I don't think Ms. Diefendorf demonstrated what she claims. As GSA101 points out, this is an extreme group. And the contradictions in their philosophy are pretty obvious. I expect the same thing can be shown for people on the opposite end of the spectrum, those with a very large number of partners who then marry. But even for comparison with a control group there are some questions that need to be answered.

1. How long did these marriages last? The US median length for a fist marriage is 45 years. But this is not a bell curve. 40% of marriages end within 8 years. So, do these river members beat the 10 year mark?

2. She shows that these men have sexual dissatisfaction with their marriage. How does that compare with the population at large? As is pointed out in the WaPo article, male sexual dissatisfaction with marriage is a cliche.

All Ms. Diefendorf appears to have documented is typical male reactions to marriage. I don't support what the river teaches (I agree it looks unhealthy) but I also fail to see Ms. Diefendorf supporting her claims.

I wish neoconservatives would stop ignoring the likelihood that even a 25-year-old man who is abstinent is still likely not a virgin and therefore should not be insisting on a virgin bride. These days, why would - or should - she want to marry a sexist hypocrite? Also, since most men simply cannot MARRY before age 25, how many men or women can really wait that long for sex? It's ludicrous.

Not to mention that if economic circumstances force him to wait to marry until 30, the only virgins will likely be 20 or younger (as implied in the article), and modern parents, even conservative ones, generally don't WANT their daughters to marry that young - and many women that age would consider him to be an old man and quite undesirable in the long term.

(As I've mentioned before, people who love the book "Gone With the Wind" but who hate Scarlett for not appreciating Rhett are conveniently forgetting that when they first meet, he's Twice Her Age! That is, he's almost old enough to be her father! How many teen girls do you know who would seriously want to MARRY someone that old - as opposed to maybe having a short, profitable affair with him? By the end of the book, when Scarlett is 28, he's already about 45 - still a pretty unappealing age difference by modern standards. Is it any wonder she took so long to turn around?)

Christian conservatives should encourage younger marriages.

The idea of the asexual or non-sexual woman is un-Biblical. As a conservative Christian myself, this is one of the key things I point to with groups like Focus on the Family -- they choose a particular western morality, shove it on the Bible, when the book does not say you should go to college, get a good job, a 700 FICO, and then marry in your late 20s.

How anybody can read incident after incident after incident of recorded female sexuality in the Bible, old or new testament, and think that there's some lack of female sexuality is beyond me, but I assume they simply do not read their Bible, their "bible study groups" probably read some Christian bookstore best seller that is creating its own doctrine out of whole cloth.

@lenona, therefore, I agree with you that you cannot preach sexual purity and late marriage, but, from the other side, I suggest they simply live outside the social norm and encourage marriages in the 20-25 age bracket, and then be prepared to support their fledgling child's marriage and new son or daughter in law in getting the new family up on its feet rather than abandon the principle. Get the kids married off and then embrace the new family and support them rather than expecting the kids to become self-sufficient, employed, BA-holding adults first.

Yes, well, there are reasons that even waiting until you're 20 or 21 doesn't help the likelihood of preventing divorce, much. The median age of first-time for females was 20 in 1950 (it hadn't been that low since the 18th century, IIRC). If many of those marriages stayed intact, it's likely due to taboos against divorce more than anything else.

Lenona,

How many neo-cons do you run into who insist on virgin brides? As Mr Crazy Green points out it is hardly biblical. I live in Houston which is a pretty red area. (Heck, we have a monthly gun show) And the only people I know of that insist on that sort of thing are pretty loopy. They fit right in with the sovereign citizen types or the lets run off into the boonies and form a compound types. I assume you are in a deep blue area where the only person willing to self identify as a neo-con is flat delusional to begin with.

"subjects of the author's study practice an extreme version of celibacy where not only is premarital sexual intercourse forbidden, but any form of interpersonal sex, solo sex, porn-induced fantasy sex is also taboo. This is pure anti-sex dogma; it really can't be justified on pragmatic grounds. "

Anytime you run a *study* on a self selected group, you are going to have a very small chance of it having any meaning.

