Why God

Why Does God Forbid Premarital Sex & Cohabitation?

A couple sitting together at home having a thoughtful, serious conversation about their relationship.
Real relationships involve thoughtful decisions about commitment, trust, and direction.

Why Does God Forbid Premarital Sex & Cohabitation?

This article is a partial relating of why God warns against premarital sex & cohabitation. Many of the statistics in it have only come about in the past few decades. This list will likely expand & be revised over time.

In this article, you’ll find information covering:

  1. Marital happiness levels are highest for those married whose sole lifetime sex partner is the person they are married to
  2. How the Bible was written out of God’s love for us
  3.  Psychological elements involved in why lifetime monogamy is best
  4. More statistics on the benefits of lifetime monogomy with one spouse, including lower STI prevalence (in a time when most in the US will have an STI in their lifetime), better childhood outcomes (i.e. future income, lower abuse/neglect rates, & better relationships across numerous spectrums)
  1. Did you know that those whose first sexual partner is their spouse correspond to statistically higher marital happiness than any other number of sexual partners, and that the difference is very significant, much more significant than the difference between having 2 and 3 prior partners? See the chart below. I also wonder about the N values (number of people who reported certain brackets) and whether some of the wave fluctuations that didn’t follow trends well are due to low N values.
Reported marital happiness varies by number of lifetime sexual partners, with generally lower “very happy” responses at higher partner counts, especially for women.
An analysis from the Institute for Family Studies shows reported marital happiness varies across number of lifetime sexual partners, with different patterns for men and women. https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness

2. Basics on the Inherently Loving Nature of God Giving us the Bible

There are many passages that go over the blessing of walking according to Scripture (i.e., Psalm 1), which happens inherently, not requiring God’s input outside of the Bible in order for you to be blessed. That said, God loves to stack blessings with manual divine input when you abide by His precepts, increasing the incentive to do so. The fact that God sometimes blesses people following them in doing things according to Scripture can confuse people. One of the most common misperceptions of the Bible is that God needs you or that you’re doing God a favor by abiding by His precepts. The reverse is actually true. God is doing you a favor by enabling you to have Scripture even available to you, something that most in history haven’t had readily available anywhere close to the degree that we have available now. It’s by God’s grace that you do anything according to Scripture, even after having Scripture available.

Romans 2:4 states “…God’s kindness leads you toward repentance”.

Deuteronomy 10:12-14 ESV states, “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul (13) and to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding you today for your good? Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.

Per Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce as published by the National Library of Medicine:

“Premarital sex predicts divorce, but we do not know why. Scholars have attributed the relationship to factors such as differences in beliefs and values, but these explanations have not been tested. It is further unclear how this relationship changes by number of sexual partners, or differs by gender. We re-examine this relationship with event history models using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. Models include measures of adolescent beliefs and values, religious background, and personal characteristics, as well as approximate number of premarital sexual partners in young adulthood. We find the relationship between premarital sex and divorce is highly significant and robust even when accounting for early-life factors. Compared to people with no premarital partners other than eventual spouses, those with nine or more partners exhibit the highest divorce risk, followed by those with one to eight partners. There is no evidence of gender differences.”

 

Here are some of the psychological factors I believe help explain the outcomes:

  1. Primacy effect

  2. Oxytocin’s impact on judgment

  3. Insecure attachment theory applied beyond the parent-child relationship

  4. Impact of delayed gratification

  5. Cognitive association

  6. Confirmation bias

  7. Autobiographical memory

  8. Nostalgia for ex-partners

Basic Survey Data Says on Marriage vs Cohabitation

4. Statistics on live-in romantic relationships vs marriages in impact on divorce rates & future marriage, i.e. in a study of 1600 people, “34% of marriages ended among those who lived together before being engaged, while just 23% of marriages ended among couples who waited until after engagement or marriage to move in together.”

Per an article titled “New DU Study Highlights Risks of Living Together Before Engagement”:

 

“More than half of Americans believe that moving in with a significant other before tying the knot is a good idea—that cohabitation before marriage or even engagement can increase their changes of a happy and successful marriage.

But a new national survey from the University of Denver, published by the Institute for Family Studies, says otherwise.

Psychologists and DU psychology professors Galena Rhoades and Scott Stanley say their findings indicate that living together before being engaged can actually decrease a couple’s odds of a successful marriage.

Rhoades and Stanley used a representative sample of approximately 1,600 Americans who were married for the first time between 2010 and 2019. The study found that 34% of marriages ended among those who lived together before being engaged, while just 23% of marriages ended among couples who waited until after engagement or marriage to move in together.”

