I have to say, nothing gets me writing faster than anti-feminist blogs. Caroline from the Network of Enlightened Women (more on them here) thinks that couple living together is a tremendous destructive force:
I remember when I was in kindergarten and the big tease was "Johnny and Annie sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g, first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage!" That is how I always thought it went, love, marriage, baby carriage. Easy as pie. As a college student preparing for the real world, I realize that there are some new steps in the process. Now, the song could be sung , "hookup, move in together, maybe get married when we are 30, baby." Cohabitation, or the Trial Marriage, is causing the disintegration of not only courtship and dating, but also marriage, and ultimately the family.
Actually, Caroline's song perfectly encapsulates my relationship! We met, hooked up, moved in together, and in less than two weeks - at the oh-so-ancient age of 30 - I'm getting married. I guess I have a lifetime of family-destruction to look forward to!
Caroline, who conveniently forgets that a good portion of the couples in America have no choice but to cohabitate, also writes that "there are very few redeeming qualities of the cohabitation movement." (Who knew I was part of a movement?!)
This leads me to question, why would we want to train for divorce? Why would we want to bring children into a home that is unstable and designed for failure? And, why would be want to engage in something that causes us to have a poisoned view of the opposite sex?
I have one more question to add: Seriously?
But perhaps even better is the original article that sparked NeW's blog post, Michael Gerson's "The Relationship Wasteland." Gerson's piece, which bemoans all the slutty kids living together, hits all the right moral panic notes. (Take a drink when you see these words: spring break, fragile hearts, courtship, cold showers) While you check it out, I'm going to go count the number of STDs I've supposedly transmitted from keeping my ring finger bare through my twenties.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Anything but early marriage is a "relationship wasteland".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16108
"why would we want to train for divorce?"
Training for divorce?
Is that like training for a marathon - with lots of running laps early in the morning?
Hmmm, I always thought it was the opposite. I would think the fact that more than a few life-long best-friendships have broken up when the two became roommates, that it would be smart to live with someone you love before you commit to them forever and ever - and it would be more foolproof than just jumping into a house together after you tied the knot?
P.S. And yeah, I knew you weren't you agreeing with the article.
Gerson gets the facts wrong...but then so do a number of us here. For the non-religious co-habitation before marriage is positively correlated with the length of marriage. So Gerson is wrong, co-habitation is good for marriage (as would only make common sense).
Conversely, we here conveniently disregard the facts that the children of single parent households fare less well than dual parent households in every single measure. Again its common sense: raising kids is hard work, and two do it better than one. We all know well adjusted, successful kids being raised in single parent households but, unfortunately, that's not the typical case.
What blows my mind is that people spend one iota of their time worrying about non-married people living together. Is their own sense of self so fragile? I, for example, could not care less about 19 yr olds rushing to get married so they can finally have sex because of religious convictions. That's their trip. The panic is so telling.
Exactly. If I could permanently implant one thought in the brain of every one of these sad panic-mongerers, it would be STOP FUCKING WORRYING AND OBSESSING ABOUT WHAT OTHER COUPLES DO. IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU.
Pipe dream, eh?
Caroline at NeW's main concern, rightly (and which Jessica doesn't even attempt to address), is the effect of cohabitation on children. Having kids - whether by choice or by accident - when both parent's haven't made a 100% commitment to staying together to raise them is irresponsible and, frankly, selfish. Given what we know about the effects of parental separation on children (or are some feminists still in denial about this?), the trend of cohabitating parents seems to warrant social concern.
Is marriage the only way to commit 100% to another person? Gee, must've missed that memo.
As the child of long-divorced parents, I can state that my family was healthier after my parents separated. My parents didn't fight as much, my siblings and I were less afraid to be around them because of it, and everyone's stress levels and quality of life improved. My parents even got along better when they weren't living together, and we'd all spend birthdays and some weekends together. I realize this isn't the case for everyone, but I fail to see the rationale in trying to force a failed relationship to work when it's not beneficial to anyone. Relationships will succeed or fail on their own merits, not based on whether a couple has taken "official" vows in front of a group of people or not.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Wow. I really only meant to post that once . . .
