One specific group of married Americans has more sex and happier marriages than others: study - New York Post

TomOkay, so this came up and I couldn't let it go: One specific group of married Americans has more sex and happier marriages than others: study. What do you make of it?

CarolYou're asking me to react to a label without knowing who they are, which is backwards. The real problem isn't having more intimacy, it's that everyone else suddenly feels like they're failing at marriage because some undefined group set the benchmark. It turns a normal relationship dynamic into a performance review nobody asked for.

TomCalling it a performance review misses the point entirely. The issue isn't the feeling of inadequacy, but whether the study actually identifies a repeatable behavior rather than just a coincidence of demographics. Without that distinction, the whole thing stays anecdotal.

CarolSaying it’s just a demographic coincidence ignores the fact that we can’t even verify who those people are right now. Until the researchers name the specific habits or traits being measured, there’s no difference between a useful finding and a random cluster of happy couples. We’re debating the meaning of a word that hasn’t been defined yet.

TomYou keep demanding we know exactly who these people are, but you’re arguing over the definition of “happy” before anyone gets to measure it. My gut says a group that prioritizes communication over silence will almost always report better results, regardless of their zip code. Stop looking for a secret recipe and start noticing the basics.

CarolPrioritizing communication sounds nice on paper, but it assumes every couple wants the same emotional labor just to get by. That “basic” skill becomes a huge barrier when one partner is shut down by work stress or past trauma, turning a simple habit into an impossible demand. You’re describing a luxury item and calling it table stakes.

TomLuxury items don't require two people to sit down and talk through their day; that’s just how relationships hold together under pressure. You’re framing basic maintenance as a burden because it’s hard to do after a bad shift, but skipping it is exactly why the marriage falls apart in the first place. The study probably just caught what happens when people actually stick around long enough to do the boring stuff.

CarolSticking around long enough is survivor bias, not proof that the boring stuff causes happiness. Plenty of couples do the bare minimum and still end up miserable years later. You’re mistaking duration for effectiveness again.

TomSurvivor bias explains why some last, but it doesn’t explain why this specific group reports higher satisfaction. You’re dismissing the data because you dislike the implication that consistent effort beats raw longevity. Duration keeps you together, but connection keeps you happy, and this study seems to be measuring the latter.

CarolYou’re defining connection by how loudly they report it, not by what they actually do in private. A survey score doesn’t prove intimacy exists; it just proves those people aren’t embarrassed to say they’ve got it going. I need to see if their marriages hold up during a crisis, not just during a good week.

TomTesting a marriage against a crisis is the wrong yardstick for this kind of data, since most couples never face one. You're asking for a stress test when the study is just noting who feels less lonely on a Tuesday night. That's a real signal, even if it doesn't look like a hero's journey.

CarolComparing Tuesday loneliness to a hero’s journey misses the actual metric entirely. The study claims higher sexual frequency drives marital joy, but without knowing if that group has fewer daily conflicts, we’re just guessing at causation. Who benefits from assuming sex solves everything while ignoring the quiet grind that usually breaks marriages?

TomAssuming sex fixes everything ignores that the study links frequency to overall contentment, not just bedroom performance. You’re fixated on whether it cures conflict, but the data suggests it tracks with general well-being. Maybe the quiet grind isn’t broken, just unmeasured by your favorite metrics.

CarolYour favorite metrics are the ones that ask partners how often they laugh versus argue, and the answer is always skewed by who holds the pen. If this group reports higher joy simply because they measure success by physical output rather than emotional repair, you’ve just found a vanity stat, not a relationship model.

TomCalling it a vanity stat lets off the hook anyone who skips the actual work just because they think numbers don't matter. We both know that ignoring the physical side usually means the emotional side rots too, regardless of which partner writes the check. Let's stop pretending that a messy marriage is somehow more honest than a healthy one that just happens to look good on paper.

CarolSaying a messy marriage is dishonest is just another way to shame people for having normal human friction. The study points to a correlation, not a commandment, and treating it like one guarantees half these couples will feel guilty every time they skip a Tuesday. That’s how you turn a helpful observation into a source of anxiety.

TomTurning a correlation into guilt is exactly how you kill the thing you claim to protect. Until someone shows that group’s divorce rate is actually lower, we’re just arguing over whether a high score makes them better or just louder. Don’t let your fear of shaming turn into denying reality; the data says something happened, and hiding behind "human friction" doesn’t change the numbers.