Is cohabitation really so bad?
Randomity
that "shacking up", as she so charmlessly puts it, is statistically much worse
than getting properly married. A lot of the studies come from American Family
Research so that raises my suspicions right away, but I'm willing to entertain
the notion that some of the figures are right.
I want to open this up for discussion. Obviously there are anecdotal cases
such as mine where shacking up is much better than marriage but I'm wondering
whether there is any truth to her broad generalizations. She is constantly
saying that all studies have shown that living together leads to instability
and violence. I think the split up rate is misleading for two reasons. One the
idea of living together is to see if you are compatible thus splitting up might
be a good result and Two, the only dorks marrying as virgins probably would be
too anal to split up.
Somethings fishy with her argument but for a change she's the one with the
studies so I have to give her the benefit of a doubt.
Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
Randomity
Jakthehmmr
>In her amateurish column this week, Laura lists studies which she says prove
>that "shacking up", as she so charmlessly puts it, is statistically much
>worse
>than getting properly married.
Lazy Pukes shack up, Randumb.......Real People get married and formalize the
commitment........No amount of smarm can make shack-ups look any
better..........Spin all you want, but it will never fly........
<snip the Spinning Bullshit and Smarm>
KADD567
stocks bonds you name it we have it together. My grandchilldren don't have a
clue we are not married. We have been living like this for so long that to get
married would only do two things for us. Give us an extra piece of paper to
file and kill us at tax time. We are alot happier than most of our married
friends. Most people don't remember that we are not married. Why change it.
CARRIE
Xiphias Gladius
> I have been living with my other half for 17 years. We own property together
> stocks bonds you name it we have it together. My grandchilldren don't have a
> clue we are not married. We have been living like this for so long that to get
> married would only do two things for us. Give us an extra piece of paper to
> file and kill us at tax time.
You are allowed to file "married, filing seperately."
It might make inheretance issues and medical decision issues easier, if,
G-d forbid, that should come up.
But it's your choice.
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
EMF1947
>Date: Tue, Apr 11, 2000 7:30 AM
>Message-id: <8cv5tb$1gj$1...@hiram.io.com>
>
>KADD567 <kad...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I have been living with my other half for 17 years. We own property
together
>> stocks bonds you name it we have it together. My grandchilldren don't
>have a
>> clue we are not married. We have been living like this for so long that
>to get
>> married would only do two things for us. Give us an extra piece of paper
>to
>> file and kill us at tax time.
>
>You are allowed to file "married, filing seperately."
>
>It might make inheretance issues and medical decision issues easier, if,
>G-d forbid, that should come up.
>
>But it's your choice.
>
> - Ian
>--
Check the tax tables, though. If you file "married filing separately", you pay
more than two single people with the same income would, and in most cases, more
than a married couple with two incomes pays filing jointly.
Ellen
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Evita Gomez
Jakthehmmr <jakth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000411031306...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
> rand...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity) wrote:
> Lazy Pukes shack up, Randumb.......Real People get married and formalize
the
> commitment........No amount of smarm can make shack-ups look any
> better..........Spin all you want, but it will never fly........
Really? We lived together for 7 Years before formally
tying the knot. We'd been married 10 years since.
Methinks you and CUNT Dr. Laura Shitslinger
both need to have a brain-douche.
Martha Hughes
Randomity <rand...@aol.comdropdead> wrote in message
news:20000411024957...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> In her amateurish column this week, Laura lists studies which she says
prove
> that "shacking up", as she so charmlessly puts it, is statistically much
worse
Family
> Research so that raises my suspicions right away, but I'm willing to
entertain
> the notion that some of the figures are right.
> I want to open this up for discussion. Obviously there are anecdotal
cases
> such as mine where shacking up is much better than marriage but I'm
wondering
> whether there is any truth to her broad generalizations. She is constantly
> saying that all studies have shown that living together leads to
instability
> and violence. I think the split up rate is misleading for two reasons. One
the
> idea of living together is to see if you are compatible thus splitting up
might
> be a good result and Two, the only dorks marrying as virgins probably
would be
> too anal to split up.
> Somethings fishy with her argument but for a change she's the one
with the
> studies so I have to give her the benefit of a doubt.
>
> Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
> Randomity
Her whole premise is that "divorce is BAD", so, anytime a couple splits is a
BAD thing, therefore, if the rate of divorce is higher for couples who live
together first, it's a BAD thing. I don't see divorce as always a bad thing.
I see it as a necessary thing, and many times a good thing. So, IMO, her
whole premise is faulty at the start. If you want to live together, live
together. If you want to get married, get married. Why should anyone else
care?
Lou
Subject: Re: ROCK 'N ROLL TONITE!!!
Date: 06/01/1999
Author: Jakthehmmr <jakth...@aol.com>
Dunno about that, John...........
I did a cute little waitress named Traci last weekend........
(she's a dead ringer for a very young Jane Fonda)............
And I do write a lot of checks.................
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Beldin the Sorcerer
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote in message
news:8cv5tb$1gj$1...@hiram.io.com...
> KADD567 <kad...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I have been living with my other half for 17 years. We own property
together
> > stocks bonds you name it we have it together. My grandchilldren don't
have a
> > clue we are not married. We have been living like this for so long that
to get
> > married would only do two things for us. Give us an extra piece of
paper to
> > file and kill us at tax time.
>
> You are allowed to file "married, filing seperately."
>
Or they will until the law fully changes eliminating the so-called marraige
penalty.
> It might make inheretance issues and medical decision issues easier, if,
> G-d forbid, that should come up.
>
There are ways around this too... holding assets in living trusts.
They may need to do that anyway to avoid inheritance.
God Almighty Himself
The answer from Me, Yahweh Goldstein, aka God, is apple-pie simple:
Cohabitation is very very bad if you do it all alone.