"I realize this isn't the case for everyone, but I fail to see the rationale in trying to force a failed relationship to work when it's not beneficial to anyone"
Amen to that! My parents have been divorced for 8 years and it was just the right thing for them to do. They've always gotten along fine, it just wasn't working out for them anymore. Obviously my brother and I weren't happy about it when we first found out they were splitting up (didn't even see it coming) but I think things would have just sucked for all of us had my parents stayed married.
ditto
Marriage is not a 100% commitment, or haven't you checked the divorce rates lately?
Well it's obvious that those people were just the ones "training for divorce" beforehand by living together don't ya see? So if we get rid of people living in sin before marriage and just force all couples into matrimony those divorce rates will obviously disappear. Duh.
/snark
Uhmm, the divorce rate is a result of feminism, women not being totally committed to housework and home schooling, the increased acceptance of homosexuality,the "death" of chivalry,dating instead of courtship,hook-up culture and Victoris's Secret. If we rid ourselves of those things, everything will be honkey dorey.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Sorry, my silly female brain can only hold so much at once, and right now it's occupied by planning my future wedding and what I want to name my future kids.
I could honestly give a shit about two people making a "100% commitment" to stay together as long as they remain good parents to the children they have. What about the effects (which you don't even attempt to address) on children who come from marriages where parents stay together for the kids even though the parents are unhappy or being abused? What about when two people commit and then have kids but get divorced anyway? Since divorce is at about 50% now, explain to me how cohabitation is so much more of a cause for concern? And please, please tell me and the other 50% of divorced Americans, how in the world marriage guarantees a 100% commitment to anything and makes you a much better parent?
What you're saying really makes no sense.
Marriages end, as well as cohabiting relationships, so suggesting that married couples have made that 100% commitment is false. They ended even when things like abuse or adultery had to be proven to get a divorce.
Parental separation in and of itself has NOT been shown to harm children. Being raised by parents in an adversarial relationship certainly could, as could having every new partner-of-the-week instantly be 'your new mommy/daddy', but separation in and of itself is not.
My parents divorced when I was 13, and I consider it one of the best decisions they ever made. They stayed united as parents, got along better than ever now that they didn't have to be together 24/7, and never put my brother and I in the middle of their disputes. I think part of the reason they managed that is that my mother was 30 and my dad 35 when they married - they were mature adults and acted like it even when things didn't work out.
Ryan, you're right - it's all about the children. Which is why I'm sure you and Caroline are hard at work fighting for same sex marriage rights - so that children of non-hetero couples have happily "100% committed" parents too, right? Right?
Exactly, and I'm sure he's also all for gay couples being able to adopt right? Right...?
Yeah, my parents' 100% commitment to stay together turned out really well.
And they did it all the "right" way - they were children of the 1950s who dated in a very chaste way, didn't live together until they got married in their early 20s. Fast-forward to my childhood, and DEAR FUCKING GOD should those two people have never gotten married. They divorced, and our lives were all better for it. They're both with people now who are much, much better fits for them. But the fact that they were married vs. cohabiting my entire childhood really didn't play any part in how it all shook out.
dude, go away. this is fucking ridiculous.
Dear Ryan,
Please don't want you to be so concerned about my child. She is having a very good childhood. I have her in a great public school and she has a strong relationship with my brothers for awesome male roll models. She is even learning viola this year. I am terribly sorry to he religious-right because I couldn't force her biological father into wedlock. However, looking back, it would have been virtually impossible to raise a child with him. The care and rearing of my child turned out a lot better since my sanity is in tact without that guy around.
