Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32
DOI 10.1007/s11199-008-9497-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Premarital Sex and Marital Satisfaction of Middle Aged Men
and Women: A Study of Married Lithuanian Couples
Visvaldas Legkauskas & Džeralda Stankevičienė
Published online: 6 July 2008
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract A study was conducted to investigate possible links
between current marital satisfaction and age of onset of sexual
intercourse, having an experience of premarital intercourse,
the number of premarital sexual partners, and having an
experience of premarital cohabitation. A convenience sample
of subjects consisted of 41 middle-aged married Lithuanian
couples. Marital satisfaction was measured by a 16-item
Marital Satisfaction Scale developed by the principle inves-
tigators of this study. Results indicated no significant
relationship between the experience of premarital sexual
intercourse and marital satisfaction of men or women.
However, men, who had more premarital partners and
cohabitation experience, were less satisfied with their mar-
riages. For women, younger onset of sexual activity and larger
number of premarital partners was related to lower marital
satisfaction.
Keywords Premarital sex . Premarital cohabitation .
Sexual intercourse . Marital satisfaction
Introduction
The sexual revolution of the 1960s in Western societies
marked a pronounced increase and tolerance related to
premarital sex. Harding and Jencks (2003) indicate that in
1969 over 75% of Americans believed that premarital sex
was wrong. During the 1980s numbers of Americans
disapproving of premarital sex dropped to 33–37%. Indeed,
V. Legkauskas (*) : D. Stankevičienė
Department of General Psychology, Vytautas Magnus University,
Donelaicio St. 52,
44244 Kaunas, Lithuania
e-mail: visvaldas_legkauskas@yahoo.com
these changes have not been limited to the US. A survey
conducted in 24 countries in 1994 revealed that US and
Ireland were the most conservative with the regard to
attitudes to premarital sexual intercourse with only 41–42%
of respondents believing that sex before marriage was “not
wrong at all” (Widmer et al. 1998). In European countries
endorsement for such statement ranged from the lows of
54% in Hungary to as high as 89% in Sweden. In North
America and Europe changes in attitudes have been
accompanied by changes in family life as indicated by
growing age at first marriage (Wellings et al. 2006),
increased prevalence of divorce (Kreider and Fields 2002;
Maslauskaitė 2005) and growing numbers of cohabiting
couples (Martin et al. 2001; Stankūnienė 1997).
Yet, being behind the “Iron Curtain”, former republics of
the Soviet Union, including Lithuanian, were virtually
closed to the influences from the West. The highly
monitored communist state media created an image of
decency, which imperatively confined sex to marriage
(Imelinsky 1980; Noibert 1971; Zalytis 1985). During the
Soviet period, research on sexuality and gender in Lith-
uania was literally non-existent. There was not a single
publication of an article or book on sexuality published by
a Lithuanian author prior to 1989. The Soviet publications
had presented views on sexuality and gender that were
translated in to the Lithuanian language. The information
was usually translations from the works of soviet medical
personnel and other Soviet block countries. Some of the
authors included Noibert (1971) from East Germany,
Imelinsky (1980) from Poland, and Zalytis (1985) from
neighboring Latvia. While Imelinsky’s (1980) book con-
centrated on sexuality, publications of Noibert (1971) and
Zalytis (1985) were more like textbooks on marital life,
covering everything from politeness in family life to
sexually transmitted diseases.
22
It has to be noted that these three books were not
“studies” in a contemporary sense. The authors explicitly
stated that they are attempting to convey insights gained
from their clinical experience. Imelinsky (1980) for
example did not have a list of references. Most of citations
in the book by Zalytis (1985) refer to works of the
communist ideologists such as Lenin, Marx, and Engels.
Any of the research results that were reported were strongly
linked to communist ideology. For example, Zalytis (1985)
claimed to have conducted a sociological survey about
human needs during which all of his 1,127 respondents
stated that “labor for the benefit of the society is a basic
social need and the basis of personal worth of a Soviet
person” (p. 109). Publications of Noibert (1971), Imelinsky
(1980), and Zalytis (1985) were printed in unusually huge
numbers. While today a usual run of an average book in
Lithuania is 3,000 copies and any book selling over 10,000
copies is considered a big bestseller, the books by Noibert
(1971) and Imelinsky (1980) were published in 60,000
copies. We interpret such a big difference as an indication
that these state approved and sponsored books had been
intended as definitive instruction manuals on sex and
family life to be followed by each and every family in
Soviet Lithuania.
Given their ideological mission, it is no wonder that the
aforementioned books created a unified picture of gender
and sexuality with little, if any, differences in views
expressed by the three authors. Roles of men and women
in society were defined as equal and to that end women were
explicitly encouraged to undertake traditionally masculine
professions, that is, to be tractor drivers, masons, heavy
industry workers etc. (Noibert 1971; Zalytis 1985). On the
other hand, inequality of genders in relation to the work done
by women at home was acknowledged and men were
insistently encouraged to take on a larger share of household
chores usually performed by women (Noibert 1971).
Views on sexuality were strict. Sex could not be
separated from love and had to be confined to marriage.
Calling Kinsey’s report a “zoologist’s report” (p. 127),
Noibert (1971) discussed premarital sex in the section on
prostitution. Zalytis (1985) asserted that premarital sex
could destroy young personalities and their ability to love.
Imelinsky (1980) labeled sexual arousal caused by looking
at nude pictures a perversion. The three authors did
acknowledge increasing tendencies to have sex before
marriage and explained these tendencies as a decay of
moral values, availability of contraception, and the influ-
ence of the media. While many authors explicitly de-
nounced Freud, they suggested that prior to marriage all
energy of sexual nature should be directed to work, sports,
and cultural activities.
While Soviet-era authors explicitly treated both genders
as equal, some implicit double standards of sexual behavior
Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32
were present. Zalytis (1985) asserted that men were unable
to resist their sexual urges, so it was the responsibility of
women to resist their advances and implement the
requirement of abstinence before marriage. Consequently,
he condemned women for premarital sexual activity much
more than men.
Premarital cohabitation was not acceptable (Noibert
1971; Zalytis 1985), but it wasn’t much of an issue. There
was no free market for housing, so housing was being
distributed by state authorities in a centralized manner.
Supply of housing was lagging well behind the demand, so
families had to wait in line for ten or more years to get an
apartment in high-rise block. In the absence of available
housing, a vast majority of young families had to live with