Next case
God
Hallowed be my name
My kingdom come
My will be done
On Usenet
Randomity
shacking up is (of course) the kids.She says cohabitation makes violence
something like 33 times more likely. Is this true? Also she argues that, in
general, divorce is bad for kids and that divorce rates are much higher in
couples who have cohabited. Even putting anecdotal evidence aside, I really
doubt this assertion. The highest divorce rates are in the bible belt - not a
hotbed os sexual freedom. It makes sense to me that living together would give
people a more informed choice with regards to marriage (if they want to get
married at all). For example, if you get married and find that you aren't
sexually compatible you are in a world of hurt.
I don't believe her statistics. I have a feeling she is playing with
numbers. If for example, she is including cohabiting couple breaking up before
marriage, then she is totally off base because the same argument would apply in
spades to dating. On the other hand, she has the studies, so unless we can meet
her arguments head on either with other studies or with an analysis of her
studies, she holds her point. We can't be satisfied with the same kind of
anecdotal, personal opinions she uses to dismiss studies she doesn't agree
with.
So let's focus a little more here. If I were judging a debate, Laura would
be winning even though I disagree with her.
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/11/00 1:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Eve wrote<
Let's take a look at her audience. Who do you think she's preaching to. Not
the over 50's who aren't going to have any more kids anyway (God forbid); not
the ultra religious right who would stay married under ANY circumstances; but
to the teenagers and unmarried twenty to fortyish singles who either are
currently, have in the past, or are contemplating cohabiting. And you guys
were concerned about adults lying to teenagers about car accidents.
Her studies may be true. However, there may be an entirely different outcome
than the one she's pushing. People who are willing and unafraid to cohabit are
also people who will either choose not to marry, if the partner proves
unsatisfactory, or if they do marry, will not be afraid to divorce. People who
refuse to cohabit are probably doing so for religious reasons or family
pressure (such as in the biblebelt states). These people USED to stay married
for religious reasons as well. But the new statistics prove that is no longer
true.
The outcome of these studies rather than "look how many non-marriages or
divorces come out of "shacking up"", to "look at the people who shacked up and
the partner turned out to be unsat, and they moved on and got on with their
lives." In other words, "corrected a mistake" as she has maintained many times
about her own failed first marriage. Anything she says on her show is biased
propaganda period.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Martha Hughes
God Almighty Himself <yahwehg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000411152036...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
Yahweh, that's my baby
Yahweh, don't mean maybe....
Hey, you're kinda cute, God....busy?
Eugene Paczelt
Randomity <rand...@aol.comdropdead> wrote in message
> Just to reinvigorate this thread, Laura says that her main problem with
> shacking up is (of course) the kids.She says cohabitation makes violence
> something like 33 times more likely. Is this true?
that if the "normal" rate of violence within marriage is "only" three
percent, which I would consider to be quite low, than the rate of violence
in cohabitating families would be around 100 percent.
Gene
mol...@my-deja.com
quick,business like courthouse marriage a few years ago for insurance
purposes. I can't even remember the year we got hitched. The act of
marriage has no meaning for us because we aren't religious and don't
stand on ceremony or tradition. Our partnership was not sealed on a
single day, rather it's been evolving over the years and is based on our
shared sense of ethics and purpose,love and a lot of damn hard work.
I enjoy other people's marriage ceremonies (I enjoy parties and
seeing people have fun). But generally, marriage in the romantic,
"covenental" sense seems like a joke. People make it out like it's such
an important day,they throw tons of $$$ at it, and so many people get
married then divorced then married and divorced that it all seems
meaningless and hollow.
> Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
> Randomity
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jakthehmmr
Methinks you need to pull the Roto-Rooter out of your Skank Twat,
Pig........And go back to the Puke-Hole you crawled out of...........
Jakthehmmr
> Subject: Re: ROCK 'N ROLL TONITE!!!
> Date: 06/01/1999
> Author: Jakthehmmr <jakth...@aol.com>
> Dunno about that, John...........
> I did a cute little waitress named Traci last weekend........
> (she's a dead ringer for a very young Jane Fonda)............
> And I do write a lot of checks.................
And your point is, Moron?........You Laura-bashing Pukes are sure a Stoopid
Lot.............
Jakthehmmr
>I have been living with my other half for 17 years.
In your case, it's your other "quarter" since you don't even constitute half a
brain.........
<snip>
Randomity
>My partner and I have been together for 17 years. We got a
>quick,business like courthouse marriage a few years ago for insurance
>purposes. I can't even remember the year we got hitched. The act of
>marriage has no meaning for us because we aren't religious and don't
>stand on ceremony or tradition. Our partnership was not sealed on a
>single day, rather it's been evolving over the years and is based on our
>shared sense of ethics and purpose,love and a lot of damn hard work.
>I enjoy other people's marriage ceremonies (I enjoy parties and
>seeing people have fun). But generally, marriage in the romantic,
>"covenental" sense seems like a joke. People make it out like it's such
>an important day,they throw tons of $$$ at it, and so many people get
>married then divorced then married and divorced that it all seems
>meaningless and hollow.
You are a couple after my own heart. Your attitude seems so much more
reasonable and matureThan the broadway musical foolishness of a typical
marriage. You didn't mention whether there were any children but if there were,
they would be lucky kids. I just can't think of how getting married to someone
without first living together would improve the odds of succeeding. Yet Laura
says that all the evidence proves it. So do you think you are exceptional? Do
you notice any difference in general between your "sinful" freinds and your
properly married ones? To be frank I don't think I have any freinds who are
traditional in Laura's severe sense of the word. But I have several married
friends who benefitted greatly from shacking up.
So I ask again, how can we account for Laura's studies? I am genuinely
perplexed.
