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.

I've just had a look at the 'living together before marriage' article on the site here and it doesnt seem to be making any distinction between engaged and defacto couples. Is there another article I have'nt found?

Lil, I don't remember ever reading mention of that in Dr Harley's articles. I found the engaged/married stat in one or two places in his references.

Lil, here is another article about the same study in the New York Times but they present the data very differently. And this is not a new study. This is the same one I read previously that found that the divorce rates of engaged couples compared to married couples was very close:

The study of men and women ages 15 to 44 was done by the National Center for Health Statistics using data from the National Survey of Family Growth conducted in 2002.

I suspect that is the study I read. But look at how this is presented in the NY TIMES:


here

Oh, I see. Sorry, must have misread your original comment. I thought you said Dr Harley has written something where he specifically said about engaged is like being married as far as co-habitating. I did read the Dr H article, but didnt get into the citation work references as..*sigh* time and Beetles Also it's not Dr Harley's own writings. I'd rather read what he has to say if I am going to read much now a days.

I did look at those links you gave and excluding the one above which says pretty much what mine did, I couldnt actually find anything about engagement. Oh, and one of your links isnt working, the one that ends in .gif. If you could fix that for me, that would be awesome. I tell ya, I think I get dumber everyday. Or maybe just tired.

Did any of that make sense??? Pardon the ramble, I need SLEEP! LOL!

O/T...what does it mean when furin people say Beetles?

Lord only knows!!

ok, I tried to send the email last night to Dr Harley and it was bounced back so I sent it to Justuss. She got them to read it online. Thanks Justuss!!

Lil, when you get a chance, you can listen to their discussion which is at the very top of the hour. He talks alot about the research about living together but is NOT CONVINCED about the engaged/married thing but says he can sort of see it. I think he thinks I am trying to justify it, which I am not.

Just to clarify, because it seems I gave the wrong impression, I read all the studies Dr Harley referenced in his conclusions in Buyers, Renters Freeloaders and that is where I ran across the engaged dynamic. When I looked at the study referenced in your article, Lil, I recognized that as one I looked at.

"Beetle" is lil's 9 month-old, very cute but very strong-minded grandson. He is in her care at the moment, and she is trying to get him into a routine that suits her. He has other ideas.

Oh! Does he play guitar or sing about yellow submarines?

I think he does - from midnight until 6am every day.

Sadly I cannot not listen to MB radio. Never have ben able to

Gotcha. So Dr Harley does NOT liken engagement to marriage. However material he has referenced may or may not have alluded to it being a dynamic.

Thats the Beatles - silly yank

Thank you Mel for emailing me the MP3 of the MB radio show broadcasted on 06/23/10

It didn't really explain Dr Harley's thoughts on engagement at all so I emailed him directly, here is his response:

If you can get a hold of today's show it was discussed again. He basically said the same thing he wrote to you but more wordy

Lil, you must have missed it because he did finish up by saying a possible explanation would be that engaged people have a buyers mentality, rather than a renters mentality. [he even says this in his email you post] It is that renters mentality [we are going to test this out] that is the kiss of deathg. He did add that he would have to see that premise replicated in another study to really buy it. He did touch on it though.

Mike moved in with me about 2 months after we got engaged. He always said that it was like we were already married. He was right. Mike and I were more married while we were co-habitating than B and I ever were. And there were some bumps and some adjustments during that year.

But, Mike's attitude was always one of a buyer. He checked out the merchandise very carefully before making a decision, but once the decision was made, it was made. I'm not sure he even really questioned himself.

My approach was different up until the time we were engaged. I was renting. I was semi-committed, but I also knew what I was getting myself into, and I had watched Mike very carefully whenever we had any conflict or weren't exactly in sync. By the time we got engaged, I knew we could and would make it work.

Except now. Now, I'm fighting with him tooth and nail and have coem up with another way to irritate him.

No, I did hear that, I just felt it was a very general chit chat on the study and not at all relating to ME.

Yes, it's all about me

So FYI here is my email I sent Dr and Joyce Harley. It had comments addtional to the topic. I have edited these for TMI reasons

Dear Dr Harley,


My name is xxxxxxxxxxxx, I post on the Marriage builders forum under the name 'Lildoggie'

I am the person who started the 'living together before marriage' thread on MB. Although unable to listen to the radio programme direct, Melodylane emailed me the MP3 recording a few days ago.

Below is a transcript of the pertainant part of the recording and some comments I have following it.



Transcript of MB_062310.mp3

�...
JH �well now we ahh received this email from umm what are the ahh the forum one of the foremen forum leaders is that correct?