their parents. Cohabitation was so out of the question in the
Soviet Union that no relevant questions were included even
in the Population Census questionnaires during existence of
the Soviet state (Lithuanian Department of Statistics
2006b).
However, upon the fall of the collapse of the Soviet
Union in the early 1990s, former Soviet republics and
newly independent countries, including Lithuania, were
quick to catch up with changing Western patterns of sexual
activity and family life. State monopoly on media and
values disappeared quickly during the period from 1985
to1991 and citizens of the former Soviet block in the
Eastern Europe became exposed to a wide variety of ideas,
values, and lifestyles. As Wellings et al. (2006) pointed out,
worldwide communications had a bearing on social norms,
transporting sexual images and attitudes from more liberal
Western societies to more conservatives ones, including
former Soviet republics. The impact has had been the most
intense on those countries in which advances in information
technology have been rapid (Wellings et al. 2006), such as
Eastern European countries.
Eastern European countries were quick to catch up with
Western Europe on attitudes to premarital sex. A study by
Widmer et al. (1998) conducted in 1994, 5 years after the
fall of the Berlin wall, found respondents in former socialist
Eastern Europe countries (including Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Russia, and
Slovenia) to have predominantly liberal attitudes toward
premarital sex and somewhat similar to the views of people
in Western Europe. In fact the views were more liberal that
in the US.
Furthermore, Widmer et al. (1998) found that over 80%
of variance in attitudes towards premarital sex in North
America, Australia, New Zealand and Western and Eastern
Europe were shared by all of these countries. This is not
surprising given the strong influence of cultural norms and
images coming from the North America and Western
Europe onto Eastern European countries, including Lith-
uania (Maslauskaitė 2005). This suggests that premarital
Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32
sexual behavior in Eastern Europe and Lithuania in
particular, may also follow the general pattern seen in the
North America and Western Europe. This general pattern is
the one of more intense sexual activity before marriage, as
indicated by falling age at first sexual intercourse (Wells
and Twenge 2005), increasing prevalence of premarital
intercourse (Martin et al. 2001; Smith 1997), and higher
cohabitation rates (Bumpass and Lu 2000; Martin et al.
2001).
Meta-analysis of sexual behavior studies conducted in
the US in 1943–1999 indicated that age at first intercourse
had been decreasing for both genders (Wells and Twenge
2005). According to Wells and Twenge, the average age at
first intercourse dropped from 18 to 15 years for men and
from 19 to 15 years for women. Similar trends can be seen
in the post-Soviet period. In 1972 in Russia, 30.8% of male
and female subjects reported having their first intercourse at
the age between 16 and 18 years. In 1995 this figure was up
to 52.8% (Denisenko and Dalla Zu Na 2001). While no
studies had been conducted in Lithuania during the Soviet
period, recent studies on Lithuanian populations conducted
within the past 3 years indicated the average age of first
intercourse to be around 17.5 years for women and
16.5 years for men (Gerasimovič 2005; Jaruševičienė
2005; Legkauskas and Jakovlevaitė 2005).
Falling age of first intercourse and the trend towards
later marriage has been accompanied with growing preva-
lence and approval of premarital intercourse in many
countries (Wellings et al. 2006). Else-Quest et al. (2005)
data from the US National Health and Social Life Survey
indicated that as many as 82.9% of the subjects have had
intercourse experience before marriage. Wells and Twenge
(2005) reported in the USA in the period from 1943 to 1999
approval of premarital sex increased from 12% to 73%
among young women and from 40% to 79% among young
men (see also Harding and Jencks 2003). As no relevant
data could be found for Lithuania, data from a wider post-
Soviet period may be used as a reference. Denisenko and
Dalla Zu Na (2001) report that after the collapse of the
Soviet Union the proportion of Russian men having
experience of premarital sex remained more or less steady
at around 80% and the number of Russian women
experiencing premarital sex shot up considerably. In 1972
only 45% of women reported having sex before marriage,
while in 1995 this figure was up to 80%. According to
Denisenko and Dalla Zu Na, in 1990 as many as 98.8% of
Russian men and 95% of women aged 18 to 23 approved of
premarital sex and 98.2% of men and 95.8% of women
approved cohabitation.
Premarital intercourse is often linked to cohabitation.
According to Bumpass and Lu (2000), about 60% of
marriages which took place in the US around 1990 were
preceded by cohabitation. In Lithuania this figure is
23
smaller, but consistently growing. Collapse of the Soviet
Union witnessed an explosive growth of cohabitation in
Lithuania. According to a cross-sectional sociological study
conducted in 1997, only .4% of men and 3% of women
born in 1946–1949 had some cohabitation experience by
the age of 22 (Stankūnienė 1997). For the cohort born in
1965–1970, this figure was 4% for men and 7% for women.
Among those born in 1971–1973, as many as 20% of men
and 19% of women had some cohabitation experience by
the age of 22 (Stankūnienė 1997). In Lithuania the first
Population Census to include questions on cohabitation was
conducted in 2001. It found that a total proportion of
cohabiting individuals among those over 18 years of age
was 4.1%. However, only 34.7 of cohabiting individuals
had never been married, while the remaining 65.3 had been
married at some point in life prior to their current
cohabitation (Lithuanian Department of Statistics 2006b).
Both American authors (Huston et al. 2001; Kreider and
Fields 2002) and Lithuanian researchers (Maslauskaitė
2005; Navaitis 2003) note that growth in prevalence of
premarital sex and cohabitation takes place in parallel with
increasing prevalence of divorces and growing number of
couples, who are dissatisfied with their marriages. While a
growth in divorce rate could be observed throughout the
Soviet period, there is a clear jump after independence.
According to the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
(2006a), for every 100 marriages registered in Lithuania
in the period from 1977 to 1988, there were 33.5 divorces.
In 1992 this figure shot up to 46.4, while in 2005 there
were as many as 55.7 divorces for every 100 marriages.
Indeed, data available to date provides grounds for
relating patterns of premarital sexual activity to marital
satisfaction. The most significant body of research concerns
a link between cohabitation and marital satisfaction. In the
USA and Western Europe, premarital cohabitation has been
linked to more physical violence (Kline et al. 2004), lower
dedication of husbands to their wives (Kline-Rhoades et al.
2006), lower level of marital quality (Brown 2004), and,
ultimately, higher rate of divorce (Booth 2004; Kiernan
2002; Teachman 2002).
Marital Satisfaction and Premarital Sex
Explanations of reasons underlying a link between cohab-
itation and poorer marital satisfaction generally fall into
three groups (Barber and Axinn 1998; Weston et al. 2003).
The most widespread is the self-selection explanation,
