Living together before marriage? The facts.

[ski]

I heard a message on the radio a couple hours ago about how living together before marriage yields a higher divorce rate than people who don't live together beforehand.

So I decided to check it out.

CDC.gov study (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf)

I read most of it, but Table 21 (use find if you open it) is the kicker. I've taken the liberty to make a sloppy Excel chart of it:

http://www.littleboyinc.com/uploader/uploads/cohabitation.JPG

Guess after 15 years is where they get the 50% of marriages end in divorce figure. Found an archived CNN article (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/24/cdc.marriagereport) about the study.

The reason this came up in my mind is that I have several friends that think the divorce rate is lower for people who "try living together and see if it works". There are tons of other factors that are interesting, just a thought-provoking topic I came along. Any thoughts you have?

[Hiro]

It completely depends on the people involved in the relationship. Statistics mean sh*t in this field.

My two cents. :P

[ski]

It completely depends on the people involved in the relationship. Statistics mean sh*t in this field.

My two cents. :P
That's what this study is. It studies all different types of couples that have done it (using proper statistical sampling) and this is the output.

You're right, it depends on the people involved in the situation:
Couple A doesn't divorce after pre-marriage cohabitation
Couple B does.

It just so happens that a higher percentage of divorced couples were ones that lived together before marriage. Plain old facts... I'm carefully wording it so that it's not saying "YOU have a higher percentage of getting divorced because you're living together before marriage". It depends on the person, but these are the general facts from ALL people :)

[Hiro]

And just like a rise in male babies, it's just purely coincidence and not a direct link to what sexual position the parents used. To me, it really doesn't mean anything. Just another worthless study.

[booger73]

The same chart also shows that blacks are higher (0.55) vs other races for example (Asian 0.23), as well as younger people (0.59), lower income, not working, people who thought religion wasn't important, already had one kid, and were in the northeast..

but we never hear about those differences, we just hear the cohabit one.. maybe because in the past the news or people thought it was 'bad' or 'sinful' if you cohabited..
Not sure what would happen if you throw everything in a regression, but i seriously doubt that cohabitation is the only reason people break up..

Besides, the statistics are from 95.. 10 years ago.. i don't think they apply anymore

[kimchicowboy]

And just like a rise in male babies, it's just purely coincidence and not a direct link to what sexual position the parents used. To me, it really doesn't mean anything. Just another worthless study.
wow, you seem a bit defensive about this man. don't worry. it's just a study as you stated. :)

[CrystalDuck]

Perhaps it also depends on why the couple decides to live together and why they decide to get married. Maybe if a couple lives together they are more likely to get pregnant and "have" to get married instead of choosing to. Maybe some couples move in together because it is the next logical step, but haven't thought about whether they want to get married, and then get married because that is the next logical step afterwards. There are lots of reasons for these statistics, none of which apply to everyone.

On the other hand, couples who live together before marriage also tend to be less traditional, and "for as long as you both shall live" is a tradition that might be related.

[Mike_N_Ike]

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what CrystalDuck said. I think that living together before getting married is sort of breaking the traditional rules regarding living together/marriage. Getting divorced is sort of the same thing. I think that certain people cling to those rules more than others.

I guess what I'm saying is that (imo) people living together prior to marriage, and people ultimately ending up gettting divorced may both be caused by their outlook on certain aspects of marriage/cohabitation - however premarital cohabitation is not necessarily a cause of divorce.

[ski]

Besides, the statistics are from 95.. 10 years ago.. i don't think they apply anymore
July 2002. It's pretty up to date.

Even though I'm saying that this does not necessarily mean that if you cohabitate before marriage, you personally are more likely to get divorced, I am still affected by this. I have had more than enough relationships to know that even letting a girl stay overnight is a bad idea for me, let alone the "marriage" relationships I had, sleeping over every night. For me, the only way I'm going to last in marriage is to isolate those activities for the future wife, or I'll end up jumping out a window over how stale they become.

[johnnymk]

Ski... your archived CNN link shows the divorce rate to be a lot worse than your graph:


It found that the probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within five years is 20 percent, compared with the 49 percent probability of a pre-marital cohabitation breaking up within the same time period.

After 10 years, the study found, a first marriage has a 33 percent chance of ending compared with a 62 percent chance for cohabitations.

[booger73]

Published in July 2002, based on data from the survey in 1995.. (Cycle 5)

I'm sure we've all had our experiences one way or the other ski.. I'll vouch for a good experience and a bad one.. Similarly, my wife, i think once said her mom told her, 'if you don't live with the guy and find out what he's really like before you get married, you shouldn't..'

Perhaps it's similar to some people's thoughts about pre-marital sex, for example.. people fall on different sides and feel that that leads to a lot of things also. I fall on the fact that I like to see what someone is really like (what's with their sleeping habits, cleaning habits, their weird nuisances, are they a slob) and i found that living with someone before was a good way.. i can think of some people who would say that's something you should discover along the way as you start a life together after you've been married. i, see it more as wanting to be prepared.. *shrug*

I think most people will do what they feel/think is right.. i think those statistics are like most statistics..

82.56% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
:)

[ski]

Published in July 2002, based on data from the survey in 1995.. (Cycle 5)
Oops, my bad. I'd be willing to bet though it has not decreased since 1995, based on the morals of our society shifting (my view at least).


It found that the probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within five years is 20 percent, compared with the 49 percent probability of a pre-marital cohabitation breaking up within the same time period.

