The living together conundrum
Living together may sound like a good idea, but in practice it seems to lead to a higher percentage of break-ups and divorces. And this appears to not just be because those who live together are pre-selected for characteristics that make it more likely that they’ll part, but because there seems to be something in the act of living together itself that helps to foster break-ups.
One thing that is not in dispute is that the percentage of people living together before marriage has skyrocketed beyond the growth in population over the same time:
In 1960, about 450,000 unmarried couples lived together. Now the number is more than 7.5 million.
Another fact is that, whatever the reality, the perception (at least among young people) is that living together before marriage makes it less likely that a split will occur:
In a nationwide survey conducted in 2001 by the National Marriage Project, then at Rutgers and now at the University of Virginia, nearly half of 20-somethings agreed with the statement, “You would only marry someone if he or she agreed to live together with you first, so that you could find out whether you really get along.” About two-thirds said they believed that moving in together before marriage was a good way to avoid divorce.
The phenomenon of living together causing more breakups is called the “cohabitation effect”:
Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself.
Why? Here’s one idea about the explanation, and it makes a certain amount of sense:
Women are more likely to view cohabitation as a step toward marriage, while men are more likely to see it as a way to test a relationship or postpone commitment, and this gender asymmetry is associated with negative interactions and lower levels of commitment even after the relationship progresses to marriage.
I have little doubt that these differences can work the other way; there are lots of women who use living together as a way to avoid commitment, as well. For both sexes, it can happen that, “I felt like I was on this multiyear, never-ending audition to be his wife [or her husband],” as one of the article’s interviewees says.
Doesn’t that sum up the essence of it? Doubt and questioning can become a habit. If we enter a relationship constantly evaluating it, we can keep on evaluating it on a moment-by-moment basis. That’s a recipe for trouble in a marriage. To always be on trial means to be always found wanting, because who among us is so perfect that someone else would want to be with us every free minute of every day?
Some people would chalk up these problems to a lack of religion. And although that may be part of it, it’s certainly not the whole explanation or anywhere near it. My parents, for example, were not religious, and yet they would never have lived together before marriage, nor would they have divorced except under the most egregious circumstances, and maybe not even then. It just Wasn’t Done by nice folks. You leapt into marriage and that was that, because that was where you tended to stay and you knew it at the outset.
I don’t think we can go back, either. We’ve become used to freedom, and social ostracism does not follow divorce the way it used to. And that’s not likely to change, either.
[NOTE: I’m fairly certain that some commenters will bring up the idea of the unfairness of some divorce awards, and the fact that many people—particularly men—avoid marriage because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that they will lose everything in a divorce initiated capriciously by the other party. I left that whole discussion out of this post because I don’t think it explains the cohabitation effect, which is the topic at hand. Those risks of unfair distribution of assets after divorce would be true whether or not a couple lives together before marriage.]
In my feed reader, your post came directly after one by Garrett Jones, guest-blogging for Megan McArdle. It’s on stimulus and austerity. Yet I couldn’t help seeing connections between your two pieces:
This is why pleas for “Stimulus now, austerity later” in the U.S. and Europe have the ring of chalkboard economics: Looks great in (someone’s) theory, but out in the real world the market and the citizens see right through it. The biggest economic problems are political: And the biggest political problem is commitment.
Maybe the same phenomenon is happening when you try to “ease into” marriage by cohabiting. Without that upfront signal of commitment–that marriage used to be–neither side truly believes the other.
Living together may sound like a good idea, but in practice it seems to lead to a higher percentage of break-ups and divorces.
duh…
and guess who recommends it?
the eugenicists front (Feminists)
they also recomend putting off births so your odds of downs syndrom, adhd, and other things goes up
and that infertility becomes easy, and conceiving hard.
then there is free rubbers, which dont work, but because they are free. make other birth control that DOES work, expensive. (but they also make money from accidents)
and you cant forget the advice to have lots of sex early on, as the STD that you most commonly get makes you infertile (And causes cancer)
oh. and don’t forget to blame the men for not using any, they only have abstinence, infertility or not too good rubbers as a choice.. while she has 23 different forms to pick from
wait till the after birth abortions are legal..
