Fact check: What studies have investigated the link between body count and divorce rates?

1. How the “body count” claim is framed and who is making it

Coverage and commentary present two competing framings: one frames sexual exclusivity as protective for marital quality, the other emphasizes a nonlinear, context-dependent relationship. The Wheatley Institute report ^[4] claims married people who only had sex with their spouse report higher sexual satisfaction and longer marriages, framing lower lifetime partner counts as linked to stability ^[1]. By contrast, a Forbes explainer in 2025 challenges simplistic readings and highlights studies suggesting moderate premarital experience sometimes coincides with lower divorce risk, undercutting moralistic narratives ^[3]. Both framings rely on large-survey analyses but diverge in emphasis and policy implications.

2. What the peer-reviewed, longitudinal analyses actually show

Studies using nationally representative longitudinal data repeatedly find statistical associations between more premarital partners and higher divorce risk, particularly at the extreme high end of partner counts. A 2023 Journal of Family Issues article using Add Health data reports increased divorce likelihood with multiple premarital partners, noting the highest risk among those reporting nine or more partners; researchers concluded that common confounders like religiosity and attitudes did not fully explain the association ^[2]. An earlier analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth found that virgin brides had the lowest divorce rates while those with many partners had the highest, indicating consistent empirical patterns across samples ^[5].

3. How recent syntheses complicate the simple narrative

Recent journalistic and summary pieces emphasize nonlinearity and context: Forbes’ April 2025 piece synthesizes research to argue that women with roughly three to nine premarital partners sometimes show the lowest divorce risk, implying a U-shaped or inverted-U pattern rather than a monotonic decline/increase ^[3]. These syntheses stress measurement differences—self-report bias, partner-count cutoffs, timing of partners relative to marriage, and demographic shifts—that alter observed associations. Thus, the headline “more partners = divorce” is an oversimplification in light of varying empirical patterns highlighted in recent reviews ^[3].

4. The Wheatley Institute report: findings and institutional context

The Wheatley Institute ^[4] report reports robust associations between sexual exclusivity and better marital outcomes, with single-partner marriages showing higher reported sexual and emotional satisfaction ^[1]. The report’s framing emphasizes moral and stability arguments favoring sexual restraint. The Institute’s affiliations and interpretive framing suggest a potential institutional agenda towards promoting traditional sexual norms; readers should consider this context when weighing causal claims versus correlational associations and when comparing the Wheatley report to neutral academic analyses ^[1].

5. Methodological limits that matter for causal claims

All cited studies are observational, relying on self-reported partner counts and correlational designs; therefore causation cannot be established from these data alone. Confounders such as assortative mating, cohort effects, sexual and relationship education, socioeconomic variables, and changing norms across birth cohorts complicate interpretation. Studies attempt controls for religiosity or attitudes, but residual confounding and measurement error—especially in recall of partner counts—remain substantial issues that limit strong causal conclusions despite consistent associations at extremes ^{[2] [5]}.

6. Alternative explanations and omitted considerations

Researchers and commentators note plausible alternatives: individuals with many premarital partners may differ in attitudes toward marriage, selection into risk-taking, or experience relationship patterns that persist into marriage; conversely, those who marry later or after more partnerships may have different social supports. Popular syntheses emphasize that moderate premarital experience may indicate relational learning, while extreme promiscuity could reflect underlying factors linked to instability. These alternate mechanisms are discussed across academic and popular summaries but are rarely fully resolved by the datasets used ^[3].

7. What the evidence implies for readers and policy debates

The evidence supports a cautious conclusion: higher numbers of premarital partners are associated with higher divorce risk, notably at very high counts, but the relationship is neither universal nor purely causal. Policy or personal recommendations derived from these findings should account for measurement limits, shifting social norms, and individual heterogeneity. Synthesis pieces urge avoiding moralistic certainties and recommend focusing on relationship skills and compatibility as potentially more direct levers for marital stability than partner count alone ^{[3] [1]}.

8. Where to look next and who to trust for further analysis

Future clarity requires longitudinal causal designs, better measurement of relationship quality over time, and replication across cohorts. For balanced perspectives, consult peer-reviewed analyses using national longitudinal data and compare them with institutional reports and recent syntheses that highlight nuance; weigh institutional contexts like the Wheatley Institute’s mission when interpreting its findings, and read journal articles that disclose control strategies for confounding ^{[2] [1] [3]}.