After 10 years, the study found, a first marriage has a 33 percent chance of ending compared with a 62 percent chance for cohabitations.
:heh: Didn't even see that section. At any rate, it's interesting, because pre-marital cohabitation clearly is an factor in divorce rates. Other interesting factors are your parents' relationship (which was discussed in a thread here a long long time ago) and whether or not a woman has been raped :eek:

[booger73]

I bet it's even higher ;)

Although, who knows.. I still don't think it (cohabitation) would be the driving force behind divorces these days

[InfiniteNothing]

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what CrystalDuck said. I think that living together before getting married is sort of breaking the traditional rules regarding living together/marriage. Getting divorced is sort of the same thing. I think that certain people cling to those rules more than others.

I guess what I'm saying is that (imo) people living together prior to marriage, and people ultimately ending up gettting divorced may both be caused by their outlook on certain aspects of marriage/cohabitation - however premarital cohabitation is not necessarily a cause of divorce.

I'll third that.

It seems like staying together for the sake of tradition is a bit silly.

With that said, this study is useless if they didn't regress out religion/traditional thinking. I mean lets use our logic here, learning your "live in" dynamic is clearly worthwhile before you're "stuck" with them.

And on the subject a low divorce rate implies a high unhappy life rate because at least the divorcees aren't stuck with someone they don't like.

[booger73]

Interestingly.. looking at your graph, things separate after about 3 years..

So, does that mean the honeymoon is over after 3 years?

No longer the 7 year itch? It's the 3 year itch?

Let's see.. I've been married for 5..on the red line that puts me at ~25%.. wow, that sux :)

----------
And actually.. I just thought of something else.. I wonder if it's different for heterosexual vs. gay couples (the divorce/cohabit statistics)?

[DarkFury]

Bottom line...

Men don't generally get along with women (and vice versa)

It's nice to visit... but long term stays suck... and with Marriage you have a legal bond like superglue. Bonds tightly to skin and hurts like hell to separate should the need arise. :eek:

[ski]

With that said, this study is useless if they didn't regress out religion/traditional thinking. I mean lets use our logic here, learning your "live in" dynamic is clearly worthwhile before you're "stuck" with them.
They did include a section about religion. Like I said, there are several other aspects of a person's life that give separation in marriage/divorce figures.

[InfiniteNothing]

They did include a section about religion. Like I said, there are several other aspects of a person's life that give separation in marriage/divorce figures.

I get that. You still have to regress it out of the other data. For example lets say you have 1000 people. 500 got cohabitated 500 didn't. Lets say 150 of the cohabitators are religious and 400 of the noncohabitators are too. Now if religion plays a strong statistical role against divorce you'd expect the noncohabitators to have higher divorce rates. But that's statistically invalid because you're comparing apples to oranges (thus meaningless).

It could very well still be that religious cohabitators do better than religious noncohabitators AND nonreligous cohabitators do beter than nonreligous noncohabitators. This would be the case if positive religion was a stronger factor than positive cohabitation.

Make sense?

Corsec's argument (I think) was that people are so individual that you could never regress everything out of the data and that's somewhat valid.

[ski]

Corsec's argument (I think) was that people are so individual that you could never regress everything out of the data and that's somewhat valid.
As long as we see that there are things that differentiate the rates on a fundamental level. If the rates were static no matter what religion, living arrangement before marriage, history of rape, history of parents' relationship etc., then we could feel better saying that these things are nonfactors.

Since everyone's been chiming in with their personal opinions, I'll give my $0.02. For me to live with someone before marriage would mean that there would be hardly any differentiation, besides how we're viewed by the law, between dating+living together and married+living together. My view is that marriage is a journey, and your lifestyle changes as you enter it. I don't want to make the change beforehand, then a year later go to what would be a meaningless ceremony for me.

Just another thing. "It seems like staying together for the sake of tradition is a bit silly." I agree if it's soley tradition, but staying together for the sake of a religious tradition is hopefully respected.

[johnnymk]

Well, if religion doesn't keep people together, then it's other things.

Guess what, as in earlier times not very long ago, it's money. The economy stinks today, so people are increasingly staying together for money. And I believe, if the couple has kids, the big factor is the quality of their health insurance.

I stopped going to singles clubs a few years back. And that was when health insurance costs were lower than today. I couldn't believe how many so called "separated women"` living with their "exes" were out there looking for someone to link up with. I never asked them, but I became convinced that neither the ex or themself could afford to actually divorce.

It's amazing how things never change in spite of all the "revolutions".

[BigJon]

I would have figured it was the other way around. If you think about it, if you haven't lived with your SO before marriage, I would figure that you would learn about all their quirks and annoyances during that first hard year of marriage.

The little things would piss you off even more and cause you to divorce. In the other case, if you live with them before you get married, you can find out their quirks and decide to break up or "call of the marriage" before it happens.

But yeah, I think it depends on a lot of other factors as well. :shrug:

[ski]

The little things would piss you off even more and cause you to divorce. In the other case, if you live with them before you get married, you can find out their quirks and decide to break up or "call of the marriage" before it happens.

But yeah, I think it depends on a lot of other factors as well. :shrug:
My only fear is that if you go through that with several women, you'll be "worn out" in a way. It's hard to explain. To me I think it's like sex. Do it with too many people and it won't be as special when you do it with the one special lady in your life. Having too many "mini-marriages" would possibly dwarf the excitement of the real one. Meh, I don't know :)

[AmRivlin]

To me I think it's like sex. Do it with too many people and it won't be as special when you do it with the one special lady in your life.

