Talk:Premarital sex

Removal of Redirect

Many articles have been redirected to Religion and sexuality which are underserved by that page which, were it to include information on all of the pages that redirect to it, would be much too expansive an article. Give the status of premarital sex as a topic of debate in current US politics, I felt that the article deserved to stand on its own and that it should not be folded into that much larger article. This article is a stub, as I don't have the expertise to comment on the cultural aspects of this topic from various worldviews, but i hope that some wikipedians with knowledge about these issues will expand this article in the future.

Out of wedlock children

What do you have to say about out of wedlock children, or single parenting? The incidence is on the increase in daily basis. 105.112.112.249 (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an edit request? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Postmarital sex

Does it exist? 2404:8000:1027:2C72:C0CE:FBAF:F57A:7485 (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Owop

our world and our people

@ohanachi Ijeoma@ 102.64.221.168 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Pre marital sex

according to? 131.226.113.31 (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Reason/evidence for reverting edit under "religion"

I previously removed a line under the "religion" subsection that stated: "A study published in 2013 found that over 60% of Muslims reported to have had sex before marriage, compare to 65% of Hindus, 71% of Christians (primarily in Europe and North America), 84% of Jewish and over 85% of Buddhists who reported to have had sex before marriage." with the reasoning that the numbers were either faked or misread. My edit was quickly reverted and the user referenced Figure 3 as the source for such percentages. However, if you put a little bit of effort when reading the study, my edit was actually justified.

When I was first reading the article, I found these percentages hard to believe, so I checked the study myself. It's clear that the person who put this information misread Figure 3, which clearly states in the paragraph right above it that these percentages are the predicted probabilities, not the actual results of the study. To quote it directly: "Figure 3 presents predicted probabilities of reporting premarital sex by religious affiliation for ever married females who live in a rural area, are not currently working, and have been assigned the mean on all other variables in Model 1 of Table 2." [Important side note: this figure was only for women, so using this even if it was the actual result would have been inaccurate anyway.]

The definition of "predicted probability" is: "Predicted Probability refers to the likelihood of an event occurring, such as the probability that a specific outcome will happen based on a model." If this is not substantial enough, even Wikipedia itself has an article called Predictive probability of success, which is not completely the same thing, but rather a sub-term of predicted probability used mainly in the pharmaceutical field. I suggest you look at the article and its sources, as these correspond with my reasoning.

Furthermore, there are two other charts (but only one is relevant) that show the actual results of the study. The paragraph above Table 2 (which is the relevant chart) reports that Muslims and Hindus had a lower number of premarital sex than Christians by 53 and 40%, respectively. If Muslims reported premarital sex at 60% and Christians at 71%, how does that make sense? Same question for the Hindu percentage. Either way, they're not the real numbers in the first place, so it still doesn't work even if my math is bad.

I'll be forward and admit that I don't have a full grasp on how to read the table (Table 2), but this doesn't diminish my argument by any means, as I've not utilized it for my evidence at all. I'm not about to sit here and write the percentages based on my best guess, because more likely than not it'd be wrong. But I'm doubtful it's just multiplying the decimals by 100. For example, Model 1 puts reports for pre-marital sex from Muslims as .467. Multiplying that by 100 = 46%, which still goes against the evidence as stated above. Also, some numbers are greater than 0, like Buddhist numbers with 1.52. Multiplying that by 100 would result in 152% which is, needless to say, impossible to have as a percentage (in this study specifically). I suggest someone who actually has experience writing and using tables like these (such as a researcher/scientist/etc.) to figure it out, but until then it's better to not put any percentage if you don't know what you're doing.

Hopefully I've clearly stated all my reasons, thank you! Kayennepepper (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)