suggesting that certain personal characteristics influence
both choice of marriage pathway and marital satisfaction
The second explanation maintains that the experience of
cohabitation itself is detrimental to marital satisfaction and
stability. The third explanation points out that the link
24
between cohabitation and lower marital satisfaction may in
fact be a “statistical artifact” (Weston et al. 2003).
A prospect of readily available emotional and physical
intimacy with the right partner plays a role in people’s
choice to live together whether in marriage or in cohabi-
tation. In that sex plays a significant role in marriage,
premarital sexual history of spouses may be linked to later
marital satisfaction. Sexual history encompasses such
factors as presence of premarital intercourse experience,
age at sexual debut, and number of premarital sexual
partners.
Premarital sexual history may be related to subsequent
marital satisfaction via self-selection and/or may have a
direct impact on satisfaction. In terms of self-selection, it is
possible that people who choose to have sex before
marriage differ from those who choose to abstain in a
number of aspects which do not promote marital satisfac-
tion. Such aspects may include poor impulse control,
inability to resist peer pressure, rebelliousness against
traditions, sensation-seeking, etc. On the other hand,
experience of sex before marriage may have a direct effect
on subsequent marital satisfaction by altering person’s
perception of sex and becoming a cause for jealousy fights
between spouses. While it is possible that premarital sexual
experience could enhance quality of sexual life in marriage
and hence contribute to higher marital satisfaction, no such
data have been found in literature.
Women and men tend appear to react differently to their
first sexual experiences. Studies conducted in the USA
show that women focus on the guilt associated with the act,
while men talk about physical pleasure (Holland et al.
2000; Kelly and Bazzini 2001). A study by Carpenter
(2001) in the USA found that women tended to interpret
their virginity as a “gift” to be given to someone special,
while men were more likely to view it as “stigma” to be
concealed and lost as soon as possible. Consequently,
women were more likely than men to be disillusioned when
their expectations about the first intercourse were not met,
while men tended to be satisfied merely by losing their
stigmatized virginity (Carpenter 2001).
Such gender differences in interpretation of first sexual
experiences may be related to more general gender differ-
ences in premarital sexual attitudes and behavior. Accord-
ing to Kelly and Bazzini (2001), gender differences indicate
more liberal attitudes of males toward premarital sex.
Indeed, a number of studies found this to be the case.
Compared to females, males were found to have more
liberal attitudes towards premarital sex in the USA (Oliver
and Hyde 1993; Sprecher and Hatfield 1996), Australia
(Hong 1991), and Russia (Sprecher and Hatfield 1996).
Oliver and Hyde’s (1993) assessment of a meta-analysis of
177 studies on gender differences in sexuality on a North
American sample indicated that while the gender gap with
Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32
the regard to attitudes towards premarital intercourse had
been narrowing over the years, males still remained more
sexually permissive than females, particular with the regard
to premarital sex under casual circumstances.
These differences in attitudes are reflected in differences
in behavior. In their meta-analysis of North American
studies Oliver and Hyde (1993) found that males had their
first intercourse at younger ages and had more sexual
partners than females. Men in the USA reported more
incidents of extramarital sex than women (Atkins et al.
2001). Wellings et al. (2006) found that in the USA,
Western Europe and Australia prevalence of premarital sex
was higher among men than among women and men had
more sexual partners than women. Wellings et al. points out
that these differences may be partially explained by a
tendency for men to over-report and women to under-report
their sexual activity.
These gender differences in attitudes and behavior may
be interpreted as a sexual double standard implying that
premarital sexual activity of women is less acceptable than
that of men (Oliver and Hyde 1993). This is particularly
apparent in Latino populations with stronger Catholic
traditions, which even encourage males to have sex before
marriage (Eisenman and Dantzker 2006; Rani et al. 2003).
Interestingly, the prior meta-analysis by Oliver and Hyde
(1993) indicated that women were more accepting of this
double standard than men. Such differences in perception
may contribute to feelings of guilt in women in response to
premarital sexual intercourse. Similarly, some Lithuanian
authors have concluded that sexual activity of men and
women is assigned different meanings by the Lithuanian
society and double standards provide for stricter condem-
nation of female sexual activity compared to male sexual
activity, leading to emergence of the feeling of sexual guilt
in women (Jaruševičienė 2005; Ustilaitė 2000). These
differences may have a negative effect on subsequent
marital satisfaction of those women, who have had an
experience of premarital intercourse.
Teachman (2003), however, found that neither premarital
intercourse nor cohabitation increased divorce risk for those
women who had these experiences with their future
husbands. On the other hand, he pointed out that a large
number of sexual partners did increase the risk of divorce
for women regardless of their premarital cohabitation
experience.
Therefore, as a result of the sexual double standard we
propose that premarital sexual intercourse experiences will
have a negative impact on subsequent marital satisfaction
of women, but not men. On the other hand, young age of
sexual debut and large number of premarital sexual partners
are not the prevailing social norms in Lithuania. Further-
more, sexual activity at and early age and with a large
number of partners also is not the norm in Lithuania. Hence
Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32
we propose that early sexual initiation and a large number
of premarital sexual partners are likely to be negatively
correlated to subsequent marital satisfaction for both
genders. Due to existence of a double standard charging
women with control of own sexual behavior and that of
men, this correlation may be stronger for women than for
men.
Purpose
We believe it is critical to assess the relationship of
premarital sexual behavior and marital satisfaction with
couples in Lithuanian base on the gap in the research
literature related to this topic. Few studies have been
conducted to investigate relationship between premarital
sexual experiences and subsequent marital satisfaction. We
in addition believe it is critical for professionals, researchers
in the future and most of all the individuals who are
presently involved in making decisions related to their own
sexual behavior.
Therefore, to fill the present gap in the literature, the
present study employing paper-and-pencil questionnaire
methodology was designed to examine possible relation-
ships between premarital intercourse characteristics and
subsequent marital satisfaction of middle-aged married
couples in Lithuania. Middle aged subjects were chosen
for the study in order to see whether any possible links
between premarital sexual behavior and marital satisfaction