KADD567
on. By the way we don't have anychildren together. But I have 4
grandchildren, and as I mentioned they have no idea.
God Almighty Himself
>Yahweh, that's my baby
>Yahweh, don't mean maybe....
>
>Hey, you're kinda cute, God....busy?
Me? Ruler and Designer of The Universe? Busy? You GOTTA be kiddin' babe! Do you
have any idea how much data processing it takes to keep track of all the
good/bad things people do? Phew! Man! It's a lot of work! But, ya know, I
already did hit on ya and gave the chance to convert and you didn't bite. The
postman may ring twice but Yahweh knocks once and then He's outta there. I
mean, I have my pride, ya know? Besides, I have a serious case of the 'Holy
Hots' for georgann, even though she does tend to leave the best part of her
looks smeared in colors all over the pillow-case.
Lou
Subject:Re: Is cohabitation really so bad? YUP...
Date:04/11/2000
Author:Jakthehmmr <jakth...@aol.com>
rand...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity) wrote:
> In her amateurish column this week, Laura lists
> studies which she says prove
> that "shacking up", as she so charmlessly puts it,
> is statistically much worse than getting properly married.
Lazy Pukes shack up, Randumb.......
Real People get married and formalize the commitment........
No amount of smarm can make shack-ups look any better..........
Spin all you want, but it will never fly........
Subject: Re: ROCK 'N ROLL TONITE!!!
My point was, it seems you are experiencing a dichotomy
between what you preach:
"Real People get married and formalize the commitment........"
and what you say you do:
"I did a cute little waitress named Traci last weekend........
(she's a dead ringer for a very young Jane Fonda)............ "
This reminder brought to you by
JakBait(TM), when you want chum for the scum."
georgann
> >Yahweh, that's my baby
> >Yahweh, don't mean maybe....
> >Hey, you're kinda cute, God....busy?
God Almighty Himself wrote:
> Me? Ruler and Designer of The Universe? Busy? You GOTTA be kiddin' babe! Do you
> have any idea how much data processing it takes to keep track of all the
> good/bad things people do? Phew! Man! It's a lot of work! But, ya know, I
> already did hit on ya and gave the chance to convert and you didn't bite. The
> postman may ring twice but Yahweh knocks once and then He's outta there. I
> mean, I have my pride, ya know? Besides, I have a serious case of the 'Holy
> Hots' for georgann, even though she does tend to leave the best part of her
> looks smeared in colors all over the pillow-case.
> God
> Hallowed be my name
> My kingdom come
> My will be done
> On Usenet
georgann wrote:
I DO NOT! I have perfect skin so I don't need all that cosmetic junk.
Maybe some moisturizer a touch of foundation and mascara. That's it for
days. Evenings its a little more dramatic. But that's it!
Hey. If you wanna come over sometime I'll give you all my best make-up
tips. You'd probably look best in natural tones and a little lavender
around the eyes to offset the ruddiness of your complexion. Plus we can
chat about this .. umm .. "situation".
c.c. ----<---<--<({@
georgann ----<--<--<({@
God Almighty Himself
>I DO NOT! I have perfect skin so I don't need all that cosmetic junk.
>Maybe some moisturizer a touch of foundation and mascara. That's it for
>days. Evenings its a little more dramatic. But that's it!
H'yah...well....uh... Your secret's safe with Me. Doncha worry yourself silly
over Me tellin' tales and braggin' 'bout my conquests. I mean, doin' the Holy
Hula Hula with a born-again babe is somethin', I admit (I KNOW it was as good
for you as it was for Me) but I got most of my braggin' out of my system in the
Old Testament days. (It DID take a little megalomaniacal moxie to write that
commandment about being THE number one God in town, and how anyone who doesn't
think so is screwed big time.)
>Hey. If you wanna come over sometime I'll give you all my best make-up
>tips. You'd probably look best in natural tones and a little lavender
>around the eyes to offset the ruddiness of your complexion. Plus we can
>chat about this .. umm .. "situation".
As if! As if I'm not already here there and everywhere! Remember, georgann
doll-face, whenever you want to see me, all you have to do is click those
little ruby slippers together three times and say: "There's NO one like
Yahweh!... There's NO one like Yahweh.. There's NO one like Yahweh!" and right
about then, your stereo will magicaly start playing 'Nobody Does It Better" and
I'll pop right in.
Keep da faith babe! Don't let these hair-pullin' heathen chicks get to ya.
They're just jealous that they never made it with *The Big Guy*
Jakthehmmr
<snip>
>And your point is, Moron?........
>You Laura-bashing Pukes are sure a Stoopid Lot.............
>
>
>
>My point was, it seems you are experiencing a dichotomy
>between what you preach:
>"Real People get married and formalize the commitment........"
>
>and what you say you do:
>"I did a cute little waitress named Traci last weekend........
>(she's a dead ringer for a very young Jane Fonda)............ "
You're about as dumb as Andre, Lou........A one-night stand is NOT "shacking
up".........Did you Retards come from the same box?.............
Crazy Cat
<20000411024957...@ng-co1.aol.com>:
>In her amateurish column this week, Laura lists studies which she says
>prove that "shacking up", as she so charmlessly puts it, is
>statistically much worse than getting properly married. A lot of the
>studies come from American Family Research so that raises my suspicions
>right away, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that some of the
>figures are right.
> I want to open this up for discussion. Obviously there are
> anecdotal cases
>such as mine where shacking up is much better than marriage but I'm
>wondering whether there is any truth to her broad generalizations. She
>is constantly saying that all studies have shown that living together
>leads to instability and violence. I think the split up rate is
>misleading for two reasons. One the idea of living together is to see if
>you are compatible thus splitting up might be a good result and Two, the
>only dorks marrying as virgins probably would be too anal to split up.
> Somethings fishy with her argument but for a change she's the one
> with the
>studies so I have to give her the benefit of a doubt.