 
Married adults report higher trust and relationship satisfaction than cohabiting adults across fidelity, honesty, finances, communication, and intimacy (Pew 2019).
Pew Research (2019) found married adults consistently report higher levels of trust and satisfaction than cohabiting adults across key relationship areas.
Love and companionship are the top reasons for both marriage and cohabitation, with married adults more likely to cite love and commitment (Pew 2019).
Pew Research (2019) shows love and companionship lead both marriage and cohabitation, but married adults are more likely to cite love and commitment, while cohabiting adults more often cite financial or practical reasons.
Many cohabiting adults who want to marry cite financial readiness as a key reason they are not engaged or married (Pew 2019).
Pew Research (2019) finds financial readiness is the most commonly cited barrier to marriage among cohabiting adults who want to marry, alongside commitment and timing concerns.
Married adults are more likely than cohabiting adults to say their relationship is going very well, though both groups report high overall satisfaction (Pew 2019).
Pew Research (2019) shows both married and cohabiting adults report high relationship satisfaction, but married adults are more likely to say things are going “very well.”

More Data

9. Statistics on marriage vs single/cohabiting on kids’ abuse/neglect, i.e. “Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner were at least 8 times more likely to be maltreated in one way or another.”

Here I wanted to focus first on abuse patterns and then on income levels of children after they “grow up” following being raised in a home without a stable 2 parent environment.

Per an article published by the National Center for Health Research:

“A 2009 study by Lawrence Berger and colleagues examined whether Child Protective Services (CPS) involvement varied based on a man in the mother’s life… using data on 2,297 families… Results of the 2009 study showed that families living with a man who was not the biological father of all the children in the home, and families living without a man in the home, were significantly more likely to be contacted by CPS compared to families in which the biological father of all the children lived with the mother.“

“The following year, a report on the National Incidence Study of Abuse and Neglect, which examines not only CPS cases but all reported incidences of abuse and neglect to community professionals, also found that maltreatment rates differed according to family structure.[2] Children living with their married biological parents had the lowest rate of abuse and neglect, whereas those living with a single parent who had a partner living in the household had the highest rate. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner were at least 8 times more likely to be maltreated in one way or another. They were 10 times more likely to experience abuse and 8 times more likely to experience neglect.”

“Why Are Homes With Surrogate Fathers at Risk?

The authors of the 2009 study suggest that men who are not biologically related to their partners’ children may not feel a connection to them. As a result, surrogate fathers may not feel a reason or obligation to provide financial or emotional support, unlike a biological father. Also, because surrogate fathers are typically in undefined parenting roles, they may be less able to enforce rules or convince children to obey them, and some surrogate fathers may resort to physical force or psychological control to demonstrate power over children.

What Explains the Increase in Maltreatment in Homes Without a Male?

Researchers explain that compared to families with two biological parents, families headed by single-mothers generally have fewer resources—less time and money to allocate to parenting. As a result, single mothers often experience higher levels of stress, which can lead to impatience, the use of physical control, and neglect.”

Per the 1st part of the 1st sentence of the abstract of Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce as published in the National Library of Medicine, “Premarital sex predicts divorce.” “The relationship between premarital sex and divorce is highly significant and robust. Compared to people with no premarital partners other than eventual spouses, those with six or more partners exhibit the highest divorce risk… Previously-theorized selection mechanisms thought to explain the relationship between premarital sex and divorce are not supported.”

Interestingly, “One partner is subtracted for each respondent to ensure only partners other than eventual spouses are counted.” That means that the study methods didn’t even make a difference between those who were virgins when they got married and those whose first sexual partner was their spouse prior to marriage. If they did, the full text of the study states effectively that the difference would likely be even higher. It states, “Premarital sex is linked to higher rates of divorce (Kahn and London, 1991; Paik, 2011), particularly when it involves partners other than one’s eventual spouse (Teachman, 2003).”

Keep in mind the lack of bias in that study as well. I asked Chat GPT 5 on 11.7.25, “Are any of these Christian or religious? “Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to the Population Research Institute at The Pennsylvania State University for Population Research Infrastructure (P2C HD041025) and Family Demography Training (T-32HD007514)”? Taken from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10989935/“

It responded, “No — none of the organizations or grants mentioned in that citation are Christian or religious in nature. Here’s a breakdown:

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD):

A U.S. government agency that’s part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It focuses on biomedical and public health research related to children, families, and development. It’s completely secular and publicly funded.

Population Research Institute at The Pennsylvania State University:

This is an academic research institute within Penn State, focused on demography (population studies, family trends, fertility, etc.). It is not affiliated with any religion.

Population Research Infrastructure (P2C HD041025) and Family Demography Training (T-32HD007514):

These are NIH grant numbers, funding secular research projects and training programs. They’re administrative identifiers, not organizations.

So, the citation refers entirely to secular, government-funded academic research bodies, with no Christian or religious affiliation…”

Per the 1st part of the 1st sentence of the abstract of Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce as published in the National Library of Medicine, “Premarital sex predicts divorce.” “The relationship between premarital sex and divorce is highly significant and robust. Compared to people with no premarital partners other than eventual spouses, those with six or more partners exhibit the highest divorce risk… Previously-theorized selection mechanisms thought to explain the relationship between premarital sex and divorce are not supported.”

