You Are Right

File: large catholic family.jpg (59KB, 575x320px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 575x320px

>>35829314
Further, women who are promiscuous have an increased risk of:
-STDs
-Depression
-Drug abuse
-self-harm
-domestic violence
-rape
-single motherhood
and more
[one of the many sources on this is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752789/pdf/nihms499028 [put a dot here] pdf]

>>35829358
This starts with just *one* extra-marital partner and the risks increase from there.

File: album 1.jpg (321KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1600x1200px

>>35829314
Another issue with promiscuity is microchimerism. Every man a woman has sex with can (and usually does) leave his DNA in her body *forever* which will affect her life and health and
>here is the worst part
be passed on to her children.
People freak out over pictures of children borne by women who were virgins saying things like 'they;re all clones!' or 'how do they look just alike>!'.
Simple - they aren't tainted by the DNA of mom's other sexual partners because she didn't have any.

>>35829314
>>35829358
>>35829378
>>35829463
So the most logical thing for a man is to want a virgin wife.
And the most logical thing for a woman is to be a virgin wife.
So stand up for what you want!

>normie-chad
>believes in thoroughly debunked meme graphs

You're a beta virgin robot.

File: done.jpg (35KB, 405x405px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 405x405px

>>35829658
>thoroughly debunked meme graphs
That graph is supported by:
-the Teachman study
-The Paik study
-The Paik study followup
-The Kahn & London study
-The Heaton Study
-The Lauman study
and about 12 more scientific studies conducted between 1979 and 2013. There are more studies to be released soon where early abstracts say they reach the same conclusions.
Who "debunked" it? An anonymous robot chanting 'nuh-uh'?

>>35829770
All religious anti-sex groups that do not provide their source or methodology. Those graphs can't pass closer scrutiny.

File: retard chamber.jpg (98KB, 576x768px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 576x768px

>>35829832
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Teachman, Paik, Kahn, London, etc. are all professors at research universities, pal. The data comes from the GSS, national survey of health, the UK's NHS, etc.
The studies were all published in peer-reviewed journals and the studies keep coming out because other researchers try to debunk them.,
That lie is the best you got?!?!
>

>>35830314
The graph is not from the Teachman study. That's actually a lie. It comes from a religious anti-sex group that claims it comes from Teachman. It doesn't.

File: teachman 1.jpg (15KB, 592x75px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 592x75px

>>35830404
From the image on OP
Maybe if you read the actual chart

>>35830404
Also, the data in the chart created by the Heritage Foundation *is just a cut and paste of data from a CDC/DHHS study*.
In other words, the Heritage Foundation study is just a repeat of data from a government study and a repeat of governmental statistics.
tl;dr - you're an idiot

File: teachman 2.jpg (10KB, 418x39px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 418x39px

>>35830404
guess what?
OP chart says this
>>35830564
again - READ THE ACTUAL CHART!

>>35830564
No it's not. That's a complete lie. You would know if you actually had looked at the source. The CDC data says no such thing.

>>35830499
You know how I know you didn't actually look at the Teachman study?

>>35830594
That's just an empty claim. Without posting their methodology it's worthless since they could be making anything up.

>>35830726
Of course it does - the source data is easily found, loser.

File: teachman 3.jpg (26KB, 322x157px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 322x157px

>>35830736
>You know how I know you didn't actually look at the Teachman study?
You mean this one?
>http://atavisionary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Premarital-Sex-Premarital-Cohabitation-and-the-Risk-of-Subsequent-Marital-Dissolution-Among-Women-teechman.pdf
The study the pic related is taken from?
yeah.
I've read it

>>35830749
Then go read the peer-reviewed studies
>Local uni library for journal access
>about 30 minutes to confirm

>>35829314
ITT: roastie whores and betacuck white knights all trying to claim being a slut is no different than being a pure virgin

>>35829658
>>35829832
>>35830404
>>35830726
>>35830736
>>35830749
White Knights and Roasties say
>THAT CHART IS A LIE MADE BY EEEEEEVIIIIIL CHRISTIANS WHO NEVER SHOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY!
>>35829770
>>35830314
>>35830564
>>35831021
Reality
>No, they are peer-reviewed, published studies freely available and confirmed by government data
Roasties and white knights
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!

>>35829314
Then tell me how to find one. I'm a solid 8-9/10, ottermode, and a STEM student at a big university. I'm introverted but I'll be more social if it means I can get a girl who waits for marriage.

>>35830932
I have looked the source data. You have not. If you had, you'd know those graphs are made up.