Um, yea... I definatley don't get out enough then, cause I have never thought it wasn't special, or reached a point of too many women. :P

[BigJon]

My only fear is that if you go through that with several women, you'll be "worn out" in a way. It's hard to explain. To me I think it's like sex. Do it with too many people and it won't be as special when you do it with the one special lady in your life. Having too many "mini-marriages" would possibly dwarf the excitement of the real one. Meh, I don't know :)

Good point. But I reccommend maybe moving in when you decide to get engaged or something. That way you have made a decision to be together...but haven't completely gone through with it. Also, it is slightly easier to "un-attach"

[ray]

So who is going to conduct a study on this study?

Anyway, I think it really matters on the people involved in the relationship and the duration of their time together.

[hapoo]

I would have figured it was the other way around. If you think about it, if you haven't lived with your SO before marriage, I would figure that you would learn about all their quirks and annoyances during that first hard year of marriage.

The little things would piss you off even more and cause you to divorce. In the other case, if you live with them before you get married, you can find out their quirks and decide to break up or "call of the marriage" before it happens.

But yeah, I think it depends on a lot of other factors as well. :shrug:


heres how i look at it. If you marry someone without having lived with them, your already accepting them along with all their quirks. Once you've accepted something its harder to let go, and the small things get worked through. When your living together on a trial basis, you have yet to accept the other person, and when you then get married i think your still in evaluation mode. I think a lot of people just don't know what they want and either pick the wrong people, or nitpick at meaningless trivialities.

[BigJon]

I dunno. I know my co-worker never lived with her husband before-hand and now 2 years later she's getting pissed with his little quirks, as is he. Now they are living in separate states, fighting on the phone, and writing up divorce papers.

Ah...who knows. :shrug:

[ski]

I dunno. I know my co-worker never lived with her husband before-hand and now 2 years later she's getting pissed with his little quirks, as is he. Now they are living in separate states, fighting on the phone, and writing up divorce papers.

Ah...who knows. :shrug:
They are probably part of the lesser % of couples who did not cohabitate that have troubles and eventually divorce. Remember, both couples who do and don't choabitate get divorced, but in an adequate sample of couples, more divorce who do live together. That's the summary of the findings.


heres how i look at it. If you marry someone without having lived with them, your already accepting them along with all their quirks. Once you've accepted something its harder to let go, and the small things get worked through. When your living together on a trial basis, you have yet to accept the other person, and when you then get married i think your still in evaluation mode. I think a lot of people just don't know what they want and either pick the wrong people, or nitpick at meaningless trivialities.
Those were the words that I've been looking for :thumb:

but ultimately, to each his/her own!

[ufcrusher]

I think the real question is, if you were to look at the amount of time living together, whether married or just cohabitating, would the graphs look the same? As in, you live with your So for 3 years and then get married. After another 3 years, you reach the decision that this isnt working. Well the reality is you have been living like man and wife for 6 years at that point. You may not have had the legal obligations that you do once you are married, but you did have the ethical/financial ones.

Compare the divorce rate for people married 6 years with this individual and you may find that they are much closer together than this "study" shows.

Moving in with someone is a big step and shows an intention to commit. While some serial monogamist may do this several times, most individuals I know try to avoid it. Almost all of my friends live with their SO before getting engaged. (Most of them are still planning their weddings) Out of 12 people I know who lived together before getting engaged/married, only 2 of them has actually not gone on to a more committed relationship. One was after living together for 8 years when they realized they wanted very different things in life (children vs. none, selfish vs. giving). The other one was after over 6 years together they called it quits because of commitment issues. (They had some differences which led my friend to not want to agree to marry her, which led to their agreeing to separate)

Most couples who are seeing each other end up spending large amounts of time together. The difference between spending 24-7 with your SO when you have separate places and living together is almost purely academic in my mind. Its solely about appearances to the rest of the world. IF you feel that living with someone/coupling with them prior to marriage is wrong, well that is based on your religious beliefs. I think that these beliefs may mean you are less apt to seek divorce and that in itself leads to a slight discrepancy.

[InfiniteNothing]

They are probably part of the lesser % of couples who did not cohabitate that have troubles and eventually divorce. Remember, both couples who do and don't choabitate get divorced, but in an adequate sample of couples, more divorce who do live together. That's the summary of the findings.


Yes but look at the reasons. They could have avoided it if they lived together.

[ski]

Yes but look at the reasons. They could have avoided it if they lived together.
That's a weak statement IMO. Totally contradictory of the facts as well. And furthermore, this is an anecdotal case; you can't know if they could have avoided it.

The bottom line is this. There are lots of percentages out there. For example, I saw a commercial tonight that a painting service had 98% satisfaction rate. That doesn't mean that YOU (one case) have a 98% chance of being happy necessarily, but 98 out of 100 cases in the past are happy. Applying this principle, if you live with your boyfriend/girlfriend now and end up marrying them, you don't have an X% higher of getting divorced, but the facts are that a significant amount of couples in your situation do get divorced. Plain facts.

[InfiniteNothing]

That's a weak statement IMO. Totally contradictory of the facts as well. And furthermore, this is an anecdotal case; you can't know if they could have avoided it.

What fact does it contradict? It's perfectly logical to assume that if they were to live together for 2 years they would have realized they were incompatible and that would be one less divorce and one less grievance in their life. I never claimed to be 100% sure but let's use our brains here.


The bottom line is this. There are lots of percentages out there. For example, I saw a commercial tonight that a painting service had 98% satisfaction rate. That doesn't mean that YOU (one case) have a 98% chance of being happy necessarily, but 98 out of 100 cases in the past are happy. Applying this principle, if you live with your boyfriend/girlfriend now and end up marrying them, you don't have an X% higher of getting divorced, but the facts are that a significant amount of couples in your situation do get divorced. Plain facts.