[tons more… but who cares… everyone wants the extermination of western civ through genocide, and the victims are too busy defending the process to preserve their egos… so who cares?]
there seems to be something in the act of living together itself that helps to foster break-ups.
yes.. we can label it
“feminist caused one foot out the door commitment”
that is… both feminist wives and single women do not commit all the way…
both have one foot out of the door with the open option of the BBD.. the bigger better deal… if mr big comes along, then they can go for it.
but alas… partial loyalty is not stable..
even if never ever acted on, the one foot out the door commitment, and no terms dissolution of contracts on whim…
mean nothing is stable.
lack of religion makes it even less stable.
which is the whole reason for recomending it. its not like we didnt know this is the outcome, we had liberal leftist arguing we dont know, so have to true it, or we know its the hegelian opposite, so do it.
but the bottom line is that a uncommitted made is a half person, and so the eventual thing is that the fragility of the thing will result in a snap of the rubber band.
contrast that with Cortez… burn the ships and get full commitment… ergo, women had marraige burn the ships before women told them to leave them for escape… then redefined abuse to be things like raising your voice… or getting angry that your mate is spending you in to bankruptcy and your oppressing her for trying to stop her. or control of finances (trying to stop her). and so on
you only have to go to the mens movement places to get a complete dissection.. without ideology.. and without talking for the other side, the way the women do… (they pretend to talk for both sides, then claim to be geniuses for winning the argument… their audience missed that completely)
but remember. the whole thing started with the free love and sex communes. a living condition that resembles the tight relationships of bonobo chimps…
they have sex with everyone and have no bonds..
but please… this is PLANNED..
its just idiots dont listen to what their leaders are promising them… in fact, they believe that that is just hyperbolic rhetoric and ignore it.
but if a core goal is the destruction of marraige and heterosexual pair bonding..
then why are you wondering that the recommendations are leading to destruction of marraige and end of heterosexual pair bonding?
(in favor of lesbian pair bonding, reduction of males (leaving more women for the lesbians) and so on)
and funky me. i dont make this up, i just read the leaders when the followers dont.
ok.
lets make it kindergartn simple
if you listen to the following people, SHOULD you expect to have the kind of life they oppose, and you want?
“Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.” — Ti-Grace Atkinson
nope… her advice wont help
“[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they ‘marry’ and raise children.” — Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294
nope, her advice will not be conducive either
“Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of semen…[Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny… ” — Cheryl Clarke, “Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance,” in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color
she wont help you with mr big, she wants to BE mr big (ergo hating all males, they get the sex she wants)
“It became increasingly clear to us that the institution of marriage `protects’ women in the same way that the institution of slavery was said to `protect’ blacks–that is, that the word `protection’ in this case is simply a euphemism for oppression,” — Sheila Cronan, “Marriage,” in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 214
she isnt helping either..
if you want marriage, family, and so on, why support these people AT ALL? because they are monolithic, and monomaniacal and so on.
but how can you follow such peoples advice and expect to have normal heterosexual relations, children, and a decent life? (if you did, what would their job be? without female disatisfaction they are NOTHING. so they hurt women and twist that they are helping!)
“Marriage is a form of slavery.” — Sheila Cronan, “Marriage,” in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 216.
[edited for length by n-n]
Artfldgr: feminism is not the cause of everything you think it is, although I agree that it’s had a negative effect on the idea of commitment for a host of reasons. But many men (and many women as well) had problems with commitment to a single person well before feminism’s advent, and in cultures that don’t subscribe to it.
The difference was (among other things) that most societies back then didn’t sanction and make easy the de jure (through divorce) severance of the marriage commitment. But many societies certainly made its de facto violation (infidelity) quite easy in many cases, and usually made it more easy for men than for women. Also, since life expectancy was lower, there was a tendency for people to lose their spouses (especially when a lot of women died in childbirth) so people got to take on new spouses more often in that particular way.
I have always rejected the ideas of the women you quote, and I don’t think most women accept them either, although I’ve not seen surveys on that. I have no doubt, though, that many of the most vocal and active members of the women’s movement do subscribe to that sort of thinking, and that it has permeated the movement of feminism, which is why many women reject that movement except in its “equal pay for equal work” manifestation. Again, I don’t have figures.
And, by the way, I have never been in favor of affirmative action of any type (even when I was a liberal), including for women, although my guess would be that this particular aspect of feminism has a fair amount of popularity among women.
