> If interested, then here is my copy/pasted word document where I gather resources to show that promiscuity possibly harms women:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s1600/teachman
http://nationalmarriageproject.org/reports/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/
https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601
https://www.medinstitute.org/articles/pair-bonding-and-the-brain/
https://news.byu.edu/news/good-things-come-couples-who-wait
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x
https://i.imgur.com/xMptlRw.png
https://images.askmen.com/news/dating/_1466170722.png
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/opinion/sunday/infidelity-lurks-in-your-genes.html
“Stable marriage rate as per Teachman superimposed on Heritage Study” (as calculated on 10 year…)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000053/
"Why promiscuity ruins women but not men" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-rFkqQa7Sk
> It is true that there is a double standard for sexual purity being more important for women than for guys. I will give you credit where credit is due and acknowledge that it isn’t as important that a man remain chaste before marriage. (Although many people who are religious will definitely disagree with me and that’s their right!)
Why is is more important that a woman remain chaste before marriage?
> Do you honestly believe that a woman’s sexual past doesn’t matter?
I believe that a person's sexual history is largely unimportant except in certain circumstances, yes.
> Do you really doubt the widely held belief that virgins are better to marry than non-virgins?
I believe this is complete nonsense. Not only that, but the blog post you link later (Wolfinger, 2016) links to statistics that show in 2012 58% of Americans believe that "premarital sex is not wrong at all", which gives lie to your claim that this belief is "widely held". Perhaps this belief is simply one that you and your MGTOW friends believe - I certainly don't believe it has the cultural cache you believe it does, as that percentage has likely gone up since the study, based on observed trends.
> I don’t condone female genital mutilation but there are tribes in Africa which sterilize and remove a woman’s c_______ (I originally spelled the word out but it has 8 letters and is a sexual organ that is highly sexually sensitive) and then sew her labia shut to prevent anyone but her husband from defiling or de-flowering her? Are you aware that tribes in Africa take virginity and “sexual purity” super, super seriously?
You know you can say "clitoris", right? It's not like you're swearing or summoning a demon. It's a part of human biology, for goodness' sake!
Indeed, and this is very much yet another example of how ideas of "sexual purity" create cultural climates that are harmful to women and in this case actively cause them to be physically mutilated. I have no idea how you believe this fact could be construed as helpful to your argument.
> I know that there exist a lot of memes on Facebook and Twitter that mock guys like me who take sexual purity so seriously and I am not against memes. In fact, I believe meme warfare is a good way to settle societal debates and disagreements. My only complaint is that there is a critical shortage of memes that support my viewpoint and part of me realizes I should try and fix this shortage but I’ve got much more pressing issues right now.
I don't care about memes, and they're irrelevant to this discussion.
> First and foremost is my desire to collect news articles and scientific publications that support my viewpoint that non-promiscuous women have longer, healthier marriages:
This is something I can help you with. I'm a Social Psychologist, and am well-versed in rooting out bad representations of data and improperly executed studies.
> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/
Wolfinger's blog post is the closest thing you have to compelling data, and I've got to tell you: it's not compelling. While the NSFG is an excellent source of data, Wolfinger clearly has an ideological bias (which does not refute his claims, but certainly calls them into question), and fails to adequately reference his findings in an accessible way. While I could put in the time - and it would be very time consuming - to check his work, regardless his claims are correlative and do not imply causation. Of particular not is that Wolfinger simply looked at the number of previous sexual partners the women in relationships had, but did not supply data related to the number of partners men had and how likely they were to divorce - another example of a huge oversight and indicative of his bias.
One alternative explanation for marital happiness being higher for virginal couples (if it indeed is) is the simple fact that these couples have no point of reference for relationships outside of their marriage, and thus are happy because they don't know there are alternatives. By this argument, people might be happier with their food if we were all only given access to a meal replacement drink such as Soylent, or people might enjoy television more if we only allowed them to watch Friends. It's by no means a strong argument, and his lack of adequate referencing causes me concern that his findings may be a misinterpretation of the data to begin with.
> https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601
The authors of this book are not neuroscientists, or psychologists, or even sociologists. The authors of this book are a pair of OB/GYNs, and the science in this book is so poorly argued, executed, and intentionally misleading and deceptive that to place this on your list is truly damning.
> https://www.medinstitute.org/articles/pair-bonding-and-the-brain/
This is a blog post from the company founded and run by the authors of the previously mentioned book, and repeats some claims made in the book. This is not a compelling source.
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s1600/teachman
A data graphic with no citation or source. Nope, not even worth considering.
> https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/494173-girls-laughing
> If you really want me to create a pro-chastity meme then I will gladly do so, but it probably will be very lackluster, at best...
Not my kink, friend. You may have better luck on a different subreddit for that. ;)
And and older, more popular resource: https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601