are relevant in the longer term, beyond the usual 1–5 years
term covered in most marital satisfaction studies. Independent
variables in this study were gender, whether or not the subjects
had premarital intercourse, the age of the first intercourse, the
number of sexual partners before marriage, and whether or not
subjects had any experience of cohabitation before marriage.
The dependent variable was marital satisfaction. The follow-
ing hypotheses were formulated:
H1: Women, who had sex before marriage will have lower
marital satisfaction than those, who abstained from
sex before marriage;
H2: Men, who had sex before marriage will not differ in
their marital satisfaction from men, who abstained
from sex prior to marriage;
H3: Men and women, whose sexual debut took place at a
younger age, will be less satisfied with their mar-
riages than those, who experienced their first inter-
course at an older age;
H4: Men and women, who had more premarital sexual
partners, will be less satisfied with their marriages than
those with smaller number of premarital sexual partners;
H5: Men and women, who had premarital cohabitation
experience, will have lower marital satisfaction than
those without premarital cohabitation experience.
25
Method
Participants
Subjects were recruited by the second author using a
snow-ball technique sampling procedure. The researcher
asked her friends and relatives whether they knew any
families, who would be married for at least 10 years and
none of the partners would have a previous divorce
experience. The researcher collected e-mails and/or phone
numbers of such potential subjects and later contacted
them to solicit their participation. These families were
further asked, whether they knew any families matching
the researcher’s criteria. No compensation was offered for
participation in the study.
The resulting sample consisted of 41 heterosexual
married adult couples living in two Lithuanian cities and
three rural areas. Age of women in the sample ranged from
30 to 53 years, with the mean age being 38.24 years. Age
of men ranged from 34 to 60 years, with the mean of
43.69 years. All subjects in the study lived in their first
marriage. Duration of marriage ranged from 12 to 25 years,
with the mean being 18.4 years. To avoid possible
confounding effects, the study included no subjects with
divorce experience. Thirty seven subjects (45.1%) had
university education. The same number of subjects had
specialized vocational education and eight subjects (9.8%)
had secondary education.
Materials
Subjects were presented with a questionnaire, consisting of
a set of questions concerning their experiences of premarital
intercourse and of the Marital Satisfaction Scale (MSS)
constructed for the present study by means of factor
analysis on the basis of the Marital Satisfaction Question-
naire developed by a Russian a team of researchers (Stolina
et al. 2004). The Russian-developed measure was chosen in
an attempt to find a more culturally appropriate alternative
to Western measures of marital satisfaction. However, the
original 24-item version proved to have diverse factorial
structure, which limited its reliability. Thus, factor analysis
was applied to construct a more uniform scale.
Table 1 Tests of variables distribution normality.
Variables Kolmogorov–Smirnov df p
statistic
Age at the first intercourse .123 82 .004
Number of premarital .212 82 .000
sexual partners
MSS score .135 82 .001
26
Table 2 Age of onset of sexual intercourse.
Gender Number Range M SD
Men 41 11–28 17.32 3.47
Women 41 15–28 19.63 2.51
The Marital Satisfaction Scale constructed for the
present study (see “Appendix”) consisted of 16 statements,
expressing satisfaction with their marriage (such as “I am
proud to be by the side of such a person as my spouse”,
“Strengths of my spouse outweigh his/her weaknesses”, “I
enjoy company of my spouse”, etc.). Subjects had to
indicate their agreement with the items on a three point
scale. Scores of all items were added to create a sum score
variable (Cronbach α=.90). A higher score indicated more
marital satisfaction.
Characteristics of premarital intercourse experience of
subjects were assessed using questionnaire items formulat-
ed for the present study: “Have you ever had sexual
intercourse before marriage?” (yes/no), “What was your age
at the time of your first sexual intercourse?”, “How many
sexual partners you have had before marriage?”, and “Have
you ever cohabited before marriage?” (yes/no). Subjects
had to answer questions concerning the age of their first
intercourse and concerning the number of their premarital
sexual partners by writing in a relevant number.
Procedure
Married couples, who agreed to participate in the study of
factors affecting marital satisfaction, were visited by the
second author in their homes. Spouses were assured of
confidentiality of their responses and were asked to fill the
questionnaire in different rooms to prevent communication
and to ensure confidentiality of their answers. The
procedure took about 30 min per family.
Statistical Analyses Methods
Variables of age at the time of the first sexual intercourse,
number of sexual partners before marriage, and Marital
Satisfaction Scale scores did not satisfy the normal
distribution requirement, as tested by the Kolmogorov–
Smirnov statistic (see Table 1). Therefore, the non-
Table 3 Number of premarital sexual intercourse partners.
Gender Number Range M SD
Men 36 1–15 6.33 3.94
Women 27 1–12 2.63 2.39
Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32
Mean rank Sum of ranks Mann–Whitney U p
31.84 1,305.50 444.50 <.001
51.16 2,097.50
parametric Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare
differences of means between groups. Chi-square was used
to test relationships between nominal variables. Spearman’s
rank-order correlation coefficient was used to compute
correlations between variables. An alpha level of .05 was
used for all statistical tests.
Results
Characteristics of Premarital Sexual Behavior of the Sample
Statistical analysis of the results revealed that men had
earlier onset of sexual intercourse than women (see Table 2).
Thirty six (87.8%) of men and 27 women (65.9%) in the
sample had an experience of premarital sexual intercourse
(χ2 (1, N=82)=5.549, p=.018). Of those who had an
experience of premarital intercourse, men had significantly
more premarital sexual partners than women did (see
Table 3). Nineteen (46.3%) men and six (14.6%) women
had premarital cohabitation experience (χ2 (1, N=82)=
9.725, p=.002).
Men, who had premarital intercourse experience, had
their first sexual intercourse experience at significantly
younger age and were more likely to have had cohabited
(χ2 (1, N=41)=4.918, p=.027), than those, whose first
sexual experiences took place within the wedlock. There
were no significant differences for women (χ2 (1, N=41)=
3.644, p=.056; see Table 4). Age of onset of sexual
intercourse was significantly correlated to a number of
premarital sexual partners for both men (Spearman r=
−.529, p=.001) and women (Spearman r=−.446, p=.020).
Unsurprisingly, those with earlier sexual debut had more
sexual partners.
Cohabitation was related to earlier onset of sexual
intercourse for men, but not for women (see Table 5). On
the other hand, cohabitation was related to a greater number
of sexual partners for women, but not for men (see Table 6).
Mean rank Sum of ranks Mann–Whitney U p
39.83 1,434.00 204.00 <.001
21.56 582.00
Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32 27