DrH One of our ahh moderators

Jh moderators, there you go I didn't get the term right and she said that someone posted this article about how living together before marriage doesn't raise the likelihood of divorce. I think it is flawed a flawed conclusion. And then she gives us portions of the study for you to look at and then she concludes her email. She said I did a lot of research on this last year, that is living together before marriage

DrH right, mm-hmm

JH and was amazed at the problems that stem form these tenuous relationships. domestic violence happens almost exclusively in living together situations ahh or in marriages that started that way which I find interesting, this too

DrH thats right

JH ahh that living together then you decide to get married ahh and then the violence can continue on or pick up

DrH right. That's what the justice department studies found

JH and thats just what you were saying. all right well now why would this be posted on the website?

DrH well, the person posting it was trying to argue that there's nothing wrong with living together before marriage (laughs)and and again the the volume of research that shows that that on average these people dont do ery well ahh is is just staggering. Ahh I was on a public radio show ahh about of Boston ahh a couple of years ago where I was on with the umm publisher of bride magazine and a professor from Columbia university and umm the question came up is there a value in living together before marriage?and the publisher of bride magazine and the professor both said that it was a great idea for people to try out the relationship and see how they're doing

JH oh yes very popular

DrH and I came back and I said havent you read all of the research that has come out on how successful these people really are?..

It carried on for a while about other stuff. And never got back to my original point of posting the question in the first place.

These are my comments on the radio show and the thread itself.

1. I was hoping to open up a dialogue on the topic as initially the quote �It�s couples who give into the urge to merge households without a defining vision of their future who are more likely to divorce, the results suggest.� was what interested me. I also believed that it would be a topic of interest to others as it relates to Marriage - something everyone on MB in interested in.

2. I wasn't asking about justice dept survey about violence and sexual violence against women and children. I am well aware of said surveys and studies and have in fact used them on MB to get a point across myself. Many times.

3. I was primarily interested in the topic because as I said on the thread, Flick and I lived together before marriage for 9 months. Almost the entire period of our engagement.


When Mel then made the comment �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 was food for thought and lead me to believe that Mel was saying that Dr Harley himself had these thoughts. However upon reviewing the additional information Mel provided , I saw that actually Dr Harley does NOT believe that engagement brings couples into a buyers mindset. That is fine,I now understand. {edit for TMI}

[EDIT TMI]I argued nothing, just posted a survey with a view for discourse., because as I have said, Flick and I lived together for 9 months before marriage; I have read all the articles on MB about how very bad that is outside of the abuse and violence issue which is not an issue for me, and I wanted to know what Dr Harley thoughts were about it, and others possible experiences.

Regards
Lil

I believe that the day Flick proposed to me and I said yes, I moved into the buyers group. One of my many reasons for leaving X-Lil was his frequent comments of "Marriage is just a piece of paper making it harder to separate"
I used to think if your so sure we will separate, why are you even IN this relationship?

ETA Do NOT get me started on the day X-lil went to town to buy me an engagement ring

Hopefully, you are clear now that I DID NOT say that Dr Harley said that or believed that. In fact, in that post I even said: "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! "

Hope that clears things up!

Lil, Dr Harley is discussing your letter on the show today. Want me to send you the show?

Not that it's important now I have it 'straight from the horses mouth so to speak,

ok, he is refuting the argument in your email. You might want to post that transcript too.

Like I said, I never said Dr Harley said that as we can see from those quotes.. Sorry you got the wrong impression.

You really should listen to todays radio show, Lil. He refutes your argument pretty soundly. Do you want to post the transcript or shall I?

edited to add: you have mail!

I haven't gone through this entire thread. But I thought I would add in that my wife and I lived together for years before marriage. We lived together a long time before we got engaged.

Transcript without repeated words, umm and ahhs

JH well good day to you, glad you've joined us for this hour of marriage builders now here is the question I wanna ask you at the top is it a good idea to live together before marriage some would say the majority of listening to this station would say no, no thats not a good idea but you know what it is going on in higher numbers than you would want to believe this is happening and its happening a lot in the secular community of course but couples are living together before marriage who attend church they're choosing this to do this so its not just secular versus religious no its happening in our communities new surveys says that living together before marriage does not raise the likelihood of divorce. Did you get that cos that was one fo the arguments against living together before marriage that it would raise the likelihood of divorce. Now this new study slash survey is saying it does not. Raise the likelyhood of divorce. If you live together before marriage. Well we have lots to talk about and we'll be addressing this and taking your calls the number to dial is xxxxxxxxx thats xxxxxxxxx well bill this has been an ongoing discussion hasnt it regarding the idea of living together before marriage or just living together and then deciding whether they will get married.