You pretty much answered your own question -- comparisons of the two
will be skewed because the reasons behind why one opts for the one instead
of the other are so disparate. People often will shack up as a sort of
'trial marriage' and hence it ought not be surprising that they break
up -- I think few people shack up for life -- they either break up, or
get married. I think a comparison of the two is really kind of silly on
this basis. I will offer that, IMO, living together is not commitment and
does not offer the legal protections that legal marriage does.
>
>Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
> Randomity
--
Who needs a sig?
donn...@my-deja.com
rand...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity) wrote (in part):
>
Laura list studies which she says that "shacking up" is statistically
much worse than getting properly married I want to open this up for
discussion. I'm wondering whether there is any truth to her broad
generalizations. She is constantly saying that all studies have shown
how can we account for Laura's studies? I am genuinely perplexed.
>
Randomity,
It sounds like you are honestly searching for some objective studies
showing the effects of living together. Here are a few know facts from
a number of university and governmental sources:
-The median duration of cohabitation is 1.3 years.
-Low levels of religious importance/participation are related to
higher levels of cohabitation and lower rates of subsequent marriage.
-Cohabitation rates are 8.2% for Mormons, 20 to 24% for Protestants,
23.1% for Catholics, 32.5% for Jews, and 44.8% for nonreligious
Americans.
-Cohabitation rates are 4.1% for those aged 15-19, 11.2% for 20-24,
9.8% for 25-29, 7.5% for 30-34, 5.2% for 35-39, and 4.4%
for 40-44 years of age.
-The Census Bureau finds that cohabiting is most popular in the 24-35
age group, with 1.6 million couples. The next highest number of
couples -- 931,000 -- are in the under-25 age group.
-Those not completing high school are nearly twice as likely to
cohabit as those completing college.
-Some 30 to 40% of college students are cohabiting at any given time.
-41% of women without a high school diploma cohabit whereas, 26% of
women with college degrees cohabit.
-Marriage for cohabitors is positively related to the level of
education and economics.
-If a couple abstains from sex before marriage, they are 29 to 47%
more likely to enjoy sex afterward than those who cohabit.
-Sexual satisfaction rises considerably more after marriage.
-More women cohabit than men, but men are more likely to cohabit
serially.
-The risk of divorce after living together is 40 to 85% higher than
the risk of divorce after not living together. In other words, those
who live together before marriage are almost twice as likely to divorce
than those who did not live together.
-50% to 60% of first time cohabitors marry the person with whom they
cohabit. 76% report plans to marry their partner, but a lower
percentage actually do.
These statistics and their sources are listed at URL:
http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/facts.htm
There's an extensive bibliography giving references to the studies Dr.
Laura quotes found at:
http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/biblio.htm
and huge list of articles about cohabitation:
http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/articles.htm
There's even some surveys you can take (and view the immediate results
from) on the subject of living together unmarried.
I sincerely hope they help you Randomity in your search for answers.
Peace,
Donn7111
Charles Basner
<donn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8d36ik$t1b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000412031158...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
> rand...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity) wrote (in part):
> >
> Laura list studies which she says that "shacking up" is statistically
> much worse than getting properly married I want to open this up for
> discussion. I'm wondering whether there is any truth to her broad
> generalizations. She is constantly saying that all studies have shown
> that living together leads to instability and violence. So I ask again,
> how can we account for Laura's studies? I am genuinely perplexed.
> -Randomity
> >
> Randomity,
> It sounds like you are honestly searching for some objective studies
> showing the effects of living together. Here are a few know facts from
> a number of university and governmental sources:
Since the upshot of these statistics seems to be that cohabitation is not as
successful as marriage in nurturing long term relationships, would you be in
favor of extending this benefit of enhanced chances of a long term
relationship to homosexuals by giving them the right to marry?
chas
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/13/00 5:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>chas wrote<
>Since the upshot of these statistics seems to be that cohabitation is not as
>successful as marriage in nurturing long term relationships, would you be in
>favor of extending this benefit of enhanced chances of a long term
>relationship to homosexuals by giving them the right to marry?
Eve wrote:
I was still smarting a little at Tina's swipe last night, so I didn't mention
it then. But...has anyone who looked at the website noticed that the sources
for the stats were accumulated and posted by Chuck Colson? Also, in the
bibliography, most of the authors are (in a whisper here) Conservative
Christians. I find this as suspect as if Bob Jones University put up
statistics on interracial marriages. I also think that there are a lot more
cohabiting partners than the 1M or so stated. After all this country has 200M
(Ian, am I correct?) and I can't believe that 199M are neatly married up with
their partners.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Jakthehmmr
>Since the upshot of these statistics seems to be that cohabitation is not as
>successful as marriage in nurturing long term relationships, would you be in
>favor of extending this benefit of enhanced chances of a long term
>relationship to homosexuals by giving them the right to marry?
>
No, because Queers AREN'T "normal"......Marriage is between a man and
woman.......NOT between a couple of mental misfits.........
Randomity
>
>>Since the upshot of these statistics seems to be that cohabitation is not as
>>successful as marriage in nurturing long term relationships, would you be in
>>favor of extending this benefit of enhanced chances of a long term
>>relationship to homosexuals by giving them the right to marry?
>
>I was still smarting a little at Tina's swipe last night, so I didn't mention
>it then. But...has anyone who looked at the website noticed that the sources
>for the stats were accumulated and posted by Chuck Colson? Also, in the
>bibliography, most of the authors are (in a whisper here) Conservative
>Christians. I find this as suspect as if Bob Jones University put up
>statistics on interracial marriages. I also think that there are a lot more
>cohabiting partners than the 1M or so stated. After all this country has
>200M
>(Ian, am I correct?) and I can't believe that 199M are neatly married up with
>their partners.