Table 4 Relationship between age of onset of sexual activity and premarital intercourse.

Premarital Intercourse Number M SD Mean rank Sum of ranks Mann–Whitney U p

Men
Yes 36 16.83 3.32 19.14 689.00 23.00 .005
No 5 20.80 2.59 34.40 172.00
Women
Yes 27 19.44 2.75 19.56 528.00 150.00 .294
No 14 20.00 2.00 23.79 333.00

Age of onset of premarital intercourse ranges from 11 to 28 for men and from 15 to 28 for women.

Relationship between Premarital Intercourse Behavior previous cohabitation experience. This number might have
and Marital Satisfaction been too low for any significant results to emerge.

Men and women in this sample were remarkably similar in

their marital satisfaction, as measured by the MSS scores
(Table 7). While subjects with premarital intercourse sexual
experience did score lower on MSS than those, who never
had sexual intercourse before marriage, this difference was
not significant for either men or women (see Table 8). This
result supported our second hypothesis, but failed to
support the first hypothesis.
As predicted by the third hypothesis, for women there was a
significant positive correlation between the MSS scores and
age at the first sexual intercourse (Spearman rs =.348, p=.026).
Contrary to the third hypothesis, for men this correlation was
not significant (Spearman rs =.155, p=.335).
As expected, results of the present study indicate a
negative correlation between marital satisfaction and
number of premarital sexual partners. This correlation was
significant for both men (Spearman rs =−.342, p=.028) and
women (Spearman rs =−.339, p=.030).
As hypothesized, men who had cohabitation experience
had significantly lower MSS scores, than those, who had
never cohabited before marriage. Somewhat unexpectedly,
for women this difference was not significant (see Table 9).
However, it should be noted that the difference of means
for women was in the direction predicted by the fifth
hypothesis, yet this sample contained only six women with
Discussion
Consistent with other studies conducted both in Lithuania
and in other countries (Else-Quest et al. 2005; Legkauskas
and Jakovlevaitė 2005; Ustilaitė 2000; Wu et al. 2001), it
was found that men tended to experience their first sexual
intercourse at younger ages, were more likely to had had
sex and cohabited before marriage, and had more premarital
sexual partners than women did. Indeed, these differences
might have been influenced by double standards, which
reward men for earlier sexual debut and more sexual
conquests, while punishing women for the same behaviors
(Kelly and Bazzini 2001; Milhausen and Herold 1999).
However, compared to the other studies conducted both in
Lithuania (Legkauskas and Jakovlevaitė 2005) and in the
USA (Wu et al. 2001), subjects in our sample tended to have
their first intercourse later and there was a larger percent of
women, who abstained from intercourse till marriage. This
finding is likely to be due to the middle-aged nature of our
sample. Our subjects had been reared on Soviet moral norms
strongly condemning premarital sex and many of the
subjects married when Lithuania was still under the Soviet
rule. On the other hand, such differences between our results
and results of the more recent studies conducted with

Table 5 Relationship between age of onset of sexual intercourse and cohabitation.

Cohabitation Number M SD Mean rank Sum of ranks Mann–Whitney U p

Men
Yes 19 16.05 3.06 16.47 313.00 123.00 .024
No 22 18.41 3.49 24.91 548.00
Women
Yes 6 19.17 1.72 19.42 116.50 95.50 .722
No 35 19.71 2.63 21.27 744.50

Age of onset of premarital intercourse ranges from 11 to 28 for men and from 15 to 28 for women.
28 Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32

Table 6 Relationship between number of premarital sexual partners and cohabitation.