>>35831436
>peer-reviewed

No they're not. It's sad how lacking science education is these days. You don't even know what a scientific study is.

>>35831493
Local church; Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon are the most likely. Look for recommendations from Conservative sites for 'good churches'

>>35831573
I've linked to the source data, loser - have you?
No.

File: gal.jpg (67KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 720x960px

>>35831594
Teachman's study was originally published in the Journal of Marriage and Family = peer-reviewed.
Kahn & London = also published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Both of Paik's studies = peer reviewed.
Heaton and Lauman = peer reviewed
Holy smokes! It looks like you are lying!

>>35831724
You have not looked at the source data. You're afraid to, because it would show you that you're wrong.

>>35831805
The meme graph is not part of the Teachman study. Definitely not peer-reviewed.

File: Dangote.jpg (147KB, 409x600px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 409x600px

>>35831868
are you the same liar that thinks 'full analyses with included methodologies published in a peer reviewed journal' aren't peer reviewed?
Look - I have posted a link tot he Teachman analysis that included all of his data sets and references - since it is obviously a peer-reviewed article show me where the reviewers got it wrong (as did EVERY OTHER RESEARCHER) with actual data, *like I did*.

File: retard.gif (2MB, 352x217px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x217px

>>35831880
see
>>35830499
and
>>35830594
Teachman's data is added to the graph *to show the correlations* and the graphs are just copies of the raw data.
Try to keep up, roastie

File: 1489926295421.jpg (2MB, 4920x4161px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4920x4161px

>>35831920
>>35831941
Are toasted roasties always this dumb?

>>35831941
>copies of the raw data

How can that be when the raw data is not even there?

>>35832010
I think they are
Them and the betacuck white knights that try to defend the fact that their oneitis has fucked the entire football team already

File: selah.gif (336KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 200x200px

>>35832033
me
>"The charts just show the raw data in graphic form"
You
>"hurr durr, where da raw data at, durr"
see
>>35830594
In an amazing twist, they *listed the source of the data on the fucking graph* as anyone who reads the graph OR THIS THREAD, knows

File: bone.jpg (32KB, 367x367px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 367x367px

>>35829314
Look at the list of posters
>OP
>A roastie and white knight betacuck
>A guy mocking the roastie and the white knight
So, roastie - how many different cocks have you taken?
So, white knight - how many different cocks has your oneitis taken?

Note that the roastie and the betacuck white knight are whining about only the image and aren't even MENTIONING this
>>35829358
or this
>>35829463

>>35832074
How many times do you need to be told? The raw data is not in the study. It's not in the links. You can't point to it because it's not there. You simply are not intelligent enough to look at the source.

>>35829463
Here's something that destroys your dumb pseudoscientific argument: if that were true, a girl would always be carrying her father's sperm first. Even a virgin would already be linked to a man - her father.

File: cindy-mccain.jpg (21KB, 258x358px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 258x358px

>>35832390
>"Where's the raw data"
>"There"
>"No, you idiot, where is the raw data?"
>"There"
>No, moron, the RAW DATA!"
>"There. the name, etc. is right there"
>WARGGLBARGLEBOO!"
So you're admitting that you aren't smart enough to type a string of characters into a search engine and read?

File: retarded.jpg (38KB, 430x322px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 430x322px

>>35832417
>Pseudoscientific
>Peer reviewed studies prom the National Institutes of Health
Pick one, fuckwit
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084184/
I have plenty more if you have journal access, BTW
>a girl would always be carrying her father's sperm first
Only if her father had fucked her would she have his sperm, and then she wouldn't be a virgin
>Even a virgin would already be linked to a man - her father.
Yeah - it is called HER FUCKING GENES, you moron!
>Not knowing every woman has half of her genetic material from her father

File: disgust.png (155KB, 394x464px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 394x464px

>>35832390
Robots, see how HARD the roasties fight to make you accept non-virgins?

>>35829463
>People freak out over pictures of children borne by women who were virgins saying things like 'they;re all clones!' or 'how do they look just alike>!'.
Literally what. That is the dumbest thing I have read today.

>>35832469
So you can't point to it. You have to admit that you cannot find the raw data because it doesn't exist. The raw data does not contain anything about "number of sexual partners vs marriage", that part is made up by the religious anti-sex group.

Funny how, if the "conclusion" would have been something that doesn't support your bitter virginal worldview, you would have called it a lie. But now you believe it without question, even when it's clearly made up.