Your faithful serpent,
> Eve
>
I had the same gag reflex, Eve, when I saw the source. I did a litttle more
research on this and I think the problem is the way the studies are framed. I
think the same scrutiny was applied to all people who dated as opposed to those
who are married dating could be shown to be a major mistake. I would also guess
that in countries where there are arranged marriages there are fewer divorces
for the simple reason there is less freedom.
I have to add that Chas has an excellent point. If you believe Laura's
arguments, then gays are about the only people as a group who actually believe
in marriage. They may be the institution's last best hope.
Xiphias Gladius
> Eve wrote:
> I was still smarting a little at Tina's swipe last night, so I didn't mention
> it then. But...has anyone who looked at the website noticed that the sources
> for the stats were accumulated and posted by Chuck Colson? Also, in the
> bibliography, most of the authors are (in a whisper here) Conservative
> Christians. I find this as suspect as if Bob Jones University put up
> statistics on interracial marriages. I also think that there are a lot more
> cohabiting partners than the 1M or so stated. After all this country has 200M
> (Ian, am I correct?) and I can't believe that 199M are neatly married up with
> their partners.
How'd you know that I'm working for the census? DId I mention that in our
census threads?
Anyway, the last estimates I remember seing were 274 million. I think.
But figure that maybe half of those are kids, and maybe something like
20-30% of folks will never settle down with anyone and are happy staying
more or less single, (I'm making up these numbers), and maybe the pool of
potential married folks is only maybe 100 million. I dunno, though.
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Jakthehmmr
>I had the same gag reflex, Eve, when I saw the source. I did a litttle more
>research on this and I think the problem is the way the studies are framed. I
>think the same scrutiny was applied to all people who dated as opposed to
>those
>who are married dating could be shown to be a major mistake. I would also
>guess
>that in countries where there are arranged marriages there are fewer divorces
>for the simple reason there is less freedom.
> I have to add that Chas has an excellent point. If you believe Laura's
>arguments, then gays are about the only people as a group who actually
>believe
>in marriage. They may be the institution's last best hope.
Marrying Queers makes about as much sense as marrying two male Dogs..........
Xiphias Gladius
> I had the same gag reflex, Eve, when I saw the source. I did a litttle more
> research on this and I think the problem is the way the studies are framed. I
> think the same scrutiny was applied to all people who dated as opposed to those
> who are married dating could be shown to be a major mistake. I would also guess
> that in countries where there are arranged marriages there are fewer divorces
> for the simple reason there is less freedom.
More to it than that: if you're in an arranged marriage, you aren't
expecting a Disney Flowers And Chirping Birds Wonderfully Romantic
Marriage -- a sucessful marriage is someone you can work with, get along
with, and find reasonably attractive. Those are much more achievable
goals. . . your expectations are more realistic, so there's no harsh
disillusionment.
EMF1947
>Date: Thu, Apr 13, 2000 5:05 PM
>Message-id: <8d5gb5$10i$3...@hiram.io.com>
>
>Randomity <rand...@aol.comdropdead> wrote:
>
>> I had the same gag reflex, Eve, when I saw the source. I did a litttle
>more
>> research on this and I think the problem is the way the studies are framed.
>I
>> think the same scrutiny was applied to all people who dated as opposed
>to those
>> who are married dating could be shown to be a major mistake. I would also
>guess
>> that in countries where there are arranged marriages there are fewer
divorces
>> for the simple reason there is less freedom.
>
>More to it than that: if you're in an arranged marriage, you aren't
>expecting a Disney Flowers And Chirping Birds Wonderfully Romantic
>Marriage -- a sucessful marriage is someone you can work with, get along
>with, and find reasonably attractive. Those are much more achievable
>goals. . . your expectations are more realistic, so there's no harsh
>disillusionment.
>
> - Ian
The way Susan Sarandon's character expressed this thought in "Thelma and
Louise" was, "You get what you settle for".
Ellen
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
donn...@my-deja.com
> Eve wrote: ...has anyone who looked at the website noticed that the
sources for the stats were accumulated and posted by Chuck Colson?
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
>
Eve,
The real question is did YOU look? Obviously not. Check again, the
TRUTH is Chuck Colson had nothing to do with the cohabitation website
or any of the stats! Nor is there any connection with Bob Jones
University as one can clearly see from the bibliography at the end.
Where did you come up with this stuff????
These are all secular research studies from a wide ranging number of
universities and governmental studies. Taking cheap shots are always
poor debate methods. Bad form!
Donn7111
http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/
Xiphias Gladius
>>From: Xiphias Gladius i...@io.com
>>More to it than that: if you're in an arranged marriage, you aren't
>>expecting a Disney Flowers And Chirping Birds Wonderfully Romantic
>>Marriage -- a sucessful marriage is someone you can work with, get along
>>with, and find reasonably attractive. Those are much more achievable
>>goals. . . your expectations are more realistic, so there's no harsh
>>disillusionment.
> The way Susan Sarandon's character expressed this thought in "Thelma and
> Louise" was, "You get what you settle for".
No matter how high your standards, you can't get what doesn't exist. I
think that some people marry in a nearly delusional state, believing that
their spouses are paragons -- and refusing to settle for anything less.
This does not lead to happy marriages.
I think that, in every happy marriage I've seen, the partners are fully
aware and tolerant of each others' limitiations and weaknesses.
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/13/00 7:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> Eve wrote: ...has anyone who looked at the website noticed that the
>sources for the stats were accumulated and posted by Chuck Colson?
>dnn7111<
>Eve,
>The real question is did YOU look? Obviously not. Check again, the
>TRUTH is Chuck Colson had nothing to do with the cohabitation website
>or any of the stats! Nor is there any connection with Bob Jones
>University as one can clearly see from the bibliography at the end.
