ABC, CBS, FOX & NBC Have Lost More Than 77% Of Their Market Share

[kphoger]

Obviously, Chris's 3-4 time per week vs monthly is a much larger differential, but I don't think it's something that couldn't be overcome with communication and a willingness by both parties to 'sacrifice' for the other (whatever that means for each).

I can assure you that it's easier said than done. Therapy and other things didn't help.

But doesn't that suggest that there aren't any successful marriages out there with a similar sex drive differential?  That they all end in disaster?

[JayhawkCO]

Obviously, Chris's 3-4 time per week vs monthly is a much larger differential, but I don't think it's something that couldn't be overcome with communication and a willingness by both parties to 'sacrifice' for the other (whatever that means for each).

I can assure you that it's easier said than done. Therapy and other things didn't help.

But doesn't that suggest that there aren't any successful marriages out there with a similar sex drive differential?  That they all end in disaster?

I don't think disaster is the right word. But it takes everything else being damn near perfect to not have that issue cause the end. And obviously this kind of mismatch can pretty easily lead to infidelity which is one of the most common "final straws" for divorce.

[Bobby5280]

Considering that 86% of abortions in this country are performed on unmarried women, and that 95% of abortions are for unintended pregnancies, I'd say that a policy of 'being cautious' with pre-marital sex isn't working out so well overall.

Birth rates in the United States have been falling. And the teen pregnancy rate is less than 1/3 the rate it was 30 years ago. Birth rates in the US are still continuing to decline despite highly restrictive abortion laws being passed in a bunch of states. Young adults and teens are having less sex, but they're not entirely celibate either.

[kphoger]

Multiple studies have shown a correlation (note that correlation does not equal causation) between regular religious service attendance and a 30% to 50% lower divorce rate.  I've also seen data showing that couple who practice some sort of religious activity at home report significantly higher levels of marriage satisfaction than those who don't.

Of course I'm not trying to use this as an argument for y'all atheists to suddenly get all religious or whatever.  I'm a religious guy, so these are the sort of things I read.  But, rather, I find it incongruous with the notion that pre-marital sex is a good way to prevent marital dissatisfaction.  It seems like, for that to be true, then there would have to be a large overlap between the set of couples who engage in pre-marital sex and the set of couples who are actively religious.  And that doesn't square in my mind.  If the most actively religious couples tend to be happier than other couples and have a lower divorce rate, and if the most actively religious couples are also less likely to engage in pre-marital sex than others, then it's a discordant argument that pre-marital sex is a good path to marital contentment.

[Scott5114]

Of course, happiness metrics are inherently unreliable since they have to be self-reported, and accuracy depends on actually being able to accurately assess whether you're happy or not. Which is easier said than done. I think we can all think of times in the past when we were unhappy in the moment but in retrospect things were better than they seemed and we should have appreciated it at the time. Or times when we were perfectly content in the moment and then years later wondered why we ever put up with that situation.

If you asked me to answer that question right now, I couldn't even do it. Some aspects of my life are a lot better now than they were five years ago. Some aspects are immeasurably worse. Am I happy? Fuck if I know, the situation doesn't fit in a yes or no!

[Max Rockatansky]

To clarify, while I'm not religious I am not an atheist.  Truth be told I don't put a large amount of thought into religion given it never really has been part of my day to day life.   

My wife is by far the most religious person I've ever been in a relationship with.  She's has never forced her beliefs upon me.  On occasion she'll ask me to take her to a Catholic church in Sanger but that's about it.  Speaking for myself I am very happy in my marriage and in general with the state of my life.

I did date a woman over a decade ago who insisted I convert to Catholicism.  She must not have been serious about that since I told her I wasn't interested in becoming Catholic.  We broke up eventually over career things issues.  She had an opportunity in the Midwest and I had a well established job out in Arizona.  We did on occasion see each other over the next year and took a week long trip to Florida.

[Molandfreak]

Multiple studies have shown a correlation (note that correlation does not equal causation) between regular religious service attendance and a 30% to 50% lower divorce rate.  I've also seen data showing that couple who practice some sort of religious activity at home report significantly higher levels of marriage satisfaction than those who don't.