No one's arguing to the contrary.

Also, UFC has a good point.

[Mike_N_Ike]

I don't think the statistics are wrong - I just think that this particular set of them is misinterpretted wrong most of the time.

Here's what I think of when I hear stuff like this:
100 people go outside every day
It rains one out of 10 days
90 of the 100 people wear an umbrella on the rainy day and 18 of them still get wet

Soooo, of the 910 people who went out without an umbrella, 10 got wet (1.1%)
Of the 90 people who went out with an umbrella, 18 got wet (20%).

Therefore, you are about 18 times as likely to get wet if you go outside with an umbrella as you are if you go out without one. If you want to stay dry - better ditch the umbrella all together.

[ski]

What fact does it contradict? It's perfectly logical to assume that if they were to live together for 2 years they would have realized they were incompatible and that would be one less divorce and one less grievance in their life. I never claimed to be 100% sure but let's use our brains here.
This is a "what if?" scenario. What if they lived together for six months and got married? One year? One year and 364 days? They could have been perfectly in love after X amount of time, gotten married, and a year later got divorced, adding to the cohabitation numbers. Instead, they are part of the non-cohabitation numbers. His statement made it sound like he thought people who don't cohabitate before marriage NEVER divorce. The chart says otherwise. At any rate, this is one case, and it seems very far-fetched to me to say with confidence that it could have been avoided.

I reiterated my point because what I feel that matters is the cold hard facts. We can argue points all day about what it means, but it's such a touchy subject that I would rather just present the facts and let everyone do their own thing (hence my hesitation to post my own feelings on it), and see how everyone works out.

:cheers:

[hapoo]

well, if infinatenothing and ski are pissed off enough to separate from one another, and they've never lived together, i wonder how that skews that statistics :hmm:

[Bires]

They need another column of data, "Knocked up" :spock:

[LPMiller]

I agree with Bires. How many of those that got married first, "Had to?". How many of those living together first were doing so due the pregnancy? How relevent was that to the relationship/divorce rate?

It's pretty simple, I think. Those that aren't sweating marriage as a living together requirement, also don't sweat divorce in the same way. At least, usually. You cannot say that living together first increases divorce, that's false logic. You have to figure out what about people who live together first makes them more likely to divorce? It's too complex to break down into black and white numbers.

[ski]

You cannot say that living together first increases divorce, that's false logic.
Nobody's saying that ;) The 98% satisfaction rate example is the best way to put it IMO.

I'd reiterate for a 3rd time, but IN would kill me :heh: I am going to stick with the facts that we all agree upon: more couple who live together before marriage divorce. The interpretation is the getcha.

[InfiniteNothing]

I'd reiterate for a 3rd time, but IN would kill me :heh:

Indeed

[InfiniteNothing]

I don't think the statistics are wrong - I just think that this particular set of them is misinterpretted wrong most of the time.

Here's what I think of when I hear stuff like this:
100 people go outside every day
It rains one out of 10 days
90 of the 100 people wear an umbrella on the rainy day and 18 of them still get wet

Soooo, of the 910 people who went out without an umbrella, 10 got wet (1.1%)
Of the 90 people who went out with an umbrella, 18 got wet (20%).

Therefore, you are about 18 times as likely to get wet if you go outside with an umbrella as you are if you go out without one. If you want to stay dry - better ditch the umbrella all together.

Well..

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

[ski]

Well..


There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
<Family Guy>

Benjamin Disraeli: You don't even know who I am!

</Family Guy>

[Mike_N_Ike]

<Family Guy>

Benjamin Disraeli: You don't even know who I am!

</Family Guy>
:heh:

[nickel]

i have become cynical about stats only because they pull the rug out from under us so many times with studies and change them and their outcomes.

my feelings on this subject are that some couples are going to make it for the long haul and some couples are not. i really don't think living together before marriage has that great of a bearing.

[GracieBayb]

some couples are going to make it for the long haul and some couples are not. i really don't think living together before marriage has that great of a bearing.

:stupid: i agree. if the statistical results showed evidence that couples who had lived together before marriage were at less of a risk of getting divorced than those who never lived together before marriage, i wouldn't feel any differently about cohabitation. if it works out: great; if it doesn't: you hope for the best.

[ShawnLee]

Eh, I note this simple thought with the ideals of marriage, courtesy of my male group counseling professor.
"The great thing about a healthy marriage is that your wife knows those things that get her angry, know your little quirks that you wouldn't tell another soul, and knows how much of a flawed and depraved person you are but still chooses to love you."

I don't know how the dynamics of that would play out in these stats.

[riskykougra]

Well I dont know much about statistics but I lived with my ex-husband before we got married. It didnt help. I think you can live with someone and still not really "know" them for years. By then you are married and lookin for the way out. LOL. Atleast I was. I really think some people are never meant to get married..doesnt mean you cant have one partner...just the whole marriage thing ruins it. But like I said thats just my opinion.

[zero2dash]

Let me start by saying first of all I think statistics are nothing to really put much thought or care into; I take them all with a grain of salt. I've had statistics my whole life tell me things that weren't true. I had severe bipolar depression problems while growing up, and statistically, I was going to commit suicide because of it. Did I? (Obviously) not. (I still have bipolar, but it's under control and doesn't affect my life like it used to. Music and video games got me through adolescence.) I've played violent video games ever since the Atari era, and I don't just mean Mortal Kombat...how about all the old stuff like Contra and Punch Out where you shoot people and beat them up, etc.? Statistics show that I should be a violent person and/or I could shoot my classmates. Am I/did I? No.