Interestingly, “One partner is subtracted for each respondent to ensure only partners other than eventual spouses are counted.” That means that the study methods didn’t even make a difference between those who were virgins when they got married and those whose first sexual partner was their spouse prior to marriage. If they did, the full text of the study states effectively that the difference would likely be even higher. It states, “Premarital sex is linked to higher rates of divorce (Kahn and London, 1991; Paik, 2011), particularly when it involves partners other than one’s eventual spouse (Teachman, 2003).”

Keep in mind the lack of bias in that study as well. I asked Chat GPT 5 on 11.7.25, “Are any of these Christian or religious? “Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to the Population Research Institute at The Pennsylvania State University for Population Research Infrastructure (P2C HD041025) and Family Demography Training (T-32HD007514)”? Taken from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10989935/“

It responded, “No — none of the organizations or grants mentioned in that citation are Christian or religious in nature. Here’s a breakdown:

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD):

A U.S. government agency that’s part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It focuses on biomedical and public health research related to children, families, and development. It’s completely secular and publicly funded.

Population Research Institute at The Pennsylvania State University:

This is an academic research institute within Penn State, focused on demography (population studies, family trends, fertility, etc.). It is not affiliated with any religion.

Population Research Infrastructure (P2C HD041025) and Family Demography Training (T-32HD007514):

These are NIH grant numbers, funding secular research projects and training programs. They’re administrative identifiers, not organizations.

So, the citation refers entirely to secular, government-funded academic research bodies, with no Christian or religious affiliation…”

Per the Brookings Institute, “Children born to cohabiting couples do worse because their parents are much more likely to break up; two-thirds have split up before their child reaches age 12, compared with a quarter of married parents.”

Married parents are more likely than cohabiting parents to remain together over time, with a widening gap as children age.
Brookings Institution (2008) data shows married parents remain together at higher rates than cohabiting parents, with the gap widening as children grow older.
13. Statistical Sexually Transmitted Illness Likelihood, i.e. “over half of people in the U.S. will get an STI sometime during their lifetime.”

Per “Public Knowledge and Attitudes About Sexually Transmitted Infections: KFF Polling and Policy Insights” (2020)

“Large majorities of the public are unaware of how common STIs are among adults in the U.S. About one-third (36%) are aware that STIs have become more common over the past decade and few (13%) know that over half of people in the U.S. will get an STI sometime during the(ir) lifetime.”

A few of the most important distinctions that should be taught more in schools regarding STI’s & STD’s are:

  • The probability increases over time rather than exclusively over the course of 1 year or per act & hoping that students will do the math themselves.

  • The probability increases according to partner volume

  • The probability increases based on frequency within 1 year

  • The statistics that are available for both “perfect” condom usage and typical usage.

The most important distinction that should be taught more in school is the probability increase over time of pregnancy rather than exclusively over the course of 1 year & hoping that students will do the math themselves.

In addition, it should be taught more that around half of abortion patients used contraception in the month prior to that abortion, including (among other forms of protection, i.e. sterilization & IUD’s) 24% condoms and 13% the pill in a 2014 study on contraception & abortion published by the National Library of Medicine.

Some might attempt to ameliorate their chances of becoming pregnant via anal penetration, but there are studies on per act disease contraction for HIV by the CDC (sadly not for other STI’s I could find), & per those studies, your chances of contraction are over 15x higher on the receiving end for anal penetration vs any oral or vaginal intercourse, with the second highest method of contraction being anal penetration on the insertive end.

If one were to shift exclusively to oral sex, it’s important to note that, per VerywellHealth, at least 5 STI’s are spread by skin-to-skin contact where condoms don’t provide even decent protection. Some of these (i.e. HPV) have vaccines, while others don’t.

Why do so few married couples follow best practices that reflect the data we have now? Here are some of my hypotheses:

  1. Herd bias which is in contrast to historic precedent (especially within Christianity) regarding physical intimacy prior to marriage (including non-sexual), is one of the biggest factors involved.

  2. Historically unprecedented lowering of standards regarding non-sexual physical intimacy and the serotonin, oxytocin, etc. involved that impacts judgment and creates drug/addictive type effects (see brain studies comparing porn and drugs) with non-sexual intimacy effectively serving as the gateway drug.

  3. Changes in law regarding contraceptives & abortion have played a major role.

  4. Most of the data hasn’t been out very long. While it’s out there, it’s not widely known and not commonly taught in sex education. When it’s taught, it’s not often taught well, i.e., typically not using statistical long-term data rather than exclusively 1-year data.

  5. Pornography usage (particularly among men) and sexualized media have become popularized.

  6. There’s societal pressure and pressure within relationships.

  7. Historically, physical intimacy prior to marriage wasn’t nearly as popular as it is today. Physical intimacy impacts judgment via oxytocin etc., lowering inhibitions to go deeper into physical intimacy and cross into sexual intimacy. Oxytocin and other hormonal drivers increase during sex even more than they do in non-sexual physical intimacy & have drug-like impacts on judgment that are addictive.

  8. Misunderstanding regarding the true probability over time of contracting an STI or becoming pregnant.