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

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:



Guess after 15 years is where they get the 50% of marriages end in divorce figure. Found an archived CNN article 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?

__________________
And closer...

Hiro

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

My two cents.

__________________
-Corsec-

ski

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

wow, you seem a bit defensive about this man. don't worry. it's just a study as you stated.

__________________
"I pick my nose too but never eat it." - bachviet, 3/30/04

if anyone wants to go scuba diving in oahu or wants to learn who to scuba dive in oahu, PM me.

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.

__________________
-Mike

ski

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.

__________________
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” (Winston Churchill)

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

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).

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

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

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.

__________________
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

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.

__________________


DarkFury's Pimptopia - Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Game!
Home of the Original OG Pimp (accept NO imitations)

ski

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

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

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.

__________________

ski

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

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.

__________________
Got|Apex Senior Experienced Poster
SEP

BigJon

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

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.

ski

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.

Those were the words that I've been looking for

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.

__________________
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine...Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been....

InfiniteNothing

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