**edit** I didn't really think about this before typing it beforehand, but as cheapie mentioned, those studies don't say that I "will" do these things, the studies say "I'm more likely". So ignore this train of thought please, 'cause I just got SERVED. :heh:

Statistics are ok, but I think they're stupid to follow. I'm not a statistic, I'm a human being. I'm an individual. I don't follow what other people do like lemmings; if you jump off a bridge, I'm not gonna follow you (unless I've got a parachute and I'm trying to save your butt). :)

I'll try to keep this soapbox brief and quick 'cause I have a lot of opinions on marriage and love and divorce rates nowadays - :thumbdown:

People get married for stupid reasons these days, and they quite often get engaged and/or married too soon in a relationship. People get divorces all the time because they have no moral fiber and would rather "quit" than "work it out" which to me shows that they were never in love in the first place with the person they were with. :disa:

I've known my wife over 6 years. We dated for a few months roughly 4 1/2 years ago, and then broke up because I was still fixated on getting my ex gf back which made my life a series of trials and torment for the following 3 years. Finally I got sick of my ex and told her off and said she wasn't worth it (which she wasn't) and I moved into another apartment and at the time I had started talking to Valerie (my wife) again. After I moved, we started dating again and I was able to think with a clear mind and conscience again in our relationship because Christina (my ex) was out of the picture. About a month after Valerie and I started hanging out and going out again, I gave her a key to my apartment because a lot of times she'd spend the night (not necessarily for sex, just so she didn't have to drive home late at night; at the time I worked a 9a-5p job and she worked 3p-11p). I knew this time that the love I felt for Valerie was real because I almost said "I love you" to her without ever thinking about it, like it almost just came out, out of nowhere (which never happened with Christina whom I thought I had been in love with before) and after a few months I proposed to Valerie. We lived together for 2 years before getting married September 2004. We started planning on having a baby and we got pregnant in March of 2004 (but were already engaged so it wasn't a marriage due to pregnancy).

I knew my wife a long time before we got married and I knew who she was and how she was to live with. (As did she with me.) I love my wife and my baby girl Chloe more than anything in the world and I would never get divorced from my wife. She could beat the hell out of me, and I'd still love her just the same. We both agree that the only reason we'd leave is if the other cheated which isn't a problem because we're both devoted to one another firsthand and secondly to 'our little family'. And when I say "leave", I don't mean "divorce"; I mean along the lines of "separated temporarily, living in different houses, etc". I hate divorces and I dislike people who get divorced without a good reason (ie infidelity) because I think a divorce is an easy way out and marriage should be thought out and the feelings between spouses should be true and equal between the two.

I can't believe rates are higher when people live together first; I'm shocked it's not the opposite. But more important than living together first is thinking out things and figuring out what you want. Again I think people get married for a lot of stupid reasons nowadays and they get married too quick and it never works out. Look at Hollywood...Hollywood marriages are a frickin' joke. Tom Cruise just got engaged to Katie Holmes after 2 months of dating...OHHH YEAH, THAT ONE'S GONNA LAST. Hollywood people get marriages and divorces more than they get new cars, jewelry, houses, etc. Do I even have to mention how many marriages J-Ho has had??? I think a lot of people look at Hollywood and follow suit and that's why the divorce rate has climbed so much.

Marriage used to be a sacred unity between two people who love each other.
Now it's just another "status symbol" for people to gloat about. :disa: And that makes me frickin' sick. :mad2:

People can say "well I got engaged after only dating for a few months" but like I said, I've known my wife for over 6 years and dated her and lived with her in the past...it's not like we bumped into each other off the street, got in a relationship, and said "what the hell".

-my (lengthy) two cents-

[InfiniteNothing]

Just wondering but is there a reason you don't like people getting divorced for (in your opinion) frivolous reasons? I've never really understood people worring about divorce rates.

Do I think divorce rates are higher with people who lived together before marriage? Hell no.
That's not quite debatable at this point. You may want to consider rephrasing.

[cheapie]

i'm amazed at the lengths people are going to to discredit this study w/o having any real reason to do so. if you want to live together, fine. but as someone that works in marketing and has taken a LOT of stats classes, it's a pretty well written and thorough study. it's done by the cdc, not a right-wing religious group pushing their agenda.


snipped

the stats didn't say you WERE going to commit suicide or that you WERE going to kill people because of the games, they say you have a higher risk for it. which is true.

[zero2dash]

Just wondering but is there a reason you don't like people getting divorced for (in your opinion) frivolous reasons? I've never really understood people worring about divorce rates.

That's not quite debatable at this point. You may want to consider rephrasing.

I just think it's wrong; that's all. I think if people go through the process of getting married, they should at least try to work it out. I think that if you want to file for divorce, you should have to try counseling first and if that doesn't work, then you can get divorced. Of course a law like that would never happen because it'd be labeled "unconstitutional". But I think if more divorce applicants tried to work things out instead of just "pulling the plug", then the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.

As for my thoughts on divorce when living together vs not living together - I admit that the stats show that it is higher when living together first (I'm not blind to the fact). I don't see how it is this way, and I can't believe it's not the opposite way, but I'm not going to argue my opinion against black-and-white facts.


i'm amazed at the lengths people are going to to discredit this study w/o having any real reason to do so. if you want to live together, fine. but as someone that works in marketing and has taken a LOT of stats classes, it's a pretty well written and thorough study. it's done by the cdc, not a right-wing religious group pushing their agenda.

the stats didn't say you WERE going to commit suicide or that you WERE going to kill people because of the games, they say you have a higher risk for it. which is true.