File: laugh drink.gif (1MB, 207x207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 207x207px

>>35832991
>So you can't point to it
Blatant lie. The CDC Bureau of Health Statistics Survey of Family Growth is part of OP
>You have to admit that you cannot find the raw data because it doesn't exist
Another lie. a 1 second search finds this
>https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/index.htm
The *entirety* of all the raw data from the *entire* 1995 survey can be found here
>https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_cycle5.htm
That was clicking on 2 links from the top hit of a 1 second Google search.
A retarded baboon could have found that data in less time than you typing your post took, you lazy ignoramus.
> that part is made up by the religious anti-sex group
Another lie - Teachman is an atheist professor at a research uni, just like the other researchers.
*I* keep pointing to actual scientific papers
*The roasties* keep telling lies.
Where you can access all the raw data used.
Also, the link to the Teachman study includes the names of much more raw data from other sources.

>>35832955
You ever see a picture of kids from a virgin bride?
People freak out at how much the kids resemble.
I've seen it on 4chan personally.

>>35833491
Why are you not looking inside the data? If you're half as smart as you say, you should easily find "number of sexual partners" as one item inside the raw data.

But for some reason it's not there. Hmmmmmm.

>>35833551
I have no idea what you're saying. And it makes absolutely no sense. You mean kids who look a lot like their parents came from virgin brides? That's retarded. There's absolutely no correlation between virgin/nonvirgin and looks (how do you even measure it?)

File: rdrr.gif (490KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 500x200px

>>35833646
You
>"Where's the data?!?! bleargh!"
Me
>"There"
You
>"Where, I can't find it, durrrrrrr"
Me
>"The data set name has been given over and over"
You
>"But why don't you liiiiiiiink it>? I am far too lazy and stupid to use google!"
Me
>"Here is a link to all the raw data. It took a blind, retarded house cat 5 seconds to find it"
You (now)
>"Well, why don;t you show me all the data since I am so fucking retarded I can't use search tools"
--------------------------------
So, let me get this straight:
-First you claimed the data was invented by evil Baptists
>That was proven to be a FUCKING LIE
-Then you claimed that the peer-reviewed scientific papers WEREN'T scientific peer-reviewed papers
>That was proven to be a FUCKING LIE
-Then you claimed that the scientific, peer-reviewed papers never referred to original, raw data
>That was proven to be a FUCKING LIE
-Then you claimed that there was no way to know what original, raw data was used
>That was proven to be a FUCKING LIE
-Then you claimed no one can find the original, raw data
>That was proven to be a FUCKING LIE
And now that you have been proven to be a FUCKING LIAR and you have no more ways to lie you want to to actually parse the fucking data for you?
Tell you what - go read the scientific, peer-reviewed studies where scientists parsed the data for us, huh?
Or do you
>the retarded fuckwit that can't use google
are going to get a better analysis of the data than 12 PhD's?

>>35833909
Are you stupid or deliberately misreading? This is the fact:

That government-collected raw data has NO INFORMATION about number of sexual partners.

You would know if you had a look at the data. But you haven't. And since it doesn't contain data that the meme graphs claim, it makes the entire thing dubious.

File: fucking retarded 3.jpg (55KB, 598x350px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 598x350px

>>35834095
So, you just keep lying.
Why do you do that?
You claimed a peer-reviewed scientific paper *wasn't*
>the number of commenters in the thread is right there, I know you are the same fucking liar
So let me repeat the obvious
-MULTIPLE *scientific*, *peer-reviewed* papers using raw data from *multiple sources* all separately confirm that the more out-of-wedlock sexual partners a woman has, the worse a marriage partner she will be.
or, shorter
ROASTIES ARE BAD WIVES, VIRGINS ARE GOOD WIVES.
No matter how you lie, whine, and scream this is simply a fact.
BTW - when are you going to answer >>35832103
Roastie?

File: damson.jpg (49KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 540x540px

>>35834095
>Do google search of the data name in OP image
>First page of results includes all data that is collected
>'Data collected' includes number of lifetime sexual partners, sexual partners in last 12 months, etc.
>Also includes marriage, divorce, etc.
So - you didn't even *look* at the *titles* of the data sets?!?!?!

File: IMG_0546.png (88KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 250x250px

ITT: Fannyflabbergasted normalfags

>>35834661
True
The only person freaking out is some used up roastie

>>35834320
Where are you getting this from? Are you lying? There is no number of lifetime sexual partners.

>>35832955
My mother was a virgin before marriage, and I almost daily throughout highschool was told how similar I am to my siblings

>>35834967
My mother was not a virgin before marriage, and everyone always thought me and my brother were twins.

>>35834856
You aren't even trying anymore.
A lazy liar is the worst

According to commenter count this
>>35834967
is a nw commenter and this
>>35835011
isn't.