Infidelity, Part 1.

Several studies have attempted to look at the causative factors of infidelity.

Sexual Exclusivity among Dating, Cohabiting, and Married Women, Renata Forste and Koray Tanfer, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 33-47 was a study of 1,235 women, aged between 20-37, drawn from the 1991 National Survey of Women.

The study aimed to look at infidelity patterns across married, cohabiting and dating groups, with controls for education, age, race, religious value in both the woman and her partner (race of the male was excluded) as well as relationship homogeneity and whether infidelity occurred before or after commencing marriage.

10% of the women of the sample group had a "secondary" concurrent sexual partner. The breakdown was as follows:

Married: 4% had a secondary sexual partner.
Cohabiting: 20% had a secondary sexual partner.
Dating: 18% had a secondary sexual partner.

When analysed across all three groups, the statistically significant--(p<.o5)--findings of this study were as follows: Mainline religion roughly halved the odds. Length of marriage increased the odds. Being married to a 3+ year older man increased the odds. Being in an educationally hypogamous relationship increased the odds. A woman with 1-3 partners was roughly four times(p<.o1), and a woman with 4 or more partners 8.5 times(p<.001), more likely to have a secondary sex partner than a woman with no other previous sexual partners.
From Forste and Tanfer;
Neither the respondents' nor the partners' education alone had an independent effect on sexual monogamy for married women. Statistical significance for respondents' and partners' education among married women was reached only when the educational homogamy measure was added tothe model. Educational heterogamy, however, had a very dramatic effect on sexual monogamy among married women. When married women were more educated than their husbands, they were significantly more likely to have secondary sex partners than women married to similarly educated men. However, if the husband had more education than the wife, the effect was reversed the woman was significantly less likely to have a secondary sex partner than if her education level was similar to her husband's.
After controlling for relationship type, race and ethnicity effects on commitment emerged. Minority race or ethnicity increased the likelihood of having secondary sex partners among dating women and particularly among married women, but race and ethnicity had no effect for cohabiting women. Having previous sex partners also increased the likelihood that dating and married women would have secondary sex partners. In particular, married women with 4 or more previous partners were 20 times more likely to have secondary sex partners than married women with no previous sex partners. The number of previous sex partners had no effect on sexual monogamy among cohabiting women.

Now, I have some reservations with regard to Forste and Tanfer's findings with regard to the marriage findings. There were 603 married women in the study and of those, approximately 4% reported a secondary sex partner. Therefore the conclusions are based on the characteristics of roughly 24 women, a sample size that's pretty small and makes me wonder how much real life significance can be attached to the statistics. The dating group had an 18% secondary sex partner rate in a sample size of 451, i.e approx 81 people, its findings are probably more applicable in the real world.

With that reservation, the table presented below presents a fascinating picture. ( This is an amended table from Forste and Tanfer. Click on image to enlarge)

(Negative odds mean less likely to have secondary partners)
1) The -483 Odds ratio seems difficult to comprehend when it was based on the findings of 24 women. It probably represents the fact that there were no college-degree educated women amongst the married with secondary sexual partners and statistical "magic" conjured the number.

2) The effect of education seems variable. On one hand, it increases the risk of infidelity in dating relationships and yet decreases it in marriage. Women in educationally hypogamous marriages seem to be more prone to infidelity, whilst those in hypergamous relationships seem less likely to seek other partners. It would appear that education is not per se intrinsically protective of infidelity, rather, its protective and corrosive effect seems contextual.

3) Once again, even when controlled for relationship type, increasing numbers of prior sexual partners increase the risk of infidelity.

Forste and Tanfer also looked at the factors which contributed to infidelity both before and after marriage. Once again, this is an amended extract of their report.

Consistently, increasing sexual partner count is associated with a statistically significant increase in odds of infidelity. Even if we exclude the marriage cohort, the promiscuity-infidelity correlation is highly significant.

The Virgin Bride.

Some of the best papers dealing with the subject of sexuality and divorce risk are unfortunately not online. I've purchased a few of these and unfortunately they come with pretty stringent copyright restrictions which means I cannot directly reproduce portions of the document. However I am allowed to comment on them.

One such study was done by Kahn and London. Joan R. Kahn, Kathryn A. London, 'Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce', Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 845-855.

The data was extracted from the 1988 National Survey of Family group and involved over 2700 white women.