Of course I'm not trying to use this as an argument for y'all atheists to suddenly get all religious or whatever.  I'm a religious guy, so these are the sort of things I read.  But, rather, I find it incongruous with the notion that pre-marital sex is a good way to prevent marital dissatisfaction.  It seems like, for that to be true, then there would have to be a large overlap between the set of couples who engage in pre-marital sex and the set of couples who are actively religious.  And that doesn't square in my mind.  If the most actively religious couples tend to be happier than other couples and have a lower divorce rate, and if the most actively religious couples are also less likely to engage in pre-marital sex than others, then it's a discordant argument that pre-marital sex is a good path to marital contentment.

I believe it on the surface, but I also believe that there are other factors such as marital rape which non-religious folks are significantly less likely to work through or "learn to deal with."

I have Wisconsin Synod family members who are still legally in a paper marriage, but live separately about 150 miles away. I realize this is an outlying situation, but the possibility of such a situation still can't be discarded.

[JayhawkCO]

Multiple studies have shown a correlation (note that correlation does not equal causation) between regular religious service attendance and a 30% to 50% lower divorce rate.  I've also seen data showing that couple who practice some sort of religious activity at home report significantly higher levels of marriage satisfaction than those who don't.

I think there's a little bit of bias in this though given that divorce is looked down upon by religion. Hell, they created a whole new religion because of it.

[kphoger]

Of course, happiness metrics are inherently unreliable since they have to be self-reported, and accuracy depends on actually being able to accurately assess whether you're happy or not. Which is easier said than done.

I think there's a little bit of bias in this though

Agreed on both counts.  But that just serves to temper the numbers, not to discount them entirely.

I think we can all think of times in the past when we were unhappy in the moment but in retrospect things were better than they seemed and we should have appreciated it at the time. Or times when we were perfectly content in the moment and then years later wondered why we ever put up with that situation.

If you asked me to answer that question right now, I couldn't even do it. Some aspects of my life are a lot better now than they were five years ago. Some aspects are immeasurably worse. Am I happy? Fuck if I know, the situation doesn't fit in a yes or no!

I love that response.  Life is full of nuance, complications, and our own short-sighted and imperfect view of things.

There's also the matter than part of happiness is the decision to work with or push through the thing that's causing us unhappiness.  Not all of happiness is circumstantial, but part of it comes down how we determine to react to our circumstances.

... given that divorce is looked down upon by religion. Hell, they created a whole new religion because of it.

Ah, yes, Henry VIII figured that obviously his marriage to Catherine was not pleasing to God, or else she would have given him babies, right?  And, because she was his brother's widow, the special dispensation from Pope Julius II that he had received to marry her in the first place was void, right?  So, of course, when he appealed to Julius's successor's successor's successor—Pope Clement II—to annul their marriage almost two decades in, he would obviously see things Henry's way, right?  What do you mean, no?  He didn't?  Shocker!

Of course, the Pope suggested that the two of them simply get a quiet divorce.  But no, no, that wouldn't do.  After all, Henry was such devout Christian man who would never violate any ecclesiastical laws...

Wait, is my sarcasm leaking through?

[Beltway]

Considering that 86% of abortions in this country are performed on unmarried women, and that 95% of abortions are for unintended pregnancies, I'd say that a policy of 'being cautious' with pre-marital sex isn't working out so well overall.

The only really reliable method is the pill, over 99.9% effective, but some women can't use it because it causes PMS and other problems with their period.

Someone wanting it 3 or 4 times per week vs. someone wanting it once per month.

Twice a week is typical average.

[NWI_Irish96]

As someone who has had relationship issues with this in the past, if one person's sex drive is completely different from the other's, that can cause many, many issues in the relationship.

Out of curiosity, if it's not entirely inappropriate to talk about, just how different is 'completely different'?

Someone wanting it 3 or 4 times per week vs. someone wanting it once per month.

Someone (under 50, and maybe even not then) only being willing to have sex once per month is just asking for marital problems. Either decide to be a more willing partner or agree to allow your partner other outlets.

[Bobby5280]

Reminds me of a Ron White joke: "I'm a pretty good dog, but if you don't pet me every once in awhile it's hard to keep me under the porch."

[JayhawkCO]

... given that divorce is looked down upon by religion. Hell, they created a whole new religion because of it.

Ah, yes, Henry VIII figured that obviously his marriage to Catherine was not pleasing to God, or else she would have given him babies, right?  And, because she was his brother's widow, the special dispensation from Pope Julius II that he had received to marry her in the first place was void, right?  So, of course, when he appealed to Julius's successor's successor's successor—Pope Clement II—to annul their marriage almost two decades in, he would obviously see things Henry's way, right?  What do you mean, no?  He didn't?  Shocker!