DRH yeah the justice department actually did a series of studies in the early two thousands that were really quite alarming and were published in a lot of different places that showed that living together was the number one environment for domestic violence so couples that were living together before marriage were the most likely people to be involved in physical violence against women, and violence against children and sexual violence against children
JH now reposts like that come out and I believe them we cite them we use them in the argument for not living together before marriage and this came up at the pharmancy. It was about a year go we talked, we just get into a lot of conversations and somehow this issue came up and this woman behind the counter said well I guess Im the exception we've been living together for 15 years never got married dont plan to. And we're happy so you see you get these exceptions out there and what do you say to that.

DRH well you get exceptions for almost everything that is harmful to the majority of people .there are very few situations where everybody is harmed with something we know harms people. For example cigarette smoking. I mean there was a great debate about that for years and years and years. Were now pretty much in agreement that cigarette smoking is bad for your health.
JH but there are exceptions right?

DRH right there are people that live to be 95 years old who smoke a couple of packs of cigarettes a day and they're in good health and their lungs are in good health and for whatever reason their bodys dont, are able to fight off whatever the effects of smoking over a lifetime can have. So ther are exceptions to almost everything we can find that is harmful to people in general. Now there have been a lot of studies on living together lot of people have studied this from 1970'2 on as I mentioned the justice department series on this they were focusing not so much on whether or not marriage would survive after living together ubut rather the safety and they came to the conclusion than women and children should not live in an environment where the people are not married the mother and father are not married because the risks of violence are so great . Now the point that this study makes is that if the couple is engaged prior to getting together to live then the results of their marriage is about the same as people who actually dont live together before they are married this study found that people who are not engaged that live together have marriages that are not as successful so that part supported everything else we have found but this one little part they're engages and live together your marriage is as good as if you didnt not live together . Now that could be interpreted a number of ways one is that I'd like to see that replicated I'd like to see another study

JH mmm-hmm

DRH done on that, see if it comes out the same way the other thing is people that are engaged might have a different commitment to the relationship. In other words they might be in my nomenclature buyers. They would have gone into the relationship as if they were married.

JH right cos they had already committed to each other , planning the wedding etc

DRH yeah, for them its not a trial engagement not something they're going to try and figure out whether we get along well enough and if so we'll,,, a lot its a situation were you have your wedding planned one of you has a lease that expires 2 months before the wedding you don't want to sign another years lease and so its more convenient to live together. I dont recommend it but on the other hand this study shows the people that are in that position seem to do about as well as people who dont live together before marriage

JH now we received this email....

After this they had phone in's unrelated to the topic, although JH did put out a challenge for people in a defacto relationship to call in

Lil, the show I am talking about is the one from today. Did you listen to that? I sent it to you on email. It sounds like they are reading your email.

Thank you so much for sending the MP3 of the show. I got it as Flick was walking in from work and we listened to it while cooking tea. We found it very interesting, particularly the segment on POJA and car purchase as we have bought and sold 6 cars in the lat 2 years. We did good
I have to admit we got a little excited when we heard the opening about the woman who had lived with her fianc�e 9 months before M but alas, it was not us. While we did open a joint account not long after moving in together, it was not part of my email to Dr Harley, nor was there anything about furniture. In fact because I was a solo mum and Flick had been flatting for several years before meeting, we had the opposite problem and had to have a garage sale LOL

Anyway, as per your request, here is the transcript, without umms, errs, repeated words, and only the relevant portions as I am laaaaazy

MB show 2/7/2010
JH well good day to you, good news you've been listening, your writing us with your questions and your comments on the various topics that we've addressed. Now on the topic of living together which we did just this week living together before marriage or just living together we got several reactive emails. After this discussion. So we're going to address those during this hour along with other email topics. Also we'll asked the question what happens when your spouse changes over time. Elizabeth Edwards comments on how the man she knew was no longer the man that she married at the very beginning so were going to go into the whole idea of change of your spouse in a marriage situation. We have lots to talk about. We'll also be taking your phone calls, the number to dial is xxxxxx . Joining us now is my husband Dr Bill Harley. Licensed clinical psychologist, author of 16 books on marriage including his best seller HNHN. Well Bill we got a challenge about these living together comments were made in our discussion a few days ago

DRH not really a challenge but a correction.

JH a correction, oh well ok. Ok, you interpreted it that way.

DRH or an expansion

JH expansion, ok, its in the eye of the reader maybe . OK this person lived with her fiance for 9 months before marrying him and it worked out well for her marriage. And she is saying that your warning regarding the negative stats of living together before marriage do not apply to all couples and especially in her situation it didnt turn out that way.

DRH yeah and she makes a good point in that she said that in her case they shared everything, they shared bank accounts they chose their furniture together they , in other words, they blended. You know, in the 9 months they were living together they anticipated being married , you know, so they started out with a buyers mentality. They were going to be live partners from the first day they were there. And it worked out well. Now my problem with that idea is that even thou you may expect to do that sort of thing, when you are living together if something goes wrong in the relationship which often happens in the first 9 months the couple is more likely to break and run. Or another way of looking at it is that they are more likely to become renters they might start out as buyers, but the solution to the problem is not to sit down and work this thing out as buyers but rather to slip back into a renter mentality.

JH I think of purchasing a car, in fact thats going to be in one of the emailers questions so thats very much on my mind but the idea of going out and purchasing a car you are getting into the buyers mentality. And you actually put the down payment down , talk about the finances, and your sign and they there can be buyers remorse. You know, some people even back out of the purchase of that car. Before they actually take possession of the car. So thats they only thing I can liken it to that your getting at here, that you can change your thinking even during engagement , or live together?

DRH yeah, you bought a station wagon once I remember that we had a lot of problems with it when we bought it home. The thing that should have alerted me to the fact that this was going to be a difficult entry, was that the battery was dead when we went to pick it up. He had not prepped the car

JH yeah, it wasnt so much the cars fault as the dealers fault

DRH yeah, so we bought the car so we had to get it to work. And so for a while we had to you know, just be persistent in making sure the thing operated right. As it turned out it was a wonderful car, we enjoyed it for years, it was very, it was essentially problem free in the year s that we had it.

JH and your point is

DRH my point is that by buying it we put up with the initial problems that we faced and we got it to work, if we had rented it, if this had been a one month rental it would have been a whole different story and think that for couples who are living together before marriage, while they might have had this experience that this lady wrote about, wrote in, she would, there are many who dont have that experience and so all we're doing is, we're warning people who think that it might be a good idea to live together for economic reasons or who think it might be good to live together as a way of evaluating whether or not the relationship is a good idea , even thought there are these arguments that can be given the experience that I've seen in talking to many many many many couples and the research that I've seen on the topic has indicated to me that its a risky thing to do, if you want, if you really value your relationship and you want this thing to work for life live together after your married

JH there you go, and of course we say personally we do not condone the choice of living together before marriage and thats just something that we base it on because of our faith. Because of religious reasons. What the bible says to us. But the conversation goes out there to the general audience who is not in the same faith mind as we are

DRH yeah, would I give the same advice to somebody who didnt accept my religious beliefs , I would , I would, I would say regardless of your religious beliefs

JH but your reasons would be a little different for encouraging them not to do it.

DRH yeah,and these are the points that I make, is we know that cigarette smoking tend to cause cancer. Well there are a lot of people who smoke thru out their entire life and never get it, never get cancer

JH I think of George burns and his cigar smoking and how, you know he lived into his 90's and George burns did and what do you attribute to your longevity and he would say oh so many cigars a day and you know its true, there are exceptions to all of these rules you might say that we pass on.

DRH the question is are you taking a risk, an unnecessary risk and we just wanna let people know that these are risks that need to be taken into account that is it worth it? To have 2 or 3 months were you live together before marriage when you could just put it off , wait till your married then live together and you;ll be in a group of people that are far more successful

JH well the idea of financially forming a bank account together purchasing furniture together you know we did all that prior to marriage but we didnt live together so all these things can be accomplished even tho not living under the same roof. And in the same theme here we had a listener that said �just listen to the show today and the segment about living together before marriage produces a renters mentality even if the couple later marry I agree with this but you can have a renters mentality in marriage without having lived together prior to marriage which is my case. I also liked that you said that renters cant or wont have a difficult time accepting or participating in the POJA agreement, this is true in my experience....."

Accepted

Thank you soo much!! Wow, what a coincidence that wasn't you! I just assumed it was. [IknowIknow ]

What did you think of his answer to that situation?

no international fame for me today

It was a rather longer version of the email he sent me.

He doesn't recommend that people live together before marriage, due to buyer/renter mindset issues although he admits there is an exception to every rule. He sort of sees that an engaged couple might have some sort of buyers mind going, but feels it is not often the case.

What I am taking on board is that I can put to bed that niggling little thought at the back of my mind about Flick and I living together before marriage, as it appears we were an exception, however rather like I don't recommend certain things I have done in my M, I prolly wont be recommending this one.