, you're only 20% likely to end up happy, at least in the age range again in the Heritage Survey.
And this rises fairly dose-dependently.
13 to 14, you have a 33.5% chance, and you can see it goes up.
And if you delay until your late teens, early 20s, 48, 51.2%, and so on.
Now, please don't lecture me too much if you can at all stand it on the reality that correlation does not equal causation.
I fully, fully understand that.
The reason why girls will have sex when they're 12 and younger or 13 or 14 has to do with significant amounts of family dysfunction.
And with the early menstruation, that appears with father absence and with the fact that women who report being closer to their fathers end up being virgins much later on.
It is a hunger for masculinity.
And also, of course, if men are missing from a family, the female body primes itself for a short-term reproductive strategy because it assumes it's war, it's famine, there's some reason why men aren't around.
The way that you conduct yourself sexually and romantically actually programs the bodies of your children for particular reproductive strategies.
And they're not impossible to shake.
You can change over time, but it's hard to do so.
And society cannot function if a significant proportion of the population is in short-term reproductive strategy mode.
It simply cannot function.
Number of non-marital sexual partners.
Again, we're looking at this number.
If you've only ever had sex with your husband, 55.9% chance of being happy.
Down to 32% chance of being happy if you've had 21 or more sexual partners.
So this is what I mean when I say this delay of gratification for intercourse is not about be repressed.
It's not about be a prude.
It's not about be Victorian.
It's about, you know, wait and get it right.
Be happy.
What about depression?
Well, age of first sexual intercourse, 9.4% chance of being depressed if it was 12 or younger.
Down to 2.9%, 23, 25, and so on.
Significant declines.
So, avoid depression.
Delay intercourse.
And a number of non-marital sexual partners.
If you've had none, you've got a 2.8% chance of being depressed.
If you have 16 or 20, an 8.3% chance of being depressed.
So, again, these trends are very clear.
So...
These are the facts of the matter.
And I did not know these in the past.
I'm always trying to find better information, more compelling, more actionable information for you to live a happier and better and more fulfilled life.
And in particular, my focus in this show has always been on improving the quality of children's experience in life, in societies, and in families.
This lie that thousands of years of socially refined restraints upon sexuality, the delay of gratification that is necessary to build stable families, necessary to build equality and safe environment for children, the idea we're all tempted by it, you know, let's just step into the porn set and go at it like, you know, octopuses throwing their tentacles around.
But the reality is that that short-term gratification is sugar.
It's sugar.
And we all know that our bodies have evolved to want far more sugar than we can healthily process.
Because we needed the incentive.
Go get the sugar, right?
But the same thing with sexuality.
We live in this hyper-sexualized world.
And our bodies are designed to want far more sex than is good for us and good for society.
And I mean by that in terms of variety of sexual partners.
Pair bonding and so on.
Sex is a great way of staying close, of enhancing the pair bond and so on.
So...
There are a near endless set of negative outcomes that have been uncorked by taking this genie of fantasy, recreational, consequence-free sexuality out of the bottle.
We see this in movies all the time.
It's like, hey, let's meet for a latte and shag in the toilet.
And this never seems to lead to pregnancies or STDs and occasionally...
You get Glenn Close popping up in your kitchen as a bunny boiler, but for the most part, it is all consequence-free, all recreational.
Like, sex is just a toy for you to enjoy.
It's like, no, sex is the reason why we're here.
Sex is the reason it's a big person's game that makes real people.
So, it's important to know, and this is the information I want to get across to you, if you view sex as just this personal proletariat plaything of infinite personal pleasure, well, the odds are that it's going to end badly for you.
End, like, really badly.
Not just STDs, which are bad enough, but unwanted pregnancies, abortions, divorce, children growing up alienated and unhappy and problematic and You know, it's the old thing, if you don't have time to get it right now, how on earth are you going to have time to get it right later if your kids have gone off the rails?
So, find the right partner.
I've made the case, and you can get this in the free book, Real Time Relationships, The Logic of Love, that love is our involuntary response to virtue.
If we're virtuous, find the right person, find someone you can love, find someone you can respect, find someone that you can treasure.
You know, someone told me when I was young, it was a neighbor of mine actually in England, He said, you know, if you don't get married and stay married, you can maybe date 10 or 20 people or maybe a little more over the course of your life.
He said, but if you get married and you stay married, you get to date thousands of people because you and your partner are constantly changing and constantly growing.
And it really, really stuck with me.
And I've been blissfully married for over 13 years now, and we're going to be together until...
We're on the table at the Jeffersonian.
So the negative consequences are huge.
STDs, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, out-of-wedlock birth, single motherhood, the giant increase in state power and indebtedness and taxation to pay for all of this stuff, single-parent homes.
Coming from a single-parent home, that factor alone is the biggest single predictor of a negative outcome for a child, more than socioeconomic status or race or any of those things.
And again, it's not to say that all single moms are bad, but we're just looking at the statistics.
Maternal and child poverty vastly increase with this sexual revolution, which is just the same late Roman Soviet mess that's happened before.
Decreased marital stability and happiness makes the lawyers happy, but look, statistically women, and children in particular, but women are by far the best off.
If Well, let's just say, women are the best off if they restrain their sexual activity within the confines of a marriage.
They're happier, they're sexually more fulfilled, they're more secure, they're physically safer, and their children are safer, safer, safer.
And surely that should be enough to give us pause and spray some Freon on our naughty pots, at least for the time being.
So, thank you so much for watching.
I really, really look forward to your comments, questions, and issues below.
We will, of course, link the sources in the notes of the podcast and the video.
Thank you so much for watching.
If you find this information helpful, please, please, please help us out.
We rely entirely on your donations to make this kind of information available to you.
And we really do look forward to your donations at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