Cohabitation Number M SD Mean rank Sum of ranks Mann–Whitney U p

Men
Yes 19 6.63 3.80 24.55 466.50 141.50 .076
No 22 4.64 4.47 17.93 394.50
Women
Yes 6 3.33 1.97 32.75 196.50 34.50 .007
No 35 1.46 2.67 18.99 664.50

Number of premarital sexual intercourse partners ranges from 1 to 15 for men and from 1 to 12 for women.

younger samples (Legkauskas and Jakovlevaitė 2005) might
be interpreted as illustrating both growing tolerance to
premarital sexual behavior and weakening of double stand-
ards applied in the realm of sexual behavior of men and
women in Lithuania. Also, it should be noted that with rising
average age at the time of the first marriage, it may be
increasingly difficult to cultivate abstinence (Wellings et al.
2006).
For men, variables of age of onset of sexual life,
premarital intercourse experience, and the number of
premarital sexual partners were all linked to each other.
That is, men, who had their sexual debut at earlier age,
were more likely to have it before marriage and had more
premarital sexual partners. Those, who had had premarital
sexual intercourse, were also more likely to have cohabited.
Cohabitation was linked to earlier sexual intercourse, but
not to the number of sexual partners.
For women a quite different pattern emerged. Those,
who started having sex at younger age, were not signifi-
cantly more likely to have it before marriage or to have
premarital cohabitation experience. This finding reflects a
fact that about a third of women in our sample abstained
from sex before marriage. However, women, who had their
first intercourse at earlier age, tended to have more
premarital sexual partners, and those who had more
premarital sexual partners were more likely to have
cohabited before marriage. Yet those, who had had sex
before marriage, were not more likely to have cohabited
than those who didn’t.
Results of this study indicate similar satisfaction of men
and women with their marriages. There was no significant
link between marital satisfaction and having an experience
of premarital sex for either men or women. This may be
due to a small sample size, as only five men and 14 women
in our sample had no sexual experience before marriage.
Another possible explanation of this finding might be that
as fewer and fewer people manage to abstain from sex
before marriage, premarital sex becomes increasingly
normative and less likely to result in feelings of guilt and
condemnation. As majority of men and women do have
premarital intercourse experience, the fact of having such
experience is likely to loose its predictive value. Men, who
had an experience of cohabitation before marriage, were less
satisfied with their marriages, than those, who did not have
such experience. There was no such difference for women.
However, it should be noted that the absolute difference in
means is actually greater for women than for men. Yet, there
were only six women in this sample, who had any
cohabitation experience. Therefore, a lack of significant
relationship between marital satisfaction and premarital
cohabitation is likely to be a result of small sample size.
Those women, who started their sexual life later, were more
satisfied with their marriages, than those, who started having
sex earlier. There was no such difference for men. Finally,
having more sexual partners before marriage was related to
lower marital satisfaction among both men and women.
Results of the present study seem to suggest that, while
the very fact of having sex before marriage is not linked to
a lower subsequent marital satisfaction, certain character-
istics of premarital sexual activity, such as age at onset of
sexual debut, the number of partners, and cohabitation may
be related to the quality of later marriage and these
relationships seem to be different for men and women.
Lower marital satisfaction of women, who had their first
sexual intercourse at an earlier age, and absence of
relationship between these two variables among men may
be interpreted to indicate presence of double standards in
judgments of male and female sexual behavior prevailing in

Table 7 Marital satisfaction.

Gender Number Range M SD Mean rank Sum of ranks Mann–Whitney U p

Men 41 5–31 19.90 7.46 42 1,722.00 820.00 .85

Women 41 0–31 18.98 9.25 41 1,681.00
Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32 29

Table 8 Relationship between marital satisfaction and premarital sexual intercourse.

Premarital intercourse Number M SD Mean rank Sum of ranks Mann–Whitney U p

Men
Yes 36 19.47 7.09 19.89 716.00 50.00 .118
No 5 23.00 10.12 29.00 145.00
Women
Yes 27 17.52 8.72 18.69 504.50 126.50 .086
No 14 21.79 9.92 25.46 356.50

Marital satisfaction score ranges from 5 to 31 for men and from 0 to 31 for women.

the Lithuanian society. However, the number of premarital
sexual partners is negatively linked to subsequent marital
satisfaction regardless of gender. There may be two
different kinds of explanations for this finding: self-
selection and causal link. Explanations of the self-selection
kind would imply that people who have more premarital
sexual partners tend to differ in their personal characteristics
from those, who have fewer sexual partners. For example,
they may take more casual views on sex, have less
commitment to relationships (Kline-Rhoades et al. 2006),
have poorer relationship keeping skills, emphasize personal
contentment over social responsibility (Maslauskaitė 2005),
have stronger sensation-seeking tendencies, etc.
Explanations involving a causal link would look for
ways in which having a large number of sexual partners
before marriage may cause people to have lower marital
satisfaction later. Such causation may be both indirect and
direct. In case of indirect causation, having a large number
of sexual partners may change something in a person,
which would make him less likely to achieve satisfaction in
marriage. For example, rich premarital sexual experience
may alter person’s view on sex, making him overemphasize
the role of sex in marriage. On the other hand, having a
large number of premarital sexual partners may be a direct
cause of subsequent marital dissatisfaction, making one’s
spouse feel “just one of the many”, insecure, jealous, etc.
The present study is too small in both its scope and its
sample to test the validity of these possible explanations.
The results of this study fill a significant gap in research on
relationship between premarital sexual intercourse charac-
teristics and subsequent marital satisfaction in Lithuania
and delineate interesting avenues for further explorations of
links between sex and marriage.
Limitations of the Study
Results of the present study should be considered taking
into account several limitations of the study. The first
limitation concerns retrospective collection of data. As
Else-Quest et al. (2005) pointed out, a long gap between
premarital sexual experiences and reporting of those
experiences might have an effect on the way participants
recalled those events. Indeed, some researchers (Upchurch
et al. 2002; Wu et al. 2001) have found individual
recollections about their first sexual experiences to be
inconsistent, although the magnitude of those inconsisten-
cies tends to be small (Wu et al. 2001).
The second limitation concerns the small size of the
sample. While permitting to detect significant relationships
between variables, the size of our sample demands a
caution against any overgeneralizations. Furthermore, small
size of our sample prevented us from conducting any
meaningful statistical analysis on the level of couples.
Indeed, this left some interesting questions unexplored, for
example, whether a difference between spouses in the
extent of their premarital sexual experiences had any impact
on their marital satisfaction. These issues represent an
interesting line of research for future studies.