“The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.” — Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race, (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
hey! didnt she start planned parenthood to exterminate negros, and chinese and so on?
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit–that is the chief aim of birth control.” — Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, May 1919 (vol. III, no. 5); p.12.
and THATs the key
the FIT dont listen to idiots telling them what to do.. and so the FIT are not subjevted to such pain, and bad outcomes.
ie. they know your unfit if you follow them and are not a leader… and so, by following, you prove your unfit, and should not be or have kids.
its sociopathic logic… if the victim lets me, listens to me, and is too stupid, then they DESERVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DUH DUH DUH…
So funny…
and that’s why the men are not marrying (which makes cohabitation increase!)
you CAN read articles about it, but i have noticed that women endlessly ask this, and bring it up, and NEVER listen to the reasons, and ignore the feminists… as angels of nothing but goodness, sugar and sweet..
waht if they are like Agrippina?
here is the way it is going now
he is avoiding the financial prison and slavery that is now what feminism has made the bet.
let me lay it out this way..
remove male female and so on..
and let me ask you..
to get and have something you really want, and your biology wants, and you think is good and dream of a good something.
would you flip a coin?
and if heads. you get that something, you get to TRY for the happiness and so on… but no guarantees..
if tails.. you lose yoru child.. your ostracized by society, even if your not a deadbeat. your salary is attached… you can go to debtors prison. your future assets are also on the table… and if you do find another coin to flip, the one with the first set of hooks gets tso destroy the second one, who did nothing.
so if your wealthy, you risk the linda evangilistas.
but if your middle class, in ny your htting 17% of gross, not net. so its state, federal, city, fica, and all that. and 17% before that… whats left, even if a negative amoutn, is yours.
of course there have been about half adozen men who have acted out on this, from killing their ex, to suicide by gun on court steps, to setting themselves on fire in public to protest.
but alas. they had not read feminism attitude to him, and so the protest dont work. you have to have WORTH for it to work, otherwise its just trash burning..
there is no reason for the guy to commit early with so many years ahead…
she doesnt want to commit, a better guy may come along and she can jump to a new lilly pad
what you are forgetting is that when both are young, both are betting on an unknoqn future based on their confidence in each other (if not an arranged marraige)
but, if you put off… then his value goes UP, while hers goes down
so by the time she is done doing the kolontai crap with the bad boys, has an STD, a screwed up inner hatred of men for being used, and almost infertile.. (maybe costing 50k to have a kid)…
she become super demanding, over valued, and has only other womens empties and number twos to consider to have a kid with
if she makes more money, then she is hypergamous and 66% women in college going after 20% males who can afford it (ignoring foreigners)… leaves how many not having debased hookup sex?
ALL of this is due to listening to these toxic people pretending otherwise. and the followers not actually listening to what their goals are, their methods.. etc.
its even ironically funnier if you know the stuff that’s scrubbed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and its funny because at some point you cant keep crying over people doing this to themselves and attacking you if you try to stop them from hurting themselves.
at that point, you just laugh and watch them die out!!!!!!!!!! (all the while denying it, and not looking, not reading, and so on!)
“Marriage is like putting your hand into a bag of snakes in the hope of pulling out an eel.” — Leonardo da Vinci
ultimately, lifes punishment for being an unfit mate is familial extermination..
dont matter what someone else told you, what you believe, etc… life meets out the punishment regardless….
ultimately, stupidity is a crime in life
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can’t help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love
and so.. its no sweat off my back they are going to die out and be part of a great self immolation…
THEY WANT IT and nothing will stop them…
just wait and see what people say. they are going to avoid pinnning blame, and if they argue with me, they will be trying to convince me the outcome, which we are already seeing, wont be.
as i said… survival of the fittest.
the fit dont live lives for others
the fit dont listen to bad advice from strangers
the fit dont follow ideology, they impose it
I’m just curious…there used to be what were called “common law marriages” and I always had the impression that at least sometimes, community property laws came into play when these relationships ended.
Are today’s “living together” arrangements considered “common law marriages” and do community property laws come into play?
“Marriage is like putting your hand into a bag of snakes in the hope of pulling out an eel.” – Leonardo da Vinci
Not sure about the validity of quoting LdaV when it comes to heterosexual marriage. 😉
I’ve been married (to same woman) for 42 years so perhaps I have little insight here, but I have to ask where did love go?
http://tinyurl.com/57uaoe
Artfldgr: feminism is not the cause of everything you think it is,
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!
i can show you empirically
you only say that out of being ignorant of that stuff… period…
what you have a problem with is that your not actually determining what you just said, your assuming it
if you dont know it, and have no other knowlege and dont like my point, then deny it.
but unless your still a liberal, the burden is on you to refute… but since i am used to this, refute this.
published in his newsletter, Lucifer, September 28, 1883.
since he is the father of modern feminism,and his daughter and so on.
you dont know the progressive history
so its easy to deny what they are, and believe what they told you
and THAT is what we are doing…
you have no idea of this because those who are LEADERS know… and your not a LEADER, your one of their DUPES. but psychologically you dont want to be a dupe.. .
there is no way aorund it. we were born dupes and either we get aroudn it and figure it out, or we end up with bad lives and no one to blame in ignorance.
the whole ticket is here.
no fault divorce, cohabitation, perversion, destruction of family, marxism, lesbianism as superior, and on and on.
and if you dont read the whole history, he gets a washing down like sanger did.
because sangers paper was The Eugenicist
HArmons was lucifer bringer of light, then became the AMERICAN eugenicist.
heck, you stil havent figure out that league, liberal, peoples, and other words are sociliast codes.
ergo obama FORWARD/Voorwarst/Vpered
but you woudl not know that EITHER.
its a secret..
you dont tell the cattle they are cattle..
and from then on, all those quotes from his feminist children on destruction of marraige, free love, perverse sex and so on.
the rest of the history is manipulation of the public to THOSE ENDS!
its all open.. you can read it
but wont…
so.. in one paragraph i shows you from 1800s all your talking about as a progressive marxist commune fantasy!!
if you want to read the whole article
The Moses Harman Story
by William Lemore West
Spring 1971 (Vol. 37, No. 1), pages 41-63;
http://www.kancoll.org/khq/1971/71_1_west.htm
[edited for length by n-n]
texexec: It depends on the state. For example, California has what used to be called “palimony,” and other states don’t. And California abolished common law marriage rules in the late 19th century. You’ll find information on that here.
Here are the rules about common law marriages today. It’s not just as simple as living together, and only nine states recognize it, with a few other states recognizing it in an even more restrictive set of circumstances.
Cohabitation is rarely a relationship in which both persons area committed to permanency. Perhaps when cohabiting couples do marry and take a vow of permanent commitment, the old mindset of impermanence continues to act unconsciously. If so, the relationship may be treated as tentative or provisional at times of stress.
Artfldgr: you’re misunderstanding what I said.
You have a very quick mind that races forward with facts and quotes and thoughts. But sometimes it may be that you are so used to thinking quickly that you don’t take the time to understand what a person has written. You are arguing apples and oranges here in a host of different ways.
On the topic of feminism, it seems that you often argue with a straw man, making assumptions about the history I know or don’t know, and what I say and/or believe, that are not based on what I’ve said or what I actually know or believe.
Go back and read what I wrote. And to make it clearer, I’m talking about over time and geography—including ancient history, and different cultures, including tribal ones. You ascribe to feminism what are common human problems and dilemmas.
I also said that I agreed feminism has had a generally negative effect on the situation regarding the permanence of commitment. So have a great many other things that have nothing to do with feminism, and that predate it. And that’s going back in time a lot further than Harmon, et. al.
The selection factor is still the major explanation for increased divorce rates among those who have cohabited before marriage. Such people tend to be less traditional, less religious, and less able to make commitments. Those are all risk factors for divorce.
I’ve not seen data on this, but I think that people who are cohabiting see themselves as single or at least not married. They have lots of autonomy compared to married couples. When they do marry, they feel as if they have already made the necessary adjustment to being a couple. My mother often said that there is room in a marriage for one and a half people.
One exception to the cohabitation effect on divorce is interesting. Couples who move in together after a marriage date is set and a ring is given have divorce rates similar to people who have not cohabited. At the other extreme, people who have lived with many partners have high divorce rates.
Mr. Frank: do you have data that indicates the selection factor is still huge? My gut tells me that’s the case, but I haven’t seen any data about it.
I am a simple farm boy grown into senior citizenship so I must have missed out on data about relationships, fidelity, love, and sex. Perhaps daily life in Iowa has not kept pace with the other 49. Yes, I am aware that divorce happens. I actually know 2 people who have divorced and re-married. But to me it remains rather simple. You fall in love, you make a commitment, and you stick together through thick and thin.
To cohabitate is a form of prenuptual agreement. It says your partner may not be the one and you want protection if that’s the case. Who doubts how this leads to rifts and breakups?
Go back and read what I wrote. And to make it clearer, I’m talking about over time and geography–including ancient history, and different cultures, including tribal ones. You ascribe to feminism what are common human problems and dilemmas.
ok neo
you win.
Marx said the key was to change history, not comment on it. (ie. manipulate it, not live it)
the progressives are the ones who created feminism, and derived it from moses harmon and that. the legal fight he got in is what made the idea grow in the minds of people.
marx invented sociology so one could find out how to change people and control them.
to remove individuality..
but i do make assumptions because if you know X you would not foment a fantasy of Y unless A you dont know, B you know and are part of those fomenting the lie
its really that simple…
peoples answers tell me what they know and dont know… ONLY when they are misrepresenting does it not match up.
the cohabitation prior in history may have inspired moses.. but what he did was the first of the whole package deal…
i am sure you may know of Moses, but you know him the way people 15 years ago new Sanger… with no knowledge of the details that change everything.
its only recently that the truth of Sanger has come out, and there are lots of apologist articles for her (but her most heinous writing was in her autobiography, out of print since before you and i were born. i used to own a copy)
its easy to understand why its frustrating. i keep running into having to teach 150 years of detailed history against a false history and do it in a paragraph with people who wont pitch in and go read and so not force me to give up, or write so long you add
its not me whose missing it, its you
the idea of a socialist state goes back as far as Plato… no? then why do we call it marxism? why not platorepism… replatoism?
why marxism? not kibbutzism.. or jamestownism… etc.
YOUR missing that part… that the ideas being old in pieces and snips and such indicating a natural flow.. no. not AFTER Marx, and his missive…
the whole of the thing we are having IMPOSED on us through various means of social control, reward carrot, and law…
[deny it and pretend the soviet union never existed… as its the same ideas, methods, and such.. but more evolved and less brutal. like the difference in humans between now and cro magnon. ]
is a hybrid of marx, engels, moses, and a few others..
the details have been scrubbed. if you had not gone way beyond your education, you dont know this stuff. i have yet to meet people that do… everyone denies these facts and completely ignorant of these people, what they said, were they were, who they knew, what letters they wrote, and even what plans and contrivances they came up with and publixhed books about..
and funny thing… the more you try to save people from the game, the more you want to give up and enslave them… as such stupidity cant be imagined by someone “not in the know”.
if this is a socialist movement that would crush the wealthy… why are all the wealthy helping each other to create it? they are not stupid…
capitalism made clerks of kings and they are taking their jobs back, and kicking out the boss…
who controls each major press house. stocks and bonds, and sharholders, or individual very wealthy men?
bloomberg, sulzbergers, hearst, etc…
and their papers lie… as agreed upon by them back in the same period i talk about. you can read the minutes if you want.
what everyone here will do is try to make this some natural thing that flowed organically from the past. (never wanting to know otherwise)
they had already learned from marx that if they celebrated their heroes openly and with a lot of information, they split the people into multiple factions
but if people dont know that there is this pedigree etymology, they will accept it as natural… organic.. and safe… not the manipulations of a cadre of well known people who have admitted it time to time, and so on…
this is why we call it Marxism.. we trace the roots to the origin of influence, not origin of mention… and we went through an era of opposition to him, and so he had been revealed. there has not been such for the progressive heroes..
marx and moses both delineated the future as the progressive saw it.
The Life of a Grand Old Liberal
February 1, 1999
Wendy McElroy (feminist)
now the fun part comes from understanding hegel and who follows him and what it means when such says something. hegelians mean the opposite of what they say, they make it seem otherwise.
take the movie “the hunger game”.. you may think its a pro feminist pro woman film, but you might not notice its really a princess story. she never actually kills anyone, and its the males around her that make all the actual choices.. and so on… if your looking at cargo cult signs, youll miss it.
[work on Madison avenue doing advertising for a couple of years as i did… big eye opener about how to make things that work, and whats REALLY going on]
Shaw was the man who founded the fabians. the wolfs in sheeps clothing? who will use world war and crisis to remold the world?
he is the one that said we should stand before a council and justify our existence every 5 years.
it was HIS IDEA that inspired hitler to use Xyclon B and GAS PEOPLE…
Harman and Shaw shared the same opinion of nineteenth-century traditional marriage: it was defined by laws and customs that enslaved women, who were stripped thereby of the right to their own wages, custody of their children, and the ability to defend themselves against physical or sexual attack by their husbands.
this is the unchanged goal..
and THATS why what happened before dont matter… this is the catechism…
sad thing is that how he is described dont jibe with unrevisoned history and his writings. he jibes like sanger…
sad truth..
if hitler had lived, today he would be a hero of the progressives and sanitized and no one would remember the bad details that would have him otherwise in peples minds.
dont belive me?
how do we think of stalin?
che? etc?
all that was NOT part of cohabitation prior to that period… cohabitation before that was circumstantial, something people did.
and it was kind of rare comparatively as there was no ideology (religion) backing it… the whole idea was to create a religion that was claimed not to be a religion, and that would replace religion, custom, etc… over time and maintaining the big lie and so on.
you only have to follow person to friend, to father to jobs..
and it would take a library to detail it all
it took me 15 years to read enough to really know it was… 15 years of constant reading hoping that something in there would allow me equal and fair chance of being with my son.
THATS how i learned it, and how i first learned the history… the courts took my son away, and i had not broken any laws, had a good job, and so on… while the other person shoplifted, nearly killed him, left him with strangers, abused him, faked her murder for a few monts to put me in jail,, and so on
but what really made me look was the feminist judge who explained to me men no longer have any rights…
how did i lose a right to be a father having done nothing?
and then i dug and found this stuff, and more and more. and the more i dug the more i found..
and then i discovered, that its all protected by lazy people who are incurious have little time and prefer to read short falshoods and tracts that resonate with the lies that started before they were born.
its turning out more and more i should have joined them.. not opposed them… as the people they are screwing WANT to be screwed and will NOT manage otherwise..
sad really…
but i hope that wrong choice is not one i will pay dearly for.. cause then i wasted my life for a bunch of people who will drive over the cliff anyway…
from Legal Treatment of Cohabitation in the United States / Cornell Law
Before the development of contractual and status-based remedies for cohabitants,
the traditional position was that cohabitants simply had no rights vis-é -vis one another or third parties.
so, prior to the progressive changes to law, the people trying to cohabit had no advantage to do so.. like today..
you forget the PROGRESSIVE Tax code and the Marriage Penalty..
you know, after they changed the purpose of taxes from paying bills into a sociology tool to control behavior!!!! (no smoking, cohabit not marry, affirmative action, etc… all social laws not allowed technically by the constitution)
Marriage penalty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
so.. if you have less money.. you get a reward if you cohabit and pretend your married rather than actually be married.
this is an inducement…
elderly people divorce for this benefit!!!!
The marriage penalty originated in 1969, when Congress tried to offset what was then an advantage for couples compared to single taxpayers.
now.. anyone want to chime in on when the big run on cohabitation started? the feminist sexual revolution?
In 1996, 42% of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they had remained single according to a 1997 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis
this is why the poor cohabitate much more than the wealthy.. they get a financial boost for it.. (and it serves the wealthy making policy if their competition doesnt come from a poor but functional family!!!!!!)
its only recently given the results of the census the past couple of times that the politicians out of nowhere started changing this as the population in question is below replacement (and will die out after the elderly boomers show what comes after)
and true to the progressive goals which are uinchanged.. these new laws ONLY help the poor… ie. the middle class gets penalized..
what about other “western targets”?
in the UK the progressives are Labour and Fabians, who dont advertise as such.
‘Marriage penalty’ of Labour’s benefits system makes divorced women better off
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/4928367/Marriage-penalty-of-Labours-benefits-system-makes-divorced-women-better-off.html
Family breakdowns have been encouraged by the “marriage penalty” of Labour’s benefits reforms, according to an academic report.
i can show you a lot more as to the mechanics of this stuff, and the pedigree of law that came after moses, marx, and the changes from the wars to the feminist sexual revolution of the 60S and beyond.
funny..
but i can show you the SAME thing in EACH of the western countries resulting in the SAME outcome, created by the SAME ideological people…
but your right. its natural..
now. do you want to go back to find out who and what were making the arguments and justifications in debate? go ahead, real eye opener.
but a 160% rise in separations..
and the law is a duplicate..
yet, the fabians and the harmon progressives were in lign with all this as a goal.. and they were very influential..
Civitas, the influential think tank, claimed that the tax and benefits system leaves married couples up to 20 per cent poorer than those who live separately.
wow.. a 20% boost if your not married.
that wont influence anyone
and the state attacking religion, that wont prevent them from marrying either
and the feminist courses teaching marraige is slavery, that has no influence
its just a natural outcome of natural things
despite no such thing any more in our country given law, and so forth..
I did the cohabitation thing once in my 20’s. In my experience, it provided a false sense of relationship security because it had most of the elements of a marriage – shared space, co-mingled finances, joint investment in purchases like furniture, etc. But in turn, it makes marriage seem much less urgent, or even necessary. And for me, I wasn’t going to take the next steps – buying a house, having kids – without getting married. So I was stuck in limbo.
The thing is, co-habitation makes it more complicated to end the relationship (more logistics involved), but since you’ve not formally declared your commitment to each other, it is still relatively easy to just walk away. This is the trap – you’re comfortable enough to feel like you’ve got a life together without ever having decided to truly spend your lives together.
In my case, it ended badly, and I never even considered doing it again. After I married, I finally understood the difference between co-habitation and marriage – it’s the difference between playing house and building a life together.
We Can’t Separate Social Policy From Tax Law
http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2012/03/13/we_cant_separate_social_policy_from_tax_law/page/full/
the point is tnat no one is going to pay attention to HOW powerful people influence you, control you etc..
they WANT it more than they dont want it.
so its all about manipulation with taxes, permits, licenses, and so on…
thats FASCISM.
and i said, we are the same as germany then as my family described living. yet we dont get how those things control outcomes.
but civitas showing a 160% increase..
and in a few years on a tax code change
well.. thats a bigger influence than anything else…
Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation
By Kate Weigand
from the communists THEMSELVES..
1955: Lesbian organizing and ‘red feminism’
Lavender & red, part 52
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/lavender-red-52/
Historian Kate Weigand, in her well-researched book “Red Feminism,” explains that while many women who got pink-slipped did return to the patriarchal-dominated, heterosexual family home, “a significant number also fought back.”
Weigand wrote, “These women, along with many others who are less well-known, worked for women’s liberation within their own political circles and in the United States at large during the hostile years of 1945-56. The group consisted primarily of women who had cut their political teeth in the Left and labor struggles of the 1930s.”
Weigand stressed, “They revolutionized [feminist theory] by conceptualizing the dynamics of women’s oppression and liberation within a framework that made race and class central. They sustained a small but vibrant women’s movement throughout the 1940s and 1950s and transmitted influential terminology, tactics and concepts to the next generation of feminists. Their bold new thinking about the interdependence of gender, race and class, and about the personal and cultural aspects of sexism, shaped modern feminism–both directly and indirectly–and laid absolutely crucial groundwork for the second wave.”
Many of the activists, organizers and theoreticians of the era of red feminism were members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) or were “fellow travelers.”
care to follow the line to policy makers?
thats it.
i cant put up a highlight of 15 years of in depth reading..
but i have read all this stuff and more.
and have yet to meet someone who also knew as much..
Neo,
For awhile the dominant 9almost only) explanation was the selection hypothesis. People who cohabit are often poor marriage risks because of violence, drugs, money problems, unemployment, trouble with the law, money problems, less religiosity, and personality.
The other hypothesis is cohabitation changes people. It has been shown that the longer people cohabit before marriage, the greater the probability of divorce. That would suggest that the experience of cohabitation has an independent effect. However, the reason for the longer delay could be the unattractiveness of one or both of the people as a prospective spouses. The relative weight of the selection hypothesis and experience hypothesis would be tough to tease out.
Cohabitation as an arrangement does not last very long. Within a couple of years most cohabitors have either married or broken up. The distribution is about half and half. As you noted, women tend to see cohabitation as a step toward marriage. Men see it as more convenient sex.
A variable that I see related to the issue of cohabitation is the greatly increased age at first marriage. It is something like 26-27. When people used to select a spouse in high school or college, they were living in an age dense environment with lots of young people to choose from. If you broke up, there were lots of other options. When single people move on to the labor force they find most people married and/or older. It gets very hard to meet prospective mates — thus the internet match making sites. When a relationship does develop, there may be pressures to move in together to maintain the relationship.
There is also the “why buy the cow” thing. If you can move in together without legal and financial responsibilities, why not? Unfortunately, that may be short sighted in terms of long term outcomes. The more times you have cohabited and the longer you have cohabited, the more likely you will get divorced.
Artfldgr: we have been around this mulberry bush many times before, in other threads. So I’ll just remind you that I’ve never denied, and in fact agree, that movement feminism has its roots in the left. I’m not sure why you keep trying to prove this over and over.
Mr. Frank: it does seem hard to tease out the selection factor from the other factors.
It may just also be that people who are more certain they are right for each other don’t cohabit at all, they just get married. Short of religious beliefs, which can cause people to marry rather than cohabit, it may be that only those who are already somewhat wary and doubtful cohabit in the first place.
And then the ones who get along best get married after a relatively short period of cohabitation. And that leaves the others, who cohabit longer, until one gives the other an ultimatum. Also, there ones who wait to marry may be shakier financially, which can make their marriage more shaky too, although I seem researchers have factored that out in their analyses of the data.
A related issue is the increasing divide in marriage rates by race and class. Marriage is important to the welfare of society. Marriage civilizes men. Marriage protects children. Married couples stabilize communities. The decline of marriage rates among blacks and the working class is a threat to us all.
Neo: Thanks for the info on common law marriage. I had the wrong impression that simply living together a certain period of time constituted a common law marriage.
Parker: It’s clear you haven’t listened to Our Leader’s speeches closely. You said “Perhaps daily life in Iowa has not kept pace with the other 49.”
Didn’t you mean the other 56 states?
If find value in making a distinction between religion and faith. Neo’s parents may not have been ardent practitioners of a religion, but I expect they shared a faith in some Power.
Marriage, in that old-timey sense, was a commitment to G-d as much as a commitment to spouse. The socio-cultural value system reinforced the importance of integrity to G-d. Even without liking the practice of religion, one’s faith shapes one’s life.
Common-law marriage, as an opposite, requires no formal promise. If there is no promise, why would we presume any enduring commitment?
I say that the destruction of faith is an important contributor to failed cohabitations, along with other points cited previously.
foxmarks: your guess about my parents is incorrect, actually.
I agree, though, that the decline of religion is part of what’s going on. But how large a part it is, I don’t know. I actually don’t think it’s all that large a part, because the divorce statistics for self-described Christians are not all that different from those for self-described atheists (in fact, the latter have a lower divorce rate than the former). The statistics change in favor of less divorce for the most religious people (who attend church more often, for example), but it’s clear that a belief in religion vs. no belief doesn’t reduce divorce in and of itself.
neo: Those risks of unfair distribution of assets after divorce would be true whether or not a couple lives together before marriage
However, those risks may be a (major?) contributor to the increase in the rate of cohabitation.
raf: yes, they could—but again, that’s not what I’m discussing here. The subject is whether cohabitation before marriage increases the divorce rate in those who do end up marrying, and why, and whether the difference is just a selection effect or also something that occurs as a result of cohabitation.
I was trying to point at the decline in faith, different from the decline in religion. It’s the perceived presence of that Higher Power that matters, not the shape of the rituals one might practice.
foxmarks: but that’s my point exactly. Many people who don’t even believe in a higher power are quite committed to marriage.
marriage is the best thing that could ever happen to anyone, i really love my wife ‘
Most current write-up coming from our blog site
http://www.homeimprovementstuffs.com/buying-new-kitchen-units/
check this link, burberry outlet Gxkaakmh [URL=http://lepress.net/burberry3factoryoutlet/]burberry scarves[/URL] online VzveEkgI http://lepress.net/burberry3factoryoutlet/