It's not that I'm trying to discredit this study; I don't agree with it, yes, but its factual information vs my opinion (again). Sure I've got strong convictions tied to my opinion (as do most people) but I can't argue a thought vs a known fact; I'd look like a jackass (moreso than I already do sometimes). :hihi: I am glad to see most studies done nowadays by independent groups; it makes information that I don't agree with an easier pill to swallow. :)

As for the stats I mentioned - you're right on that account as well. I didn't really think about that when typing what I did, but, it's true that they say "more likely" with those stats, they don't say "will". <smacks self> :bonk:

[riskykougra]

Well you are entitled to your opinion...even if not everyone agrees. My ex and I split because he began using drugs again even though he had been clean for years. So it may not be as important and issue to you as infidelity...but no piece of paper in the world was going to make me try to raise my kids with a drug addict thankyou very much. So you may be against divorce but people have their reasons which to some may not be as important to others. It all depends on what you are willing to live with and some people put up with waaaaay too much because they have been brainwashed into thinking divorce is sooooo wrong. If it doesnt work out, dust yourself off and move on. I think its worse to stay in any relationship just because and wind up suffering your whole life and having it more than likely affect any children you have in a negative way.

p.s. and you may not agree with my opinion...but its mine!

[LegendKiller]

I think there are many other variables that can cause issues with the study.


1. How old were the people when they cohabitated.

2. What situation were they in. Were they going to have a baby, did they not have any money, etc...

3. How "well off" are the people, types of jobs, education level...etc.

4. Whether the people are alike. Introverts with extroverts, mommas/daddies boy/girl...etc.



Steph and I have lived together for ~6 of our 7 years together. It started our junior year in college when she lived with crappy roommates and continues today. I personally think we have grown together a lot and I have learned a great deal about her.

One of the big things that seems to get women when they go into marriage after cohabitating is they think it will be different after marriage. The guy will change, marriage will be blissful, things will be much better, babies will come and tie us together.

That just ain't the case.

Furthermore, one thing that really hurts relationships is the maturity status or distance from parents. I know many couples who have massive problems because they are just different.

I know more that have problems because they revolve their lives around their kids and have *no* time for eachother. This is probably the biggest destroyer of marriage, elimination of romance and sex life. People attribute it to money, but I don't.

Studies that just take a gross outlook on an attribute are stupid.

[zero2dash]

My ex and I split because he began using drugs again even though he had been clean for years. So it may not be as important and issue to you as infidelity...but no piece of paper in the world was going to make me try to raise my kids with a drug addict thankyou very much.

That's another good reason. I'm sorry you had to go through that but (hopefully) it made you a stronger person afterwards. It's not that I think there's only one or two reasons to get divorced or that's the amount when I think it's ok to divorce - marriage/relationships/love goes along with a lot of things in life which is everyone has their own experiences...it goes along with a commonly tossed around g|a phrase: YMMV. :) Everyone has their breaking point and no one is similar in every way so what's good for me might be utter crap for you.

I don't have the end-all, be-all answer and I'm not looking to chastise people for anything because if you're happy with your life then I'm happy for you; don't live your life for someone else and don't change your life for someone else just because they tell you to. If anything else that's the one thing I hate the most in this world is people who try to push their beliefs and opinions and lifestyles onto other people and make them change the way they live just to appease them; f that. No one can tell me or you or anyone how to live their own life no matter how old they are.

I guess I'll just say it simply this way...Dr. Phil is a wise man and I agree with everything I've ever heard him say. (As a self-proclaimed "good guy" I can say that and be proud of it. Men are fans of Dr. Phil too.) :hehehmm: If you experience something in life and Dr. Phil would say "get the hell outta there" or "that's unfortunate" then I will be behind you 100%. The things you mentioned are things that I would support you for making the decision you made because you had no choice. It goes along with people making wrong decisions in their lives and/or having messed up priorities. And in your case, this affected you negatively because your signifcant other had messed up priorities and it made your life worse so you did what you should've done, which is better yourself by removing yourself from the situation; obviously in that case the other person (most likely) won't change their behavior so there's nothing you can do except a) continue being with that person and let them ruin your life or b) better yourself and leave.

[ski]

Studies that just take a gross outlook on an attribute are stupid.
I agree.

But keep in mind this study was not done to prove anything.

[riskykougra]

wow Zero, Dr.Phil better watch out cause I'm thinking you could give him a run for his job. It's nice to see you put alot of thought into your answers and you seem genuinely aware of what it is you are saying. I think communication in a relationship is the key and if you communicate with your wife as well as you do here you will do just fine. Wish the best for you and your family :thumb:

[LegendKiller]

I agree.

But keep in mind this study was not done to prove anything.


I disagree. Every study done has a reason for creation, no matter how agenda free they may seem. Furthermore, the spurrious corellations drawn from "studies" of this nature only fan the flames of stupidity as people try to devine real world issues from stupid studies done with false data and foolish conclusions.

Nothing is as simple as X causes Y, unless you talk about theories that remove all reasonable real world situations. Kinda like how many economic or financial theories remove taxes, transaction costs, and air to make some kind of sense out of their models.