Table 9 Relationship between marital satisfaction and cohabitation.

Cohabitation Number M SD Mean rank Sum of ranks Mann–Whitney U p

Men
Yes 19 17.53 6.63 16.53 314.00 124.00 .026
No 22 21.95 7.66 24.86 547.00
Women
Yes 6 14.17 6.82 14.00 84.00 63.00 .128
No 35 19.80 9.43 22.20 777.00

Marital satisfaction score ranges from 5 to 31 for men and from 0 to 31 for women.
30 Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32

Appendix: Marital satisfaction scale

Items in Lithuanian and English Response scales in Lithuanian and English

1. Jūsų santuokos ryšiai suteikia jums/Your marriage relationship brings you a. Nerimą ir kančią/anxiety and suffering
b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Džiaugsmą ir pasitenkinimą/joy and contentment
2. Giminės ir draugai vertina jūsų santuoką kaip/Relatives and friends consider a. Sėkmingą/successful
your marriage to be b. Vidutiniškai sėkmingą/moderately successful
c. Nesėkmingą/unsuccessful
3. Jeigu jūs galėtumėte,/If you could, a. Jūs daug ką pakeistumėte savo sutuoktinio charakteryje/You
would change a lot in your spouse’s character
b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Jūs nieko nekeistumėte/You would change nothing
4. Kai lyginate savo šeimos gyvenimą su draugų ir pažįstamų gyvenimu, jums a. Nelaimingesnis už kitus/less happy than others
atrodo/When you compare your marital life with that of your friends and b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
relatives, you feel c. Laimingesnis už kitus/happier than others
5. Jūs manote, kad gyvenimas be sutuoktinio būtų nepilnavertis/You believe that a a. Sutinku/agree
life without a spouse would be inferior b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Nesutinku/disagree
6. Jei grįžtų laikas jūsų sutuoktiniu taptų/If time could be turned back, your a. Kas tik nori, tik ne dabartinis sutuoktinis/anyone else, but
spouse would be not the same person
b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Būtent dabartinis sutuoktinis/definitely the same person
7. Jūs didžiuojatės, kad toks žmogus kaip sutuoktinis šalia jūsų/You are proud to a. Sutinku/agree
have a person like your spouse by your side b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Nesutinku/disagree
8. Deja, jūsų sutuoktinio trūkumai dažnai nusveria jo privalumus/Unfortunately, a. Sutinku/agree
disadvantages of your spouse often outweigh the advantages b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Nesutinku/disagree
9. Pagrindinės priežastys, trukdančios Jūsų laimingai santuokai, slypi/The main a. Jūsų sutuoktinio charakteryje/in the character of your
reasons preventing you from having a happy marriage lay spouse
b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Jūsų paties charakteryje/in your own character
10. Jausmai, kuriems esant tuokėtės/Feelings with which you were marrying a. Sustiprėjo/got stronger
b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Susilpnėjo/got weaker
11. Jūsų sutuoktinis turi tokius privalumus, kurie kompensuoja trūkumus/Your a. Sutinku/agree
spouse has advantages, which outweigh his/her disadvantages b. Vidutiniškai sutinku/moderately agree
c. Nesutinku/disagree
12. Deja, jūsų santuokoje nėra abipusio emocinio palaikymo/Unfortunately, there a. Sutinku/agree
is no mutual emotional support in your marriage b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. nesutinku/disagree
13. Jums atrodo, kad sutuoktinis dažnai daro kvailystes/You often feel like your a. Sutinku/agree
spouse is doing stupid things b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Nesutinku/disagree
14. Šeimyniniai santykiai neatnešė į gyvenimą tos tvarkos, kurios tikėjotės/ a. Sutinku/agree
Marital relationship did not bring into your life the order, which you had b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
expected c. Nesutinku/disagree
15. Sutuoktinio kompanija jums teikia malonumą/Your spouse’s company is a. Sutinku/agree
pleasurable to you b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Nesutinku/disagree
16. Jūsų santuokoje nebuvo nė vieno šviesaus momento/There hasn’t been a a. Sutinku/agree
single bright moment in your marriage b. Sunku pasakyti/it is hard to say
c. Nesutinku/disagree
Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32
References
Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001).
Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample.
Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749.
Barber, J. S., & Axinn, W. G. (1998). Gender role attitudes and
marriage among young women. Sociological Quarterly, 31, 11–
31.
Booth, A. (2004). Quality of marriage remains steady. Nutrition
Health Review: The Consumer‘s Medical Journal, 89, 18–19.
Brown, S. L. (2004). Moving from cohabitation to marriage: Effects
on relationship quality. Social Science Research, 33, 1–20.
Bumpass, L., & Lu, K. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and
implications for children’s family contexts in the United States.
Population Studies, 54, 29–41.
Carpenter, L. M. (2001). The ambiguity of “having sex”: The
subjective experience of virginity loss in the United States. The
Journal of Sex Research, 38, 127–139.
Denisenko, M. B., & Dalla, Zu Na (2001). Seksualnoe povedenie
rossiskoi molodiozhi [Sexual behavior of Russian youth]. Socio-
logiya molodiozhi, 30, 83–87.
Eisenman, R., & Dantzker, M. L. (2006). Gender and ethnic
differences in sexual attitudes at a Hispanic-serving university.
The Journal of General Psychology, 133, 153–162.
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & DeLamater, J. (2005). Context
counts: Long-term consequences of premarital intercourse or
abstinence. The Journal of Sex Research, 42, 102–112.
Gerasimovič, N. (2005). Būsimų jaunavedžių požiūris į šeimos
funkcijas ir pasiruošimą jas atlikti [Attitudes of Would-Be
Newlyweds towards Family Functions and Readiness to Perform
Them]. Vilnius: VPU.
Harding, D. J., & Jencks, Ch. (2003). Changing attitudes toward