Virginity was defined as having sex within one month of date of marriage. (including before)

Some interesting findings.

At the end of the "Swinging Sixties" some 43% of white brides were virgins. I found this figure quite interesting since the impression that one gets from the media is that everyone was doing it, they weren't

By the early 80's only 14% of white brides were virgins.

In the first part of the paper they undertook a fairly conventional statistical analysis of virginity and its relation of divorce.

They did a probit analysis based on three models:

1) A simple virginity divorce correlation.
2) A virginity divorce correlation controlled for education, age of marriage , marital and per-marital birth.
3) A virginity divorce correlation controlling for all of the above and for intact/non-intact family background and religion.

The above analysis was calculated for 5 year and 10 year divorce risk respectively:

5 year divorce risk for virgins. -0.60. In other words, there was a 60% less risk of divorce.
10 year divorce risk for virgins. -0.402, less than 40% risk of divorce.

The other statistically significant findings were that:

1) Education and age of marriage is negatively correlated with divorce.
2) Education and age of marriage explained about 8-10% of the effect.
3) Coming from a broken home raised the risk of divorce but only for the first five years of marriage. Aat the 10 year mark, it, and age of marriage weren't significant.

The other really surprising finding was that there is no difference in the rate of divorce between Catholics, Protestants and non-religious when controlled for virginity.

The weakest part of the paper came next when they tried to explain the virginity effect by controlling for "unknown" factors using a bivariate probit analysis. Once controlling for these "known unknown" factors, no difference in divorce rates were observed between virgins and non-virgins. Kahn and London then go on to speculate as to what these known unknowns were. They freely admit that they're guessing. They suggested that it could reside in the attitudes and values of virgins compared to non-virgins. Though they admit it would require a study matching attitudes to divorce rates and virginity which they felt would be unfeasible. Essentially, their conclusion is that there is a qualitative difference between virgins and non-virgins which explains their lesser risk of divorce. They did not think that virginity per se was a protective mechanism with regard to divorce risk, rather that some unknown factors associated with virginity are responsible.

Some personal thoughts.

1) We are beginning to see some consistency. Teachman, on a different cohort, demonstrated a 35% reduction in the risk of divorce associated with virginity across cohorts. Kahn and London on a different group demonstrated a similar finding, a reduction between 40-60%.

2) Personally I find Kahn and London's explanation lacking. Their own research in a way repudiates their speculations. A persons religion or lack thereof is probably one of the biggest shapers of their life attitudes. Their own research showed the virginity effect persisted across all believing groups. Teachman was also able to show that cohabitors, who do have different attitudes to non-cohabitors, have no different rate of divorce when controlled for a single partner. Kahn and London showed that religion didn't matter if you were a virgin, whilst Teachman showed that "attitude effect" did not matter if you had premarital sex, only partner count. This explanation is overplayed.

3) Once again, that great shibboleth of the evo-bio crowd, education (which is a proxy for intelligence) had a mild effect on divorce rate, repudiating the haters of the critics of the Heritage Study.

Spend your fifteen bucks and buy a copy of the study.

2002 Male and Female Statistical Data.

I've managed to crunch the numbers from both Male and Female National Survey of Family Growth. As a treat for sdaedalus, I've included the male data.


First My approach to analysis was Catholic, in that you're only allowed to get married once. Remarriages count as a fail. However the data from NSFG 2002 included remarriages amongst the currently married.

Amongst males, 21% of the currently married were second or later marriages.
Amongst females, 23% of the currently married were second or later marriages.

What I basically attempted to do was calculate the following:

%Married=%married/(%married+%divorced+%remarried) for each sexual partner cohort.

1) The first thing to work out was how many remarriages there were.
2) Then I proportionately distributed the remarriages amongst the the greater-than-two-sexual-partner cohorts.
3) Then I subtracted the remarriages from the current marriages in these cohorts to give me a estimate of married once in each group.
4) Then I added the remarriages to the divorce group and performed the above calculation.


Note, this graph does not measure how long the the subjects had been married, simply their marriage status by partner count.

It's interesting to note that male promiscuity does not seem to affect marital stability as much as female.

J&B Start a party awards at the Turbine Hall.

The Que eesshhh!

Lights Camera Action let the night begin.

uChoclate ne sponono sake uThembi bantu.