Within that self selected group of those men who are ultra conservative and religious, is going to be a portion of men, possibly a large number, who espouse a no premarital sex philosophy because they are 1. Afraid of women, or 2. Sexually disfunctional, or sexually timid, or 3. Confused about their sexuality which will probably include a number of homosexuals, and bi sexuals looking to hide their orientation, behind a belief in pre marital chastity.

Once you filter out those people, (which is almost impossible to do objectively since it relies upon these individuals honestly self reporting). you might be able to figure out if religion has any bearing on sexual happiness at all.

Curious what the education/mores/expectations of the 14 wives was. They are 1/2 of the marriage.

Pledging abstinence before marriage is no promise there'll be any sex AFTER we get married.

"Mom, Dad, I know I'm only 18, but I've decided to save myself for a young woman who is determined to be America's youngest frigid Church Lady because the preacher is married to one and he says if he doesn't get any then neither should I."

*Sounds like a plan. Call us when you're overwhelmed with guilt because a cute cheerleader took pity on you and bonked your brains out.*

Okay, I got to the "this gift was fraught." and I began to wonder if English is the writers first language or if they were even fluent. "Fraught" is an adjective; it modifies a verb.

So I sort of wandered off after that

I can't help but feel that people are concerned over nothing. If he's proficient at sex when he's married, due to abstinence, the good news is he can learn.

How many neo-cons do you run into who insist on virgin brides?
______________________________________

I don't know. Yes, I'm in a deep blue area (Boston area), but I'd say most people around here, even the younger ones, are polite and discreet enough not to assume that anyone they don't know well shares their political/religious views or wants to hear them at all, whether they're liberal or conservative (and, of course, there's no shortage of practicing Catholics around here as well, even if some churches are closing). At any rate, it's certainly not a subject I've ever had a reason to bring up with acquaintances, myself. I agree such neocons are likely in the minority.

BUT... why would "purity balls" still get mentioned time and again in the news, if lots of parents of girls weren't seriously concerned about their daughters' ability to get a "suitable" husband, later on, and thought that purity pledges were the best way to ensure it? Maybe the young men they know ARE that picky? (It's safe to say that such parents are not going to settle for girls who wait until age 21 or until they leave home for good - especially if they CHOOSE never to marry.) From a recent book: "Do they call on abstinence-only classes to compare boys who have sex to used chewing gum or dirty toothbrushes or much-handled Peppermint Patties? No, that humiliation is just for girls."

(More on that, from Texas):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/texas-virgins-chewed-gum_n_4241610.html

...The publication of the Canyon sex education documents comes months after activist Elizabeth Smart -- who was abducted from her home in 2002 at the age of 14, sexually abused by her captors and was found nine months later -- started speaking out against abstinence-only education. According to Smart, now 26, abstinence-only education makes sexually active females feel worthless. She has also said that after being sexually abused by her abductors, the abstinence-only education she had received prior to her kidnapping partially informed her decision not to run away.

“I think it goes beyond fear for so many children, especially in sex trafficking," she said in May. "It's feeling like 'who would ever want me now? I’m worthless.'”

(end of article)

Not to mention: A columnist, in 2011, made good points regarding a 14-year-old girl who planned to give in to her boyfriend to "prove" their love (he wasn't addressing the girl or the family directly), but at the end, he goofed and made it clear that while his strict Episcopal community may be large, it doesn't represent the majority of the US population under 50, these days - and he didn't realize that. To wit:

"Lastly, dad is not mentioned by either mom or the therapist. Maybe he's not in the home, but if he's available, then he needs to sit down with his daughter and tell her how much he loves her and how important it will be to him that he walk a virgin to the altar, not to mention how important it will be to her husband."

Someone at Freejinger said: "Sounds like the advice from Dad is meant to be just a load of bullshit to scare the girl into waiting until she's old enough to figure out it was just a load of bullshit."

Of course, it wouldn't scare her into waiting at all if she's aware, as Dad is, that marriage and children are completely optional in modern life and knowing you don't WANT to marry, ever, is pretty normal. Plus the fact that modern women have every right to all the privacy they want once they've left home, with no nosy questions from Dad. So what father can say that with a straight face if he's NOT religious?