Ryan, I know you just want to "save souls" and everything, I appreciate the concern, but please leave the mothering to the mothers. I don't believe in those bullshit statistics that are designed to undermine single parents. You should check out DePaulo's "singled out: how singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, ignored, and still live happily ever after" It is an eye-opener to those bogus stats you offered.
Lastly, until you become a parent, you don't know what you're talking about. Not all families can be like on tv. Sometimes people become widows, for example.
PS. pro-marriage advocates (hetero) can get bent.
Sincerely, Julia
My goodness, look at what hostility is triggered by the innocuous suggestion that parents ought to stay together for the sake of their children!
In theory, a couple doesn't have to be legally married to be thoroughly committed to child-rearing. It's just that in practice, this rarely happens. Cohabitating couples typically haven't worked out financial and other long-term practical considerations necessary for the raising of children - so when the children do appear, they put an enormous strain on the relationship. And as we all know, too many fathers seem to think they have a right to forfeit their parental responsibilities as soon as they feel constrained by them.
Of course, as some of you point out, the picture is complicated by the fact that marriage today seems to be aspiring to the condition of cohabitation - not vice-versa. Many people probably marry today without real plans for lifelong commitment - but, on the flip side, I also suspect many young people enter marriage with unrealistically high expectations. As any long-married couple would probably tell you, a successful marriage doesn't just happen like weather - it's something you have to continually work for.
Finally, the correlation between divorce and detrimental effects on children is well established, despite claims to the contrary. There will always be an enormous multitude of factors influencing the well-being of children of divorced parents - and some children might live through a divorce unharmed or even the better for it, just as in some cases, such as those involving spousal abuse, staying together simply isn't an option for the parents. But it's clear by now that, all things being equal, lasting marriage is better for the well being of children. (See the Center for Marriage and Families' nuanced treatment of the subject, for instance.)
That is just it, though, young Ryan: MY DAUGHTER IS MUCH BETTER OFF IN A SINGLE PARENT HOME. Aren't you glad I didn't choose to abort her? Now how about a little respect for my decisions and sacrifices?!!!!!!
Also, if you can find him, tell him she is perfect in every way.
BTW: no hostility--only peace in my all girl household! SOOOOOOOO glad that sonofabitch left me!
No hostility, and yet you're calling him a sonofabitch on a feminist website? What'd his poor mum do to you?
The children of divorce who suffer tend to be those children of divorce that was a long time in coming--that is, those children who witnessed a lot of arguing (and sometimes violence) in the home before the divorce actually happened.
The children of divorces that were amicable do not tend to have the same problems.
Here's something for you, though: the children of families that have the arguing (and sometimes the violence) that stay together regardless DO suffer.
The point is: children need stability, support, and a safe home. Whether or not there are two parents there is less important (though there have been studies that show lesbian couples do in fact have the happiest children).
When you state flatly that parents ought to stay together for the sake of their children you make it plain that you know nothing about what it's like to live in a household where your parents are miserable and constantly fighting because they hate each other and want out. That is NOT good for children - it's extremely bad for them. I was delighted that my parents divorced; had they not, life would have been hell for us kids growing up. Please stop generalizing like that; it makes you look a fool when so very many of us know for a fact that you're dead wrong.
Neither of you have said anything that contradicts my point. As I said, there may be cases in which it would, in fact, be worse for parents to stay in the same household than to separate. But as mango implies, in those cases the damage to children has probably already been done.
But we've gotten away from the topic of the thread, which was cohabitation. Since, statistically, many people do view cohabitation as a lower level of commitment than marriage, and since most cohabitating parents do separate at some point in their children's development, I don't think our society ought to be encouraging a lifestyle that we know is going to result in so many children being raised in broken homes. We ought to focus on preparing would-be parents for successful marriage, since, all things being equal, we know it is the best institution for the raising of children. Why this should be a controversial assertion is beyond me.