Mr Ricky Rick shaved and fresh...!

Kenzhero the hero on the ones and two's.

Corne and Twakkie

Scoop Makhathi...!

Broadcasting live at J&B awards.

Tall Ass Mo, Mome and MalumeKoolkat I dig your shirt malume!

Founder of One Small Seed Magazine Giuseppe Russo I dig your mag bhuta...!

Morena getting down

Kenzhero handing over to Culo

And the winner...!

This guy won 100K wow...!

Viwe, Buli, Tsholo, Jackie ...! Amantombazane.

Malume and the Wireless_G I like those black kicks ssshhh something good coming out soon.

Sis Maria and Nokukhanya



All the cool kids

That's Scoop for you on some Louis Vuitton Kanye West kicks. Do you dig?

Highlight of the night Scoop and Ricky teaching each other a thing or two. Yes Wireless_G said it Street Cred.

Sexual Partner Divorce Risk

Cohabitation, that is "living together" before marriage has been shown to increase the risk of subsequent divorce of a couple. Many investigators have felt that the practice of cohabitation is selective for people who don't value marriage highly and hence are more likely to divorce when stress is put onto the marriage. In essence, it was thought that the cohabitors more "liberal values" placed them at higher risk of divorce.

Jay Teachman, an academic, investigated this matter further. The study, which is available online, makes for interesting reading. Teachman's genius was to look stratify the cohabitors risk of divorce by the by the number of sexual partners/cohabiting history.

The study was based on data from the National Survey of Family Growth 1995 cycle and involved over 6500 women.

It was controlled for a host of variables.

The study was in no way sponsored or funded by any conservative organisation.

Teachman's conclusion:
The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.
Executive summary: It's not the liberal values, it the number of partners that matter.

This limitation notwithstanding, the results presented here should shift attention away from research that focuses on the selection of individuals into cohabitation and premarital sex to a focus on the selection of individuals who do not marry the individuals with whom they first cohabit or initiate first sex. It may well be the case that, irrespective of the legal status of the relationship, the relevant distinction to make is between people who form multiple relationships and people who form a single, longer lasting relationship.

(My highlighting)

The paper data and methods can be found here. Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent. Marital Dissolution Among Women

Oh, in table 4 of the study, Teachman gives probabilities of divorce, which for fun, we will map onto the Heritage Foundation's study.

10 year divorce rate of the Teachman study group was 34%. (I didn't use the 5 year divorce risk in Teachman's paper since the Heritage study made its calculations on the people being married more than 5 years)

Teachman didn't plot the risk by the number of sexual partners, merely that more than one and in different relationship contexts, so I have simply marked the range of his findings. Note, the really disturbing one still holds. A soon as a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50%.

Note: Statements reproduced from the Teachman paper are not believed to violate copyright under the fair use clause. Any violation is unintentional and offending material shall be removed immediately if it violates any repespective laws.

Kwaito Wednesday-Tokollo - Indlovu Iyangena

Kwaito Wednesday- Mzambiya-Kumele Senzeni

Defining Slut: Erratum

I wish to thank commentator R. Stanton Scott for pointing out an error of fact which I had made in the post, Defining Slut.

In that post I stated:
Slut, of course, is the term applied to a promiscuous women and debates rage as to what number of partners earns the title. I think this is the wrong way of looking at the problem. The real danger of a promiscuous woman is that she will be unfaithful, so the definition should be really centered around that concept. i.e How many sexual partners does a woman need to have before she becomes high risk marriage material? The study quoted above asked the question.
The study, Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women, by the Heritage Foundation did nothing of the sort. The study did not look at how many partners a woman needed to have before she became unfaithful, rather the study looked at the number of partners a woman had and her risk of divorce, an important distinction.

The error of fact was unintentional and once again I thank Mr Scott for pointing it out.

African Prints in Street wear.

Photo by Urban Mosadi

African prints are back... Well they never left anyway but the is a strong resurgence of the prints. We at thesis have taken note of this and we are about to put people up on the prints in a good way. What we love about the prints is the rich colour and patterns that makes it easy to play around with for styling and getting a good combo.

Thesis is a street wear brand and African prints will be thick this spring/summer on the streets. Make sure that you counted in.