And this is as good a time as any to bring up something that simply should not be happening - namely, forced child marriages or forced teen marriages in the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/americas-child-marriage-problem.html?_r=0

By Fraidy Reiss.

More than 500 comments.

First paragraphs:

IN the United States today, thousands of children under 18 have recently taken marital vows — mostly girls married to adult men, often with approval from local judges. In at least one case, a 10-year-old boy was legally married.
Stories from Our Advertisers

How is this possible? The minimum marriage age in most states is 18, but every state allows exceptions under which children under age 18 can wed.

The first common exception is for children marrying with “parental consent.” Most states allow children age 16 or 17 to marry if their parents sign the marriage license application.

Of course, one person’s “parental consent” can be another’s “parental coercion,” but state laws typically do not call for anyone to investigate whether a child is marrying willingly. Even in the case of a girl’s sobbing openly while her parents sign the application and force her into marriage, the clerk usually has no authority to intervene. In fact, in most states there are no laws that specifically forbid forced marriage.

The second common marriage-age exception is for children marrying with judicial approval. This exception lowers the marriage age below 16 in many states, and many states do not specify a minimum age. Judges in those states can allow the marriage even of an elementary school student.

But judges would never do that, right?...

(snip)

Later on:

...The survey found child marriage or forced marriage, or both, in families of many faiths, including Muslim, Christian (particularly Catholic), Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh. I have seen child and forced marriage in the Orthodox Jewish community, and I know survivors from Mormon and Unification Church backgrounds...

From a source you support Lenona,

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/purity-balls-local-tradition-or-national-trend.html?_r=0

Purity balls are not a significant event. Maybe 0.001% of the population. They are covered not because they are significant but because they are odd and sell papers.

As for the forced marriages, from your own source we are only talking about a thousand or so people in a nation of 350 million. Should it happen, no. But people shouldn't rape, murder, steal, or a wide variety of other actions. Will you ever get it down to zero, probably not. Deal with it. Everything you are fighting with are more figments of your imagination than anything real or significant.

"Of course, one person’s 'parental consent' can be another’s 'parental coercion,' but state laws typically do not call for anyone to investigate whether a child is marrying willingly. "

In other words, they really have no idea. They are just assuming that most or all such marriages are coerced. (I also note that their concern is 100% for the girl in the marriage, 0% for the boy.)

(I also note that their concern is 100% for the girl in the marriage, 0% for the boy.)

Posted by: Cousin Dave at October 19, 2015 8:54 AM

What makes you so sure of that?

Oh, and just as we can agree that truly loving parents do not allow their teens to drop out of school just because they might hate books and studying across the board, can't we agree that truly loving parents also don't nudge or force their teens into teen marriage or even LET their kids get married just because the kids might, say, threaten to run away if the parents don't give permission? There's a reason, after all, that teen marriages seldom work out these days - and they often fail only AFTER there's a baby or two in the picture. Not good. Again, societies that ban divorce don't necessarily have happier marriages than we do in the U.S.

And, if anyone's forgotten this, teen pregnancy is just plain dangerous for both mother and baby, even in rich communities. (If people didn't realize this in past centuries, maybe it was because so many adults died in childbirth as well, so they didn't see the point of delaying marriage for girls.)

Lenona, there are over 14,000 murders in the US each year. And you are worried about a couple hundred forced marriages or creepy parties.

Purity balls aren't arranged by men looking for virgin brides, but by fathers who are squicked out by their daughters growing up.

I've lived most of my life in conservative rural areas, and knew just one man who bragged about his virgin bride. He was not quite normal to begin with. A few years later, he quit his job as a supervisor at a factory and became a Baptist preacher. _Then_ his wife divorced him.

Lenona, there are over 14,000 murders in the US each year. And you are worried about a couple hundred forced marriages or creepy parties.
_______________________________________

So maybe I also shouldn't worry about the less than 1% of little girls living in the U.S. whose immigrant parents force them into FGM (which can be fatal)? In other words, each is a relatively small problem right now - but for how long, if it's allowed to grow? Let's also not forget that any forced marriage very much counts as a rape - and depending on the age difference and beliefs of the older party, that relationship may never change.