Totally anecdotal, but the people I know who co-habitate are reluctant to rush to the altar precisely because they grew up in households with a deeply dysfunctional, married, mom and dad, and they're terrified of repeating the pattern. But since a child's well being has so much more to do with stability than with what paperwork his/her parents have on file at the county courthouse, it seems like your energies could be better spent promoting things like after school programs and universal health care coverage, rather than hanging out here to tell us feminists how we're destroying society.
Totally anecdotal, but the people I know who co-habitate are reluctant to rush to the altar precisely because they grew up in households with a deeply dysfunctional, married, mom and dad, and they're terrified of repeating the pattern.
I wouldn't doubt it - but I would also bet that many of those people are children of divorcees, who are similarly afraid of repeating their parents' mistakes.
The simple point I was trying to make is that, IF you have not made a firm commitment to marriage or at least a stable, permanent partnership (given that - again, all things being equal - children fare best with a married mother and father), it strikes me as irresponsible to bring children into the world. But you seem to disagree. Am I right?
But since a child's well being has so much more to do with stability
We don't disagree there. But you seem to deny any link between marriage and stability. What I'm saying is that there decidedly is a link, at least in practice, and I think the reasons are worth examining.
"given that - again, all things being equal - children fare best with a married mother and father"
Do you have some data showing that? I mean, I can point you to a study showing what I said before (that ultimately what matters is support and security, and that the children of divorce who suffer tend to be the ones who witnessed upheaval in the home):
"Characteristics of the parent/parents, such as paedagogic qualities, and the quality of the parent-child relationship appear more important than the type of family. Published results of research reveal no reason why lesbian families should be judged differently from heterosexual ones as family types for the raising of children. The main negative factor for the functioning of the child growing up in a single-parent family is the marriage conflicts that have led to the single-parent situation; being raised by a single parent in itself has no adverse effect."
(my emphasis)
as well as an article about a study stating that children of lesbian couples tend to have fewer mental health problems:
Children with lesbian mothers have a lower risk of developing psychological illnesses than children growing up with a father and a mother, a recent University of Copenhagen study finds. . . . The study found that while five percent of children from traditional families developed conditions such as depression or anorexia between 1992 and 2008, the number was two percent among the 387 children of lesbian parents participating in the study.
Can you show me a study or an article about a study that says, all things being equal, children fare best with a married mother and father?
I highly recommend the article "Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?" from the Center for Law and Social Policy, which takes quite an evenhanded approach to the issue.
If you're interested in more reading, a couple of complete reports on the topic can be found here (unfortunately the full reports have to be purchased, but summaries are available for free):
Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences from the Institute for American Values
Freedom's Orphans: Raising Youth in a Changing World from the UK Institute for Public Policy Research
That first link is very interesting. But its results are exactly why I called you out on the phrase "all things being equal." The report does not say that, all things being equal, children fare best with a married mother and father. In fact, it says the opposite: children with married, biological, no risk parents have certain advantages that mean they do better on average: all things are unequal!
It also says that other family types can and do provide those advantages, and that when they do, children thrive in them--that is, all things being equal, the type of relationship matters less than the support structures within it. (This is the summary paragraph I'm looking at.)
Now, we can talk about why other family types are less likely to have the same advantages, and that would be an interesting conversation. However, cohabitation is not in itself a problem, and marriage is not in itself an answer.
Whoa, I didn't mean "no risk"--I meant "low conflict". This is what happens when I comment before coffee.
I didn't imply that "in those cases the damage to children has probably already been done." I simply said that children of divorce that has had a negative impact are more likely to be children that witnessed upheaval in the home.
I made no comment about what happens to them if their parents stay married. However, I would have probably said that the sooner the conflict ends, the better. The policy brief you linked to mentions something about that too:
"Research indicates that marital conflict interferes with the quality of parenting. Furthermore, experiencing chronic conflict between married parents is inherently stressful for children, and children learn poor relationship skills from parents who aren’t able to solve problems amicably. When parents have a highly discordant relationship, children are often better off in the long run if their parents divorce. Between 30 to 40 percent of divorces of couples with children are preceded by a period of chronic discord between the parents. In these situations, children do better when their parents divorce than if they stay married."