I guess I'll just say it simply this way...Dr. Phil is a wise man and I agree with everything I've ever heard him say. (As a self-proclaimed "good guy" I can say that and be proud of it. Men are fans of Dr. Phil too.) :hehehmm: If you experience something in life and Dr. Phil would say "get the hell outta there" or "that's unfortunate" then I will be behind you 100%


Dr. Phil is much like most profit seeking psychology professionals. Personally I think he is a fraud and really only caters to the masses as some kind of help-all BS magician. It is unfortunate that the psychology profession has sunk so low.

[ski]

Nothing is as simple as X causes Y, unless you talk about theories that remove all reasonable real world situations. Kinda like how many economic or financial theories remove taxes, transaction costs, and air to make some kind of sense out of their models.
I didn't expect anyone to read the entire study, but if you didn't, this aspect was a very small part of it. The study wasn't about cohabitation; it was about relationships in general. My point (that someone else mentioned) is that there are right-wing groups that shoot numbers around from their own studies intended to make you think that if you cohabitate before marriage you will have a higher chance of divorce. This isn't one of them (IMO). All this shows is something simple: people who cohabitate before marriage (FOR WHATEVER REASON) end up getting divorced at a higher rate. That's it! End of story! You can try to prove/disprove anything further with it, but those are the facts, and I think we can all agree on that fundamental conclusion.

[LegendKiller]

LOL, yeah, and there is a "fact" that when the NFC wins the super bowl the economy is going to go in a recession. Wow, yay, there is a correlation there. Now everybody can play the market and win right?

Ummm...no. Correlation does not infer causation.

Furthermore, there are way too many other variables, such as population and sample location and size.

This is the problem with statistics. People rely on others to be ethical and correct in their testing and simply accept the conclusion and correlation. They do not know enough to defend themselves from stupid conclusions or testing.

[ski]

LOL, yeah, and there is a "fact" that when the NFC wins the super bowl the economy is going to go in a recession. Wow, yay, there is a correlation there. Now everybody can play the market and win right?

Ummm...no. Correlation does not infer causation.

Furthermore, there are way too many other variables, such as population and sample location and size.

This is the problem with statistics. People rely on others to be ethical and correct in their testing and simply accept the conclusion and correlation. They do not know enough to defend themselves from stupid conclusions or testing.
Huh? Such an absurd comparison ignores every reasoning people came up with in this thread. So you're questioning everything everyone said that things like poverty, pregnancy, and other factors affect these numbers?

And who said anything about causation?

[LegendKiller]

Huh? Such an absurd comparison ignores every reasoning people came up with in this thread. So you're questioning everything everyone said that things like poverty, pregnancy, and other factors affect these numbers?

And who said anything about causation?


I think we are saying the same thing :)

[ski]

lol

*shake hands* :)

[zero2dash]

wow Zero, Dr.Phil better watch out cause I'm thinking you could give him a run for his job. It's nice to see you put alot of thought into your answers and you seem genuinely aware of what it is you are saying. I think communication in a relationship is the key and if you communicate with your wife as well as you do here you will do just fine. Wish the best for you and your family :thumb:

Thanks, and I wish the best to you as well. I don't know if I could give him a run for his money; he's got a bigger fanbase than I do. :) And that psycology degree...that could be another problem.

But in all seriousness, I think that nowadays it seems like the majority of people throw "common sense" out the window, which I don't understand. I do what I can, and I try to help people out as much as possible, especially when I can give them advice on things that I've been through before. It's a lot easier to listen to advice and/or common sense from a friend or relative than it is to listen to it from someone else like a doctor (especially one that you've just met). I think Dr. Phil is a good preacher about common sense. But he has more tv shows and books than I do. :D


Dr. Phil is much like most profit seeking psychology professionals. Personally I think he is a fraud and really only caters to the masses as some kind of help-all BS magician. It is unfortunate that the psychology profession has sunk so low.

:stupid:

What is there about him that you think is a fraud?

He's a licensed clinical psycologist; he has no different qualifications than any other licensed practicing psycologist. The only difference between him and the rest is that he gained popularity and star status because he was on Oprah for a long time. Aside from his tv show (which is nothing more than open forum q&a), he's written several books and answers questions people have for him. A lot of people would rather ask him questions than try to get a psycologist, schedule appointments, arrange for insurance payment, etc. I don't think he's a "know-all" guy and I don't think he portrays himself in that manner; I do however think he's a smart guy and most of the stuff he says is common sense. It's not like he's a hack and he has no qualifications or skills and all he does is throw darts at the wall and that's how he gets his answers and "insight".

So, what again is it about him that makes him a fraud? :confused:

And as for profit seeking - he does't force people to buy his book. There's plenty of libraries across the United States which offer free book checkout and free library cards; no one is forced to purchase anything he markets or sells. And besides that, half the time he gives stuff away to people who are deserving or otherwise have fallen on hard times. A show he had a few weeks ago, there was a young girl who was like 24 and taking care of her mother and her 5 brothers and sisters and had been doing so for like 9 years and she was working a full time job and driving a clunker car and wishing she had the money to go to college. He gave her whole family a vacation, and then he gave her a full scholarship, a check for $25,000, and a brand new car. Quite the opposite of "profit seeking" if you ask me. :rolleyes:

[cheapie]

well...he's fat and he sells diet advice.

[zero2dash]

well...he's fat and he sells diet advice.

I don't think he's fat. :)

And as for selling diet advice, most of what I've seen him market is (again) common sense stuff and has to deal with fixing the inner person inside you before attempting to lose weight and change your outer persona. Not a far off idea, since most people who are aiming to lose weight have a low self esteem about themselves because of their weight. A lot of people who have failed at losing weight in the past have tried a lot of diets and have never been successful, but at the same time they've probably never tried to get over personal issues that make them eat; ie they eat to dull away the pain.