Of course, the Pope suggested that the two of them simply get a quiet divorce.  But no, no, that wouldn't do.  After all, Henry was such devout Christian man who would never violate any ecclesiastical laws...

Wait, is my sarcasm leaking through?

There are plenty of religious folks who think divorce is a sin, or at least, a really bad thing. Just because you, as a person of faith, might not feel the same way doesn't mean others don't.

If you don't thing Anglicism largely came about because of disagreements with the Catholic Church vis a vis divorce, by all means, let me know my inaccuracies in what I said.

Someone wanting it 3 or 4 times per week vs. someone wanting it once per month.

Someone (under 50, and maybe even not then) only being willing to have sex once per month is just asking for marital problems. Either decide to be a more willing partner or agree to allow your partner other outlets.

So someone that doesn't have a biological need for sex as often as you think they should means they don't get to be married? If they can't get aroused, they should just somehow perform the act anyway? Seems rapey.

[Beltway]

Someone (under 50, and maybe even not then) only being willing to have sex once per month is just asking for marital problems. Either decide to be a more willing partner or agree to allow your partner other outlets.

So someone that doesn't have a biological need for sex as often as you think they should means they don't get to be married? If they can't get aroused, they should just somehow perform the act anyway? Seems rapey.

Women have huge hormonal shifts that is hard for men to understand. Of course you can talk to her and get her explanation of what is going on.

[JayhawkCO]

Someone (under 50, and maybe even not then) only being willing to have sex once per month is just asking for marital problems. Either decide to be a more willing partner or agree to allow your partner other outlets.

So someone that doesn't have a biological need for sex as often as you think they should means they don't get to be married? If they can't get aroused, they should just somehow perform the act anyway? Seems rapey.

Women have huge hormonal shifts that is hard for men to understand. Of course you can talk to her and get her explanation of what is going on.

Conversation doesn't change biological realities.

[Beltway]

Someone (under 50, and maybe even not then) only being willing to have sex once per month is just asking for marital problems. Either decide to be a more willing partner or agree to allow your partner other outlets.

So someone that doesn't have a biological need for sex as often as you think they should means they don't get to be married? If they can't get aroused, they should just somehow perform the act anyway? Seems rapey.

Women have huge hormonal shifts that is hard for men to understand. Of course you can talk to her and get her explanation of what is going on.

Conversation doesn't change biological realities.

It can explain what is going on. Like why there is no arousal, at times. It could be hormonal and biological, not necessarily the fault of either person.

[wxfree]

Children and teens exposed to foul language in TV and movies is not as bad as shows and movies promoting and glorifying pre-marital sex. 

Didn't Murphy Brown have something to say about that?  As I recall, Dan "Potatoe" Quayle accused her of glamorizing single motherhood, and the sweaty, very pregnant, and barely mobile Murphy said "do I look glamorous to you?"  Or something like that.  It was a very informative kick in the ass for a young boy who just assumed that men had all the answers because those were the answers he could understand at the time.  What Danny should have done is condemn irresponsible fathers.

Besides that, doesn't nearly everyone agree that fornication is pretty glorious on its own, and doesn't need an advertising budget?  It hasn't been promoted or glorified in a long time, and people seem to like now more than ever.

[Beltway]

Murphy Brown

Why do some people give "last name first names" to girl babies, masculine names at that?

I have always liked feminine names for girl babies and the women they grow up to be.

[Scott5114]

I have always liked feminine names for girl babies and the women they grow up to be.

How snoring.

[Rothman]

Murphy Brown

Why do some people give "last name first names" to girl babies, masculine names at that?

I have always liked feminine names for girl babies and the women they grow up to be.

There's something funny about this reaction coming from a name of a show that's been off the air for nearly 30 years.

[Max Rockatansky]

The most prominent thing I recall about Murphy Brown is when the character made a cameo appearance on Seinfeld. 

Funny to think that during season three of Seinfeld that Murphy Brown was probably still the more prominent show. 

[Beltway]

Murphy Brown

Why do some people give "last name first names" to girl babies, masculine names at that?
I have always liked feminine names for girl babies and the women they grow up to be.

There's something funny about this reaction coming from a name of a show that's been off the air for nearly 30 years.

Yeah, and it just popped up in this thread. That was HER name.

I have always liked feminine names for girl babies and the women they grow up to be.

How snoring.

How belching.

[kphoger]

There are plenty of religious folks who think divorce is a sin, or at least, a really bad thing. Just because you, as a person of faith, might not feel the same way doesn't mean others don't.

If you don't thing Anglicism largely came about because of disagreements with the Catholic Church vis a vis divorce, by all means, let me know my inaccuracies in what I said.

Whoa, whoa, it appears you read me totally wrong.  Sorry for not being clear.

Personally, I believe there are some situations in which divorce may be appropriate, but as a general rule divorce is in some way sinful/bad-thing-y.  Basically, if it isn't a matter of marital infidelity or neglect/abuse, then divorce should not be an option.  And, even then, I admire couples who try to work through and move past even an instance of infidelity.

And yes, I agree that the Church of England basically became a thing because of an argument over divorce.  That was all just my sarcastic way of saying Henry VIII was a dick who tried to weasel his way out of a legitimate (though with a colorful back-story) marriage by questionable means—and that the Pope was right to call him out on it.

So someone that doesn't have a biological need for sex as often as you think they should means they don't get to be married? If they can't get aroused, they should just somehow perform the act anyway? Seems rapey.

Not all sexual acts involve penetration.  And I don't see an ethical issue with performing those other acts while not all that aroused.  If my wife has a need, and I'm not in the mood, then I can serve her in her need anyway.  That's part of what it means for me to love my wife.  And vice versa.  That's not rape, that's just marriage.

[JayhawkCO]

Whoa, whoa, it appears you read me totally wrong.  Sorry for not being clear.

Personally, I believe there are some situations in which divorce may be appropriate, but as a general rule divorce is in some way sinful/bad-thing-y.  Basically, if it isn't a matter of marital infidelity or neglect/abuse, then divorce should not be an option.  And, even then, I admire couples who try to work through and move past even an instance of infidelity.

And yes, I agree that the Church of England basically became a thing because of an argument over divorce.  That was all just my sarcastic way of saying Henry VIII was a dick who tried to weasel his way out of a legitimate (though with a colorful back-story) marriage by questionable means—and that the Pope was right to call him out on it.

I thought your sarcasm in your comment was directed towards me, not the big, fat, bearded guy. All good, sounds like we're in agreement on that. But I strongly disagree with "as a general rule divorce is in some way sinful/bad-thing-y.  Basically, if it isn't a matter of marital infidelity or neglect/abuse, then divorce should not be an option." People change. Dynamics change. Spending your entire life with someone you're not happy with should not be "imposed" on anyone just because, at one time, you assumed you'd be with that person for the rest of your life. I'd much rather be happy than prideful that I "help up my end of the bargain". (And for the record, I'm very happy in my marriage, so this doesn't apply to me.)

So someone that doesn't have a biological need for sex as often as you think they should means they don't get to be married? If they can't get aroused, they should just somehow perform the act anyway? Seems rapey.

Not all sexual acts involve penetration.  And I don't see an ethical issue with performing those other acts while not all that aroused.  If my wife has a need, and I'm not in the mood, then I can serve her in her need anyway.  That's part of what it means for me to love my wife.  And vice versa.  That's not rape, that's just marriage.

I'm aware of non-penetrative sex, and I don't think it's unethical to do something when you're not that up for it. But, at least for me, I can definitely tell a difference when the other person is kinda mailing it in, and that doesn't help really satiate any needs that I have. Maybe physically, less emotionally. YMMV.

[kphoger]

I strongly disagree with "as a general rule divorce is in some way sinful/bad-thing-y.  Basically, if it isn't a matter of marital infidelity or neglect/abuse, then divorce should not be an option." People change. Dynamics change.

I didn't expect anyone or everyone to share my belief.  That's fine.  I just wanted to make it clear where I stood, since I had obviously whiffed with my earlier post.  When Carrie and I got married, we both emphatically agreed that "divorce is not an option".  That's religious/theological stuff behind that that this forum isn't the place to discuss, but that's where we both stand.

(And for the record, I'm very happy in my marriage, so this doesn't apply to me.)

Same here.  Heck, we hardly ever have an argument.

I can definitely tell a difference when the other person is kinda mailing it in, and that doesn't help really satiate any needs that I have. Maybe physically, less emotionally.

That makes total sense.

But, still...  If the other person is just 'mailing it in', then that's an issue that goes beyond mere sex drive.  That, I think, describes a person who just honestly doesn't care about your needs, or at least doesn't want to put in anything more than the bare minimum amount of effort to serve your needs.  And that's a deeper issue.