That is, the damage hasn't "already been done" so that the parents should stay together regardless, as you seem to imply. Apologies if I've got your meaning wrong there.
In my experience, most people get pretty hostile when a perfect stranger tells them they're living their life wrong and warping their kids.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that, statistically, the marriages with the best chance of survival are those involving people 30 or over, and the ones most likely to end in divorce are those involving couples under 25.
I don't think Caroline is nearly as enlightened as she thinks she is.
Why does she think there was anyone I met in my early 20s that I WANTED to marry?
Your father should have selected an appropriate man to take your leash-er I mean hand well before you reached 20.
So stupid. It's good to live with someone before marrying them, that way you can tell if you're prepared to spend the rest of your life in their company. Same for sex, wouldn't you want to be sure you were sexually compatible before making a life-long commitment?
I love that Gerson calls unmarried coupledom a "lower level of commitment" as if registering my 8-year union with my spouse with the government would somehow make me a better person.
And the "age sweet spot" for marriage thing... yeesh. Someone needs to tell Mr. Gerson that correlation does not equal causation. (Aside: That seems to be a concept that religious people have trouble with... something in their brain structure?)
I love it too, especially when not many married people can say they are celebrating 25 years together, like me and the non-spouse in our state of unmarriedness (without coercion!).
We did raise a child in our non-marital relationship however, (very sorry, that damned sperm hit bullseye before we even thought about getting a permit slip, oops, marriage license) and I agree, that we should be ashamed that we raised a national Merit scholar who graduated high school in less than 3 years and is now a college sophmore. We feel really bad about that, if we'd gotten married, we could have done oh so much better by her. I'll have to beg her forgiveness.
And, why would be want to engage in something that causes us to have a poisoned view of the opposite sex?
Personally, I can think of nothing that would give someone a poisoned view of the opposite sex so much as the "traditional"(*) courtship/dating these people claim is the way to go.
To me the whole paradigm of a man asking a woman out, courting and wooing her, etc. (with the idea that men are supposed to be assertive at all times and women are supposed to be gatekeepers) is bound to establish a lot of resentment toward members of the opposite sex: men resenting women for not going out with them (and said men turning into Nice Guys(R) and pick-up artists), women resenting men for not asking them out or not proposing to them and otherwise being afraid of commitment or some such.
If you let people be people, then one person might resent another but you don't have a situation where resentment builds for a whole sex. And letting people be people means people "hook-up", "cohabitate", etc. But that's not what builds sexist resentments ... it's forcing people into sex roles (which "traditional dating" does) that builds resentments.
* traditional because their ideas of dating, based on 1950s nostalgia shows or something, have nothing to do with "traditional marriage" which had little to do with love anyway
Huh? Childhood taunt == the way things ought t' be, if I had my druthers?
I remember that rhyme being scary because of the *threat* of having a completely blase, formulaic life.
Yeah, if there's all this secret wisdom to be imparted from childhood chants, can someone tell me where that place is on Mars where the women smoke cigars and the men wear bikinis?
Exactly what I was thinking. And even if you're going to assume the rhyme is "the way things ought to be," who's to say that "first comes love" doesn't mean living together? Or at least fooling around...
Also, what about the part at the end of the rhyme where we (at least the kids I hung out with, and I went to a conservative Lutheran school for K-2, no less) would chant:
"That's not all!"/"That's not all!"/"Here comes Mommy drinking alcohol!"
Is that a part of the "family values" way of living as well? Because at least that doesn't sound so bad ;)
When I was a kid, we used to sing "then comes Johnny in a baby carriage, sucking his bottle, wetting his pants, doing the hula-hula dance." Maybe this was a way of saying men want their female partners to be both mother and wife.
What I found offensive was the implication that a man had to be married to be an involved parent. Dudes are apparently just runnin' around impregnating us ladies and not giving a shit until some chaste princess gets him to put a ring on it...and THEN he cares.
It's just alarmist rhetoric to no good end, plain and simple. Your story isn't all that much different than mine, Jessica. I met my current girlfriend, we hooked up within a week of knowing each other, and now fully intend to live together for a variety of reasons, money being the foremost. Indeed, if it hadn't been so damned difficult for me to find a job in this lousy economy, cohabitation would have happened long before now.
I'm going to be 29 in a month and though I have lived with a relationship partner once before, I have to say that I'm not particularly worried that I am contributing to the destruction of the sanctity of marriage. If anything destroys marriage, it's getting married too soon and/or for all the wrong reasons, in my opinion.
The casual sex promoted in advertising and entertainment often leads, in the real world of fragile hearts and STDs, to emotional and physical wreckage. But it doesn't seem realistic to expect most men and women to delay sex until marriage at 26 or 28. Such virtue is both admirable and possible -- but it can hardly be a general social expectation. So religious institutions, for example, often avoid this thorny topic, content to live with silence, hypocrisy and active singles groups.
>>>>>>
He actually admitted that expecting people to wait until marriage to have sex is unrealistic! But...in the next sentence, he makes it clear that only a few people are virtuous enough to actually wait, so we'd all better lower our expectations of young people, cuz they're all dirty whores.
But if you imagine Vincent Price reading the whole paragraph aloud, it becomes incredibly entertaining. I particularly enjoy the author's disparagement of Christian singles' groups.
The marital sweet spot seems to be in the early to mid 20s.
This image makes me want to take a cold shower...
Also, should we really plan the biggest events of our lives according to children's rhymes?
Sorry, I will only k-i-s-s you in a tree Future Christian Husband, and I will only dress in black-black-black with silver buttons-buttons-buttons all down my back-back-back.
I know I should be infuriated as a 20-something with no designs to get married anytime soon... but it just seems too silly to make my blood boil!
I would pay fifteen cents to see an elephant jump over a fence, fence, fence, so maybe there is something to this life plan after all.
Every claim they make is untrue. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
Projection, projection, projection.
God I remember being in middle school and wanting to get married around 18 or 19...I'm 20 now and the idea of being married scares the fuck out of me. Not that I wouldn't like to get married eventually, I'm sure I would, but in my early 20's? Hell no. I just have a feeling it wouldn't work out, ya know?
"Very few redeeming qualities" to cohabitation? My boyfriend makes me pancakes and bacon every Sunday during football season as we get ready to watch the games together. That's a pretty big redeeming quality right there!
This is an article from last year on a study revisiting the "cohabitation leads to divorce" data that psychologists, fundies, etc. cite as evidence that you shouldn't live together. (It's funny to read "scientific" psychological explanations for the supposed phenomenon... "men just get stuck and are less likely to want to fight and go through the process of moving out, so they just go along with marriage"... when it was really just that the early data is based on more extreme/volatile people in general.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm
Now common sense is backed up by the stats, living together is HELPFUL for marriages. "The odds of divorce among women who married their only cohabiting partner were 28% lower than among women who never cohabited before marriage."
The point is that there is NO basis for what the anti-feminists spout about cohabitation, end of story.
I agree with this, however the only reasonably argument I have heard regarding "early" cohabitation, is the idea that if you decide you two are not going to work out, people who live together are less likely to break up when they should, due to having their lives so intertwined.
Obviously the fix to this would be a societal owning up to taking responsibility, and making it financially easier (leases, teh economy, etc) for such changes to happen.
I agree with this, however the only reasonably sound argument I have heard regarding "early" cohabitation, is the idea that if you decide you two are not going to work out, people who live together are less likely to break up when they should, due to having their lives so intertwined.
Obviously the fix to this would be a societal owning up to taking responsibility, and making it financially easier (leases, teh economy, etc) for such changes to happen.
I do think there is a "sweet spot" in terms of marriage, but more a point in development, less a specific number because people mature differently. That would be somewhere between being old enough to have lived on one's own, but young enough that you can accept another individual in your living environment who won't always do things the way you see them done, but whom you can see tolerate.
More simply: understand that you need to pay the rent and utilities and various insurances and taxes on time, how they are paid, who you pay, but don't scream at someone because they didn't load the dishwasher a specific way or feel the need to re-fold towels. At least that's my opinion when it comes to "sweet spots", which is an otherwise bs term.
What's the big deal about raising a family? The world is overpopulated; it seems irresponsible to romanticize the institution of marriage and then bully people when they don't buy the idealistic picture.
My parents are among those who never should have married then stayed married "for the kids". We all wished they hadn't. My mom was a raging alcoholic and my dad a closet homosexual. All of us have problems today. Thank you Catholic Church. Not.
I feel it necessary to point out that my parents had a very unconventional start and are going strong at 30 years of marriage. My mother was married when they met, and she had an affair with and left her husband for my father (I'm not condoning adultery here, I'm just telling their story). They then lived together for EIGHT YEARS before they decided to get married, and that was only so my mom could qualify for his life insurance. They went down to the courthouse and signed the papers, and that was that. They have the happiest marriage of anyone I know, and they do really sweet thing for each other, just because. The other day I went to the grocery store with my dad and he picked up a bouquet of lilies for her. I asked him if I was forgetting something and he said "no, I just want to remind her that I have a crush on her." Ahhhh. So screw your cohabitation leads to divorce theory.
Yep, as long as we're sharing stories:
My mother's first marriage was to a man she had never lived with and never slept with. Ah what good Christians they were! They were married for seven miserable years during which time her husband cheated on her several times until they decided divorce was not a sin. During their separation and ultimate divorce she met my father. They lived together for five years and then got married. Oh and they've been happily married for 27 years and are the most perfect couple I know.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I realize I'm sort of late to the game here but I thought I'd go ahead and chime in. My parents didn't get married until they were well into their thirties and they just celebrated their 25th anniversary. I'm 22 and I'm pretty sure that they would stage an intervention if I told them I was planning on getting married at any point in the next four to five years.
Also, my mom had four siblings. Two brothers, two sisters. Both sisters are divorced now and they both got married in their twenties. One brother never married (even though he lived with his partner for 10 years and should have been able to get a common law marriage) and the other married in his thirties and stayed married. I know it isn't exactly scientific but methinks I see a pattern...
Has anyone else mentioned the fact that the supposedly sky-high divorce rate in the U.S. people talk about all the time is a steaming pile of shit? It's important to really read the info behind statistics so you know they're not skewing numbers and flat out pulling things out of their asses.
Whenever I hear arguments about this sort of thing, I think of my mother, who has been living with my father for over 19 years and has no ring on her finger.
(Also, she waited until her late 20s to have me. Shock! Her life must have been so barren, dancing ballet in New York City, traveling the world, going back to college to get a degree in elementary education...)
And then they wonder why we call them anti-woman...
I'm totally with Caroline on this -- I've been with my partner for 13 years, and have a desperate yearning to be married. Three kids, no marriage. And I'm 33, so time is a-tickin'. Why the delay? Apparently those rules of 'stability' only apply to opposite sex couples. I'm going to be sending Caroline a message to thank her for her arguments for marriage, and presume she'll be entirely behind the current push to repeal DOMA. Otherwise, it's really just a matter of time before my cohabitation destroys my relationship...
Happily doing my part to destroy modern society by cohabitating with the kindest, smartest, funniest, and biggest feminist I know. If doing this is wrong, I don't wanna be right :-)
It's a lot easier to "un"-intertwine your lives with another person when you're not married, though.
Oops, sorry this was a reply to linecaro.wordpress.com's comment on my post up there!