Photo by Urban Mosadi

Photo by Urban Mosadi

Photo by Urban Mosadi

Feiyue fakes spotted in Cape Town

So you guys know that Thesis is the only Feiyue sneaker outlet in Soweto and we don't want to hear that a person has bought them sneakers at some unauthorized dealer outside JHB. (we know all the dealers). So this manga manga shop in Cape Town has been selling fake Feiyue sneakers. How do you do that? Poppa trunks must be exposed!!! Shame on them. if you bought a pair there, they fake.

This is the official word from

J&B Q and A with DJ Kenzhero

If you don't know by now, then you running late on this. The J&B "start a party" awards are happening on the 16th at Turbine Hall. They have enlisted the DJ skills of Culoe De Song and DJ Kenzhero. In his short preparation for this gig, DJ Kenzhero managed to answer these questions and give us a link to his latest mixtape. Download here

Who is Kenzhero?

Kenzhero is a personality embodied by a dj from South Africa Joburg and he has been spining disc’s for the last Ten years.

What was your impression of the Thesis Social Jam Session?

Very Organized also different from the other sessions that happen in Soweto … worth seeing ….

Away from DJ’ing what else do you do?

Organize events of own and other commissioned events … I make music as in produce for artist. Ive done TV scores …I Run the Venue called OST with my business partner Osmic …etc
Are you into corporate events/social events?
My DJ Partner DJ Bob noticed I get edgy when ever we did corporate or weddings which may be true cause other gigs no matter how big other gig I do are I am never edgy or nervous but generally the corporate gigs turn to be the easiest. Some times they are demanding especially from the client point of view they, can be abusive at times especially if the brief never roll out the same as planned …

What’s the one song that people should expect at the J&B start a party awards?

Hmm ill leave that for the night as a surprise cause I never super plan for events I just feed of the crowd

What are your ingredients for starting a party?

Start slowly I never like coming after high energy dj’s I like to start the party and finish it off …

To get your hands on tickets to the J&B Awards, register on, click the RSVP button and if you’re one of the lucky few, you’ll crack the nod to this exclusive event.

Please note that the J&B Awards is exclusively for people over 18, no one under 18 will be granted access to the Awards.

Not for Sale to Persons Under the Age of 18. Drink Responsibly.

Trompies- Tholakele

Kwaito Wednesday!

Mdu - Ezibhuhlungu Azipheli

To everyone...

J & B Start a partyyyy ticket give away!

Cape Town, 2 September 2010: On the 16th September J&B will be hosting the first ever Start A Party Awards in Jo’burg as the finale to a series of online challenges set by the brand. Promising to be everything a normal awards night is not (they’re usually pretty dull), J&B will be presenting its own take on what an awards show should be. DJs Culoe De Song and Kenzhero will be ripping it up on the night alongside some mystery guests in a transformed Turbine Hall.

In total, J&B issued seven challenges for people to take part in all of which involved the simple entry mechanic of uploading crazy photos on the web for the community there to comment and vote on.

Thousands of people submitted photos of themselves “photo-bombing”, “jump-shotting” and “shaky-facing” their way into instant internet fame. From these thousands, five finalists in each category have been chosen to attend the awards along with hundreds of party starters from the entrants.

To get your hands on tickets to the J&B Awards, register on, click the RSVP button and if you’re one of the lucky few, you’ll crack the nod to this exclusive even

Please note that the J&B Awards is exclusively for people over 18, no one under 18 will be granted access to the Awards.

Not for Sale to Persons Under the Age of 18. Drink Responsibly.

Sunday in Pictures by Mpumelelo Macu

Exile on the drums #Epic

5th Floor ft Illskills with Exile on drums and DJ Kenzhero on the decks

Exile getting up to good.

5th floor ripping the mic up

This is Mngo... Mean double bassist that played with Bongeziwe Mabandla

Bongizwe Mabandla and the Fridge

Tall ass Mo representing his boy Stan. This man killed it in Sunday.

Scoop Makathaza aka Makhathini with theee UrbanMosadi having fun!

Bhubesi ripping that Thesis button logo T with AD85 on that Two Bop.

Wireless_g on the decks...

Gaming zone courtesy of Liquid Gamez

Thabo HouseCatz, Stu Manaka and The Mukheli Brothers

The Tembisa crew came through after ages

Omi the man from OM lounge opening the Jam Session.