premarital sex. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 211–226.
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, C., & Thomson, R. (2000).
Deconstructing virginity: Young people’s accounts of first sex.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15, 221–232.
Hong, S. -M. (1991). Gender difference in Australian attitudes
towards premarital sex: A re-examination. Psychological
Reports, 68, 418–429.
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George,
L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as
predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 237–252.
Imelinsky, K. (1980). Lytinio gyvenimo psichohigiena [Psychohygiene
of sexual life]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Jaruševičienė, L. (2005). Jaunų žmonių lytinė elgsena [Sexual
behavior of young people]. In L. Jaruševičienė, & L. Valius
(Eds.), Jaunų žmonių lytinė ir reprodukcinė sveikata [Sexual and
reproductive health of young people] (pp. 26–31). Kaunas: Vitae
Litera.
Kelly, J., & Bazzini, D. G. (2001). Gender sexual experience and the
sexual double standard: Evolution of female contraceptive
behavior. Sex Roles, 45, 785–799.
Kiernan, K. (2002). Cohabitation in Western Europe: Trends, issues,
and implications. In A. Booth, & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Just living
together: Implications of cohabitation on families, children, and
social policy (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., St.
Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., et al. (2004). Timing is everything:
Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk of poor marital
outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311–318.
31
Kline-Rhoades, G., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Pre-
engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital
commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 553–560.
Kreider, R. M., & Fields, J. M. (2002). Number, timing and duration
of marriages and divorces: 1996. Current population reports.
Washington D.C.: US Census Bureau.
Legkauskas, V., & Jakovlevaitė, V. (2005). Rizikingo seksualinio
studentų elgesio ir jų psichosocialinių savybių ryšys [Relationship
between risky sex behaviors and psychosocial characteristics of
students]. Psichologija, 32, 35–46.
Lithuanian Department of Statistics (2006a). Demographic yearbook.
Vilnius: Lithuanian Department of Statistics.
Lithuanian Department of Statistics (2006b). Population of Lithuania:
Composition and demographic development. Vilnius: Lithuanian
Department of Statistics.
Martin, P. D., Martin, D., & Martin, M. (2001). Adolescent premarital
sexual activity, cohabitation, and attitudes toward marriage.
Adolescence, 36, 601–609.
Maslauskaitė, A. (2005). Tarpusavio santykių kokybė Lietuvos šeimose
[Quality of relationships in Lithuanian families]. Sociologija:
Mintis ir Veiksmas, 1, 122–135.
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double
standard still exist? Perception of university women. The Journal
of Sex Research, 36, 361–368.
Navaitis, G. (2003). Intymūs pokalbiai (Internete) [Intimate conversations
(on the internet)]. Vilnius: Tyto Alba.
Noibert, R. (1971). Nauja knyga apie vedybinį gyvenimą [A new book
about marital life]. Vilnius: Mintis.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.
Rani, M., Figueroa, M. E., & Ainsle, R. (2003). The psychological context
of young adult sexual behavior in Nicaragua: Looking through the
gender lens. International Family Planning Perspectives, 29, 174–
181.
Smith, C. A. (1997). Factors associated with early sexual activity
among urban adolescents. Social Work, 42, 334–346.
Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual standards among
US college students: Comparison with Russian and Japanese
students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 261–288.
Stankūnienė, V. (1997). Šeima ir gimstamumas Lietuvoje [Family and
birthrate in Lithuania]. Vilnius: Lithuanian Institute of Sociology
and Philosophy.
Stolina, V. V., Romanova, T. L., & Butenko, G. B. (2004). Oprosnik
udobletvorenosti brakom [Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire]. In
D. J. Raygorodskyi (Ed.), Diagnostika Semyi: Metodiki i Testy
[Family diagnostics: Methods and tests] (pp. 93–96). Samara:
Bachrach.
Teachman, J. (2002). Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors.
Demography, 39, 331–351.
Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and the
risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 55, 444–455.
Upchurch, D. M., Lillard, L. A., Aneshensel, C. S., & Li, N. F. (2002).
Inconsistencies in reporting the occurrence and timing of first
sexual intercourse among adolescents. The Journal of Sex
Research, 39, 197–206.
Ustilaitė, S. (2000). Moksleivių pirmųjų lytinių santykių motyvai
[Motives for first sexual relationships among school pupils].
Pedagogika, 42, 20–27.
Wellings, K., Collumbien, M., Slaymaker, E., Singh, S., Hodges, Z.,
Patel, D., & Bajos, N. (2006). Sexual behavior in context: A
global perspective. The Lancet, 368, 1706–1728.
32
Wells, B. E., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Changes in young people’s
sexual behavior and attitudes, 1943–1999: A cross-temporal
meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 3, 249–261.
Weston, R., Qu, L., & de Vaus, D. (2003). Premarital cohabitation
and marital stability. A paper presented at the HILDA
Conference, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia,
13th March, 2003.
Sex Roles (2009) 60:21–32
Widmer, E. D., Treas, J., & Newcomb, R. (1998). Attitudes toward
nonmarital sex in 24 countries. The Journal of Sex Research, 35,
349–358.
Wu, L. L., Martin, S. P., & Long, D. A. (2001). Comparing date and
quality of fertility and first sexual intercourse histories. Journal
of Human Resources, 36, 520–555.
Zalytis, J. (1985). Meilės vardu [In the name of love]. Vilnius: Šviesa.