And who isn't trying to "sell diet advice" these days? How many "diets" have been introduced in the last year and a half, and how many of them really work? I've seen book after book and there hasn't been a breakthrough yet where there's millions of people who lose weight and all the sudden the US isn't the most overweight nation on the planet anymore.

And again - who's forcing anyone to buy his stuff? It's not like this is the IRS and Dr. Phil takes $20 out of your paycheck and says "ha ha sucker". :gle:

[LegendKiller]

Thanks, and I wish the best to you as well. I don't know if I could give him a run for his money; he's got a bigger fanbase than I do. :) And that psycology degree...that could be another problem.

But in all seriousness, I think that nowadays it seems like the majority of people throw "common sense" out the window, which I don't understand. I do what I can, and I try to help people out as much as possible, especially when I can give them advice on things that I've been through before. It's a lot easier to listen to advice and/or common sense from a friend or relative than it is to listen to it from someone else like a doctor (especially one that you've just met). I think Dr. Phil is a good preacher about common sense. But he has more tv shows and books than I do. :D



:stupid:

What is there about him that you think is a fraud?

He's a licensed clinical psycologist; he has no different qualifications than any other licensed practicing psycologist. The only difference between him and the rest is that he gained popularity and star status because he was on Oprah for a long time. Aside from his tv show (which is nothing more than open forum q&a), he's written several books and answers questions people have for him. A lot of people would rather ask him questions than try to get a psycologist, schedule appointments, arrange for insurance payment, etc. I don't think he's a "know-all" guy and I don't think he portrays himself in that manner; I do however think he's a smart guy and most of the stuff he says is common sense. It's not like he's a hack and he has no qualifications or skills and all he does is throw darts at the wall and that's how he gets his answers and "insight".

So, what again is it about him that makes him a fraud? :confused:

And as for profit seeking - he does't force people to buy his book. There's plenty of libraries across the United States which offer free book checkout and free library cards; no one is forced to purchase anything he markets or sells. And besides that, half the time he gives stuff away to people who are deserving or otherwise have fallen on hard times. A show he had a few weeks ago, there was a young girl who was like 24 and taking care of her mother and her 5 brothers and sisters and had been doing so for like 9 years and she was working a full time job and driving a clunker car and wishing she had the money to go to college. He gave her whole family a vacation, and then he gave her a full scholarship, a check for $25,000, and a brand new car. Quite the opposite of "profit seeking" if you ask me. :rolleyes:


He is a fraud, like many in the psychology profession, because he takes advantage of his position to do more harm than good. His "common sense" advice is sometimes more hurtful than helpful and he is a pretty damn big hypocrite (as cheapie mentioned). He has thrown away the importance of the psychology profession in gathering information, studying and anlyzing said information, forming conclusions based upon known patterns, and coming to a decent conclusion. Instead he uses hard hitting cliches that appeal to the common masses who think "Gee whiz, he's got it!"

In the end is is a sellout and is one of the reasons why I became disgusted by the psychology profession and decided not to persue it, besides thinking that 90% of the psrinks out there are profit seeking leeching fools.

[Jeffbx]

:stupid:

He's a fraud & an idiot, and I think he does more harm than good.

He reduces 'therapy' to short snippets that can appeal to the masses & gives the impression that these are 'common sense fixes' to problems. In reality, there are a HUGE number of reasons for people to act like they do, and if they are having enough problems that they need to seek counseling, five minutes on camera isn't going to do anything to solve their problems.

His main concern is making money & entertaining people, not solving people's problems.

[zero2dash]

He is a fraud, like many in the psychology profession, because he takes advantage of his position to do more harm than good. His "common sense" advice is sometimes more hurtful than helpful and he is a pretty damn big hypocrite (as cheapie mentioned). He has thrown away the importance of the psychology profession in gathering information, studying and anlyzing said information, forming conclusions based upon known patterns, and coming to a decent conclusion. Instead he uses hard hitting cliches that appeal to the common masses who think "Gee whiz, he's got it!"

In the end is is a sellout and is one of the reasons why I became disgusted by the psychology profession and decided not to persue it, besides thinking that 90% of the psrinks out there are profit seeking leeching fools.

He gives people advice and tells them what they should do, but we never see what happens behind the scenes. I'm sure he sets people up with psycologists in their area/hometown and tells them to go see them. I seriously doubt he just gives people a few lines of advice and says "next" and a giant hook comes out of the side of the picture, grabs the person, yanks them offstage, and then another person with a problem is dropped 'from above'.

[LegendKiller]

He gives people advice and tells them what they should do, but we never see what happens behind the scenes. I'm sure he sets people up with psycologists in their area/hometown and tells them to go see them. I seriously doubt he just gives people a few lines of advice and says "next" and a giant hook comes out of the side of the picture, grabs the person, yanks them offstage, and then another person with a problem is dropped 'from above'.


and he devines this great information from 10 minutes? 2 days? A week? It takes months to build a correct rapport with a patient and then years to seek the correct solution. It isn't some stupid quick fix with a bunch of hard hitting statements. Every situation is different and do not fit within the same algorithm.

I highly doubt he does anything beyond his show. He doesn't know everybody in the psychology profession, nor is there a "Dr. Phil society" that I know of (and I still stay current on psych events).

[riskykougra]

LOL! Ok who wants to be president of the Dr.Phil fan club...since its obvious u all love him soooooo much. To be honest though I have never seen his show...I find him kinda of dull. But then again I dont watch alot of tv...unless its Survivor. :thumbup: