Interesting article on the web about co-habiting before marriage and the 'success' rate there of.

cohabiting doesnt significantly raise the chance of Divorce

Personally I have noted a lot of relationships, whether married of de facto actually have a low sucess rate and I have read a ton of studies that all seem to say that any new relationship will end in the first 2 years. I have also read that the chances of D for those that move onto M have a success chance of around 50%. (The cynical Lil part of me says they only ended because one or the other was having an A)

I did like the bit at the end where it says If the defined vision was a M where the couples had great EP's and filled each others EN's, I wonder what the stats would be then.

Mind you if I was King, err Queen of the world, MB principles would be taught in schools

The devil is in the details. This study is confusing because they are comparing ENGAGED couples to married couples and then extrapolating that there is very little difference in their divorce rates.

Well, we already KNEW THAT. Most previous studies have shown that the difference between engaged and married is about 2%, in reverse order here. An engaged couple is usually just waiting for the actual wedding and tends to have the attitude of a married couple.

That is because when an engaged couple lives together, they are not "testing things", they have already made a decision to marry and tend to be buyers. Not so with un-engaged, unmarried shackers.

It is that renters ["lets test this out and see how it works out] attitude that is the kiss of death.

Where the big difference lies is with couples who just live together to "test things out." [shacking up] Their divorce rates are DOUBLE that of those who are engaged or married when they move in together.

I did alot of research on this last year and was amazed at the problems that stem from these tenuous relationships. Domestic violence happens almost exclusively in shack up situations or in marriages that started out that way.

I am going to send this to Dr Harley and see if he will give his opinion on the radio. Thanks for posting this, lil!

Here is some of the research I saved:

From Buyers, Renters and Freeloaders by Dr. Willard Harley:
pg 112
David Hall and John Zhao conducted a study that controlled for factors that might have made divorce more likely among those who tend to cohabit (parental divorce, age at marriage, stepchildren, religion and other factors). They showed that even when those effects were accounted for, cohabitation itself still accounts for a higher divorce rate. In other words, regardless of who yhou are, you are much more likely fo divorce if you live together first. "Cohabitation and Divorce in Canada"Journal of Marriage and the Family (May 1995):421-27
Alfred DeMaris and William McDonald found that the unconventionality of those who live together does not explain their subsequent struggle when married. There is something about living together first that creates marital problems later. They write: "Despite a widespread public faith in premarital cohabitation as a testing ground for marital incompatibility, research to date indicates that cohabitors marriages are less satisfactory and more unstable thank those of non-cohabitors. Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Instability: A test of the Unconventional Hypothesis" Journal of Marriage and the Family (May 1993:399-407)
The gist of the current research is that if you live together before marriage, you will be fighting an uphill battle to create a happy and sustainable marriage.

pg 118
Linda Waite found that couples who live together before marriage suffer three times the incidence of domestic violence that married couples suffer. Linda J Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Healthier, Happier, and Better off Financially
And my experience working with cases of domestic violence in marriage almost exclusively involves couples who lived together before marriage. So cohabiting not only leads to failed marriages, but it leads to violence whether or not the couple ever marry. With the renters agreement in force, demands, disrespect and anger are eventually the norm. Cohabiting couples don't look for solutions that make both of them happy. They look for solutions that make one person sacrifice for the happiness of the other. And if sacrifice is not forthcoming, punishment is inflicted.
But those who wait until marriage to live together tend to experience a very low rate of violence and not much arguing. Thats because they tend to be buyers.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/WM1.cfm#_ftn9
Cohabitation
Cohabitation rates have been growing steadily for the last 20 years. Adults who cohabit and then marry are twice as likely to divorce as those who marry without cohabiting first. And those who cohabit with one person but marry someone else divorce at double that rate again�that is they have four times the risk of divorce as those who do not cohabit before marriage. (See Chart 7.) Source: National Longitutional Survey of Youth 1996

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/images/89528382.gif

Child Abuse
The federal government also does not track family structure in considering the incidences of serious child abuse. However, data from the United Kingdom�which on many social issues compare closely with the United States�show that:
� Serious child abuse is lowest in the always-married (intact) family.
� It is six times higher in the stepfamily than in the intact family.
� It is 14 times higher in families with single mothers (divorced and always-single mothers combined).
� It is 20 times higher in families with single fathers (predominantly divorced fathers).
� It is 20 times higher in families with cohabiting biological parents.�
The most dangerous environment for a child is the home where the mother cohabits with a boyfriend; serious child abuse is 33 times higher in these homes.9
� The same holds true for fatal child abuse rates, but the differences in rates are more pronounced. Most fatalities occur in homes where the mother cohabits with a boyfriend�the rate is 73 times higher than in intact families. This cohabiting boyfriend configuration is found in most of the gruesome cases of child abuse that make the headlines today. The intact marriage of a natural mother and natural father is the greatest safeguard againstchild abuse. (See Chart 17 and Chart 18.)
� 9 Patrick F. Fagan and Dorothy B. Hanks, �The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community,� Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1115, May 15, 1997.

Reducing Domestic Violence: How the Healthy Marriage Initiative Can Help http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1744.cfm#pgfId-1075875
Contrary to the views of the NOW Legal Defense Fund, marriage tends to protect women from domestic abuse rather than increasing it. In general, domestic violence is more common in cohabiting relationships than in marriages. Analysis from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered by the Department of Justice, also shows that mothers who are, or have been, married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who have never married. Specifically, data from the NCVS survey show that:7
� Marriage dramatically reduces the risk that mothers will suffer from domestic abuse. The incidence of abuse by a spouse, boyfriend, or domestic partner is twice as high among mothers who have never been married as it is among mothers who have been married (including those who have separated or divorced).8
� Marriage dramatically reduces the prospect that mothers will suffer from violent crime in general at the hands of intimate acquaintances or of strangers. Mothers who have never married--including those who are single and living either alone or with a boyfriend, and those who are cohabiting with their child's father--are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime as are mothers who have been married.9
7. National Crime Victimization Resource Guide, at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SDA/ncvs.html.

Can you cite some statistics that are more recent? The newest of these dates back to 1997: thirteen years ago. I'm not disputing the Buyers, Renters, Freeloaders theory, but I am stating that social influences have changed, whether or not we like it. People living together before marriage was viewed one way in the 60's, another in the 70's, still another in the 80's and so on. People who lived together in the 60/70/80s might have had more stress from disapproving family members.

I would just like to see these statistics updated to reflect more recent numbers.

I don't have any valid reason to believe it has changed, though. If you have something that shows it HAS, then that would be interesting to see. Otherwise, I would have no reason to believe anything has changed. Do you have something other than speculation to support your questions?

I don't need anything to support my questions, ML. That's why they are questions and not statements.

When I think about how different the world was..in every way..just 15 short years ago, it inspires me to question any type of research I see that is so old.

Would you base a marketing plan on 15 year old research?

Well if you question something shouldn't you have a reason for the question? Do you have no legitimate reason to question them other than idle speculation and the fact they are 15 years old? I was hoping for better, actually.


This misses the point, though. The issues underlying the high rate of divorce were not cultural and have not changed. I would base a marketing plan on 15 year old research if it were relevant.

Do you have EVIDENCE that the actual underlying causes for the high rate of cohabitation divorces has changed? That seems to be the place to start. If so, I would like to see it.

Let me put it another way, OurHouse. Some of our best medical research on the heart and thyroid was done in the 40's and the 50's. That medical research still stands today because it has never been proven wrong.

Would we cavalierly throw out all that valuable medical research on a whim because "Would you base a marketing plan on 15 year old research?"

Wouldn't you consider that anti-intellectual?

Wow, I'm really glad my thyroid doctor is not basing my treatment on what he knew 40 and 50 years ago.

I'm glad that doctors have continued to do heart research or we might never have found out that women experience heart attacks in a vastly different manner than men do.

Just because research was sound 15/20/25/30+ years ago, does not mean another look is not justified.

Where would we be if Columbus believed all the "earth is flat" research?

In other words, you have no valid reason to question this research?

The failure rates for all marriages are sadly very high. Second and third marriages are certainly doomed, statistically speaking. The point of the article that Lil posted stated that cohabitation in and of itself did not make as much of a difference as once thought. It was the intentions posessed by the individuals at the time that they entered into cohabitation that had the determining factor. For example, if they were already engaged, it helped. Not-engaged couples were more likely to fail.

I think they came to that conclusion by comparing engaged couples to married couples, so this study tells us nothing new. We already KNEW there was very little difference between engaged and married couples so nothing has changed.

It is when you look at the rates of divorce of those who are NOT engaged/married that the divorce rates skyrocket - and contribute to the overall high rate.

Dr Harley attributes this to the outlook of "lets test this out." [renters attitude] And I dont see that this has changed. That dynamic is alive and well.

* Social scientists have tried to determine whether some of the risk is due to the selection effect, i.e., that people who cohabit are already those who are more likely to divorce. While research shows the selection influence, most social scientists emphasize the causal effect, that is, cohabitation itself increases the chance of future marital problems and divorce. (Anne-Marie Ambert, "Cohabitation & Marriage: How are they related," 2005, p.18-19, www.vifamily.ca/library/cft/cohabitation.pdf; Stanley, Kline, & Markman, "The Inertia Hypothesis: Sliding vs. Deciding in the Development of Risk for Couples in Marriage," p. 6-8,

David Hall and John Zhao conducted a study that controlled for factors that might have made divorce more likely among those who tend to cohabit (parental divorce, age at marriage, stepchildren, religion and other factors). They showed that even when those effects were accounted for, cohabitation itself still accounts for a higher divorce rate. In other words, regardless of who yhou are, you are much more likely fo divorce if you live together first. "Cohabitation and Divorce in Canada"Journal of Marriage and the Family (May 1995):421-27

p.s. I sent Dr Harley an email. I am really interested to see what he thinks of it!

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5025b_qa.html

I don't see where there is a distinction made between engaged and casual cohabitation. I only see the comparison between married and unmarried.

If you dig into the studies he cites you will find it. There is about a 2% difference.

I believe in marriage- because I am that kind of person. I believe that it is wonderful to have someone that is your best friend to grow old with. I believe it is the right thing to do from a religious standpoint. I don't have a problem with being with one person forever. But, if I looked at the statistics, why would I EVER get married again? I have two failed marriages already. A third, statistically? 73% doomed to failure. I didn't live with either husband prior to marriage. My personal failure rate? 100% so far. I can't say that I would want to get married again without testing the waters for a bit first next time. I'm nowhere near marriage. But, I can understand the case for wanting to be sure.

ss, I know exactly how you feel. I am on my THIRD marriage and I have never shacked up. But this marriage is different from using this program. Despite the problems that brought me here, I know now what caused those marriages to fail and hope to not make the same mistake again.

stillstanding, yes, there is a 73% divorce rate. But that means that 27% do make it. And with all you have learned about MB....your chances of being in that 27% would be very high. Mel said she was on her 3rd M, but from all she shares, it's a great marriage, and look how many people she is helping here. Maybe there's still some Pollyanna in me, but I say never give up!

I will have to go back to another site I frequent and find a couple of studies they mentioned. The studies of those who have sex prior to marriage, especially with partner(s) other than their eventual spouse, have similar stats to living together. That made me stand up and take notice. DH and I were virgins when we married, but these days people seem to have the "sleep with whoever, it's just sex" idea more than ever. Talk about freeloader!

That is actually very interesting to me Mel, because despite a ton of reading on the web site, that is actually the first time I have heard that particular statement. I am wondering if you could give me specific link so I can look into it further? I have Beetle vs time issues

And to think all this time I thought that because Flick and I co-habitated for 9 months prior to M, we were freeloading renters.

lil, I *THINK* it is in one of those links I posted above. I am too scramble brained tonight to find it again. I was most relieved to find it because my ENGAGED SON is living with his fiance until the wedding. I did alot of research on this last year.