>
>Where did you come up with this stuff????
>
>These are all secular research studies from a wide ranging number of
>universities and governmental studies. Taking cheap shots are always
>poor debate methods. Bad form!
Eve wrote:
hummmmm, let's see. (1) this is a different website than the one that was
originally put up. In fact, three sites were originally put up. Why don't you
catch your breath and go back and LOOK at those.
(2) I used the BJU example as an EXAMPLE of why I considered the stats I saw to
be suspect.
(3) Going off on somebody like you went off on me is more than bad form, it's
bad manners and poor understanding or reading skills.
(4) Why is this subject so important to you anyways? How is it any of your
business who cohabits and who doesnt. If you don't get the answers you want
here, you can always go to the DrLaura.com forum. Those people there will
welcome you and your "statistics" like the second coming.
(5) I don't know how old you are, but it's never too late to take care of your
bloodpressure. You sure need to do something about it.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
EMF1947
>Date: Thu, Apr 13, 2000 10:53 PM
>Message-id: <8d64na$ev0$1...@hiram.io.com>
>
>EMF1947 <emf...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>From: Xiphias Gladius i...@io.com
>
>>>More to it than that: if you're in an arranged marriage, you aren't
>>>expecting a Disney Flowers And Chirping Birds Wonderfully Romantic
>>>Marriage -- a sucessful marriage is someone you can work with, get along
>>>with, and find reasonably attractive. Those are much more achievable
>>>goals. . . your expectations are more realistic, so there's no harsh
>>>disillusionment.
>
>> The way Susan Sarandon's character expressed this thought in "Thelma and
>> Louise" was, "You get what you settle for".
>
>No matter how high your standards, you can't get what doesn't exist. I
>think that some people marry in a nearly delusional state, believing that
>their spouses are paragons -- and refusing to settle for anything less.
>
>This does not lead to happy marriages.
>
>I think that, in every happy marriage I've seen, the partners are fully
>aware and tolerant of each others' limitiations and weaknesses.
>
> - Ian
I think you see what you want to see. You want to believe divorce happens
because people had unrealistic expectations of their marital partners, not
because people who weren't expecting perfection and non-stop romance can find
they picked the wrong partner, anyway, so that's what you find when you look
around you. How systematically have you explored the initial expectations of
people you know whose marriages have failed?
I married my ex-husband aware of his limitations and weaknesses. I married him
despite his weaknesses precisely because I did not believe that there was any
such thing as a perfect person, and I thought I could tolerate his weaknesses.
I meant the "till death do us part" line in our vows until it became apparent
that the death was likely to be mine, likely to be untimely, and likely to be
violent. Then I divorced the bastard, and haven't regretted that action a
single day since. I have a hunch that a less realistic and more romantic
version of me would have dropped him like a hot rock early in our courtship.
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/13/00 2:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Eve wrote:
>>I was still smarting a little at Tina's swipe last night, so I didn't
>mention
>>it then. But...has anyone who looked at the website noticed that the
>sources
>>for the stats were accumulated and posted by Chuck Colson? Also, in
>the
>>bibliography, most of the authors are (in a whisper here) Conservative
>>Christians. I find this as suspect as if Bob Jones University put up
>>statistics on interracial marriages. I
>also think that there are a lot more
>>cohabiting partners than the 1M or so stated. After all this country has
>>200M
>>(Ian, am I correct?) and I can't believe that 199M are neatly married up
>with
>>their partners.
>Randomity wrote:<
>I had the same gag reflex, Eve, when I saw the source. I did a litttle more
>research on this and I think the problem is the way the studies are framed. I
>think the same scrutiny was applied to all people who dated as opposed to
>those
>who are married dating could be shown to be a major mistake. I would also
>guess
>that in countries where there are arranged marriages there are fewer divorces
>for the simple reason there is less freedom.
> I have to add that Chas has an excellent point. If you believe
>Laura's
>arguments, then gays are about the only people as a group who actually
>believe
>in marriage. They may be the institution's last best hope.
Eve wrote:
What a shame. I do think Gay marriage will eventually be supported by the
civil authorities and then by the Churches. It may take longer than people
thought, tho.
IMO, this is no different than trying to marry interracially. I think the
prejudices against interracial marriage fell after WWII, when so many Oriental
women married American military guys. Maybe there will be some significant
event that will make the break for Gay/Lesbian marriages, too.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/13/00 3:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>> Eve wrote:
>> I was still smarting a little at Tina's swipe last night, so I didn't
>mention
>> it then. But...has anyone who looked at the website noticed that
>the sources
>> for the stats were accumulated and posted by Chuck Colson? Also, in the
>> bibliography, most of the authors are (in a whisper here) Conservative
>> Christians. I find this as suspect as if Bob Jones University put up
>> statistics on interracial marriages. I also think that there are a lot
>more
>> cohabiting partners than the 1M or so stated. After all this country has
>200M
>> (Ian, am I correct?) and I can't believe that 199M are neatly married up
>with
>> their partners.
>Ian wrote<
>How'd you know that I'm working for the census? DId I mention that in our
>census threads?
>
>Anyway, the last estimates I remember seing were 274 million. I think.
>But figure that maybe half of those are kids, and maybe something like
>20-30% of folks will never settle down with anyone and are happy staying
>more or less single, (I'm making up these numbers), and maybe the pool of
>potential married folks is only maybe 100 million. I dunno, though.
Eve wrote:
I just guessed that you'd be doing something productive and patriotic in your
spare time, like working for the census. Ha! No, I called on you for your
crackerjack ability to do math, which I lack severely. I just figured you'd
know what our population is.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Brien Sullivan
>Randomity <rand...@aol.comdropdead> wrote:
>>I would also guess that in countries where there are arranged
>>marriages there are fewer divorces for the simple reason there
>>is less freedom.
>More to it than that: if you're in an arranged marriage, you aren't
>expecting a Disney Flowers And Chirping Birds Wonderfully Romantic
>Marriage -- a sucessful marriage is someone you can work with, get along
>with, and find reasonably attractive. Those are much more achievable
>goals. . . your expectations are more realistic, so there's no harsh
>disillusionment.
But, but there's no twitterpation.
--
Brien
{br...@asan.com}
Xiphias Gladius
>>Anyway, the last estimates I remember seing were 274 million. I think.
>>But figure that maybe half of those are kids, and maybe something like
>>20-30% of folks will never settle down with anyone and are happy staying
>>more or less single, (I'm making up these numbers), and maybe the pool of
>>potential married folks is only maybe 100 million. I dunno, though.
Did a little more digging, as of 1996, the US Federal Gummint estimated
about 111 million married folks.
donn...@my-deja.com
Why is this subject so important to you anyways?
> Eve
>
To put it mildly:
". . . because it [breaking up] HURTS LIKE HELL. You may be the
exception. You may have the perfect partner. Your cohabitation may be
leading you down the road to the perfect marriage. But the chance of
that is very, very slim." - Roland H. Johnson III, sociologist, Texas
A&M University.
Martha Hughes
EMF1947 <emf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000413185236...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> >From: Xiphias Gladius i...@io.com
> >
> >> I had the same gag reflex, Eve, when I saw the source. I did a litttle
> >more
> >> research on this and I think the problem is the way the studies are
framed.
> >I
> >> think the same scrutiny was applied to all people who dated as opposed
> >to those
also
> >guess
> >> that in countries where there are arranged marriages there are fewer
> divorces
> >> for the simple reason there is less freedom.
> >
> >More to it than that: if you're in an arranged marriage, you aren't
> >expecting a Disney Flowers And Chirping Birds Wonderfully Romantic
> >Marriage -- a sucessful marriage is someone you can work with, get along
> >with, and find reasonably attractive. Those are much more achievable
> >goals. . . your expectations are more realistic, so there's no harsh
> >disillusionment.
> >
>
> The way Susan Sarandon's character expressed this thought in "Thelma and
> Louise" was, "You get what you settle for".
Yes! You are absolutely right, Ellen! Plus, that's one of my favorite
movies. The saying is true, we get what we think we can tolerate or change.
When our self-esteem is in the gutter, it's the worst time to even think
about getting into a relationship, unfortunately, that's when most of us
reach out to find someone. It doesn't work.
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/15/00 8:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>> Eve (in part)wrote:
>Why is this subject so important to you anyways?
>To put it mildly:
>". . . because it [breaking up] HURTS LIKE HELL. You may be the
>exception. You may have the perfect partner. Your cohabitation may be
>leading you down the road to the perfect marriage. But the chance of
>that is very, very slim." - Roland H. Johnson III, sociologist, Texas
>A&M University.
>
Oh, please. Grow up and get over yourself. If you paid as much attention to
what goes on here, as you do to what is none of your business, you would know
who is married and who is cohabiting, as if it matters.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Lou
jakth...@aol.com (Jakthehmmr) wrote:
>You're about as dumb as Andre, Lou........A one-night stand is
NOT "shacking
>up".........Did you Retards come from the same box?.............
>
>
And a one-night stand is not what real people do.
jakth...@aol.com (Jakthehmmr) wrote:
>>>Real People get married and formalize the commitment....."
Say goodnight, Jak.
Jakthehmmr
>In article <20000412134340...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
>jakth...@aol.com (Jakthehmmr) wrote:
>>You're about as dumb as Andre, Lou........A one-night stand is
>NOT "shacking
>>up".........Did you Retards come from the same box?.............
>>
>>
>
>And a one-night stand is not what real people do.
>
>jakth...@aol.com (Jakthehmmr) wrote:
>>>>Real People get married and formalize the commitment....."
>
>
>Say goodnight, Jak.
You are really Stoopid, Lou.......I thought Andre and Ellen were dense.........
axel heyst
toowilli...@aol.com (Eve DuJardin) wrote:
>Excuse the impertinent question, but....what advantage is there to marrying
>with a blind fold on? Aren't the divorce statistics 1 out 3 marriages today?
>And even higher in some states?
The divorce stats are highest in the Bible Belt, if ya can believe it.
The hypothesis is that way-young couples are hot'n' horny to beat the band
but because of religious proscriptions forbidding premarital sex they can't
do the nasty in the basement or whatever like everybody else but instead
get married and then it's like in "Diner" when Daniel Stern and Ellen
Barkin get married they find out that there's alot more to marriage than
"doing it" all the damn time. We don't know what happens to Shrevie and
Beth but we do know that in the Bible Belt there's beaucoup breakups, often
times with chillens, and all because the Lord God says no stankie without
the hitch.
yup.
Axel
donn...@my-deja.com
Kraez...@hotmail.com (Crazy Cat)(in part) wrote:
> People often will shack up as a sort of 'trial marriage' and hence it
ought not be surprising that they break up -- I think few people shack
together is not commitment and does not offer the legal protections
that legal marriage does.>
> >
You are right. One current survey,
(http://apps4.vantagenet.com/zsv/survey.asp?
n=11&id=91212154350&finish=Finish&final=1), shows that only abut 5% of
cohabitants intend to never marry. Of the cohabitants surveyed, 42%
have been together 1 year, 27% 1 - 2 years, 22% 2 - 5 years, 6% 5 - 10
years, and only 4 % more than 10 years. The majority of people live
together as a temporary "trial marriage" as you indicated and do not
intend to always live together unmarried.
The unfortunate part of "trying shoe on before buying" is that it
increases your chances of divorce 40 to 60%, according to sociologists,
and has NO benefit for the current or future relationships.
In fact "The available social science evidence suggests that living
together is not a good way to prepare for marriage or to avoid divorce.
No scholar that I know of, or anyone else for that matter, has been
able to contest this with any counter evidence." - David Popenoe,
Professor of Sociology and Co-Director, The National Marriage Project,
Rutgers University.
Regards,
Donn7111
All About Cohabiting
Weltanscha
>The unfortunate part of "trying shoe on before buying" is that it
>increases your chances of divorce 40 to 60%, according to sociologists,
>and has NO benefit for the current or future relationships.
I don't know the stats, but I'm thinking that this is a pretty hard call to
make. It's not at all surprising that people who living together before
marriage are more likely to break up. For one thing, it's a lot easier to do
when there aren't strings. For another, people who aren't that into each other
in the first place are going to be more likely to live together than marry. So
before you can say that there's something about marriage that protects against
divorce, you have to get into couples' motivations, and just asking them might
not get you the truth. I'm sure there are lots of people that aren't ready to
admit to themselves, much less survey takers, that their attachment to each
other isn't as strong as it could be. That's happened to me, though not with
my current girlfriend. (And I'd say that even if she didn't use Deja to read
my posts. :)
- Dr. Tom
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/17/00 7:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>>The unfortunate part of "trying shoe on before buying" is that it
>>increases your chances of divorce 40 to 60%, according to sociologists,
>>and has NO benefit for the current or future relationships.
Eve wrote:
Excuse the impertinent question, but....what advantage is there to marrying
with a blind fold on? Aren't the divorce statistics 1 out 3 marriages today?
And even higher in some states? So, people who have more freedom today, live
longer today, have less social pressure to marry and stay married today, tend
to get divorced when the bloom is off the rose. Personally, I would rather be
free to experiment as a young adult, then get all tied up in marriage just to
have sex.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/17/00 10:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
> The divorce stats are highest in the Bible Belt, if ya can believe it.
>The hypothesis is that way-young couples are hot'n' horny to beat the band
>but because of religious proscriptions forbidding premarital
>sex they can't
>do the nasty in the basement or whatever like everybody else but instead
>get married and then it's like in "Diner" when Daniel Stern and Ellen
>Barkin get married they find out that there's alot more to marriage than
>"doing it" all the damn time. We don't know what happens to Shrevie and
>Beth but we do know that in the Bible Belt there's beaucoup breakups, often
>times with chillens, and all because the Lord God says no stankie
>without
>the hitch.
>
Eve wrote:
Exactly!!!
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Randomity
>>More to it than that: if you're in an arranged marriage, you aren't
>>expecting a Disney Flowers And Chirping Birds Wonderfully Romantic
>>Marriage -- a sucessful marriage is someone you can work with, get along
>>with, and find reasonably attractive. Those are much more achievable
>>goals. . . your expectations are more realistic, so there's no harsh
>>disillusionment.
>>
>> - Ian
>
>The way Susan Sarandon's character expressed this thought in "Thelma and
>Louise" was, "You get what you settle for".
>
Not even that in the case of arranged marriages. You get what your father
settles for.
donn...@my-deja.com
>
> >Excuse the impertinent question, but....what advantage is there to
*********************************************************
Anyone see the comprehensive three-part look at Cohabitation in America
in the USA Today?
Donn7111
http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/index.htm
*********************************************************
USA Today 4/18/00
by Karen Peterson
Changing the shape of the American family
There was a time when an unmarried couple living together would have
scandalized the neighbors. But today, it has become so commonplace that
it hardly raises an eyebrow. More than 50% of opposite-sex couples
tying the knot lived together first, up from 10% in 1965, the latest
statistics show. The 2000 Census will provide a new snapshot of live-
ins. While the neighbors may be sanguine, many social scientists are
not. Some of them say marriage is losing out to cohabitation, and
living together is changing the shape of the family, especially when
children are involved. Standard studies show that those who first
cohabit are at higher risk for divorce - up to 48% higher - but that
trend may be abating. The dramatically increasing numbers of live-ins
and the swelling numbers of kids involved are transforming family life,
with "legal marriage losing its primacy as the manifest center of
family ties," says University of Michigan sociologist Pamela Smock.
04/18/00
Changing the shape of the American family
By Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY
Sarah Abbott has lived with Daniel Price for about 18 months. A wedding
may well be in their future, but it isn't a sure thing, says Abbott, 24,
of San Francisco. She is a little scared by the fact her mom
divorced. "I want to be sure, and I think either subconsciously or not,
it affects the way I look at marriage. It is not a huge priority in my
life now."
There was a time when that attitude would have scandalized the
neighbors. But living together has become so commonplace that it hardly
raises an eyebrow. More than 50% of opposite-sex couples tying the knot
lived together first, up from 10% in 1965, the latest statistics show.
The 2000 Census will provide a new snapshot of live-ins. Experts hope
folks fill out their Census forms accurately and return them promptly
to provide fodder for their research.
While the neighbors may be sanguine, many social scientists are not.
Some of them say marriage is losing out to cohabitation, and living
together is changing the shape of the family, especially when children
are involved. Standard studies show that those who first cohabit are at
higher risk for divorce - up to 48% higher - but that trend may be
abating.
The dramatically increasing numbers of live-ins and the swelling
numbers of kids involved are transforming family life, with "legal
marriage losing its primacy as the manifest center of family ties,"
says University of Michigan sociologist Pamela Smock. She is a co-
author of a report from the University of Michigan Institute for Social
Research to be published in the Annual Review of Sociology in August.
Smock crunches the numbers and analyzes the latest studies.
In general, living together is not good for cohabitors' well being,
says Linda Waite, a University of Chicago sociologist. Her book The
Case for Marriage, arriving this fall, will detail research showing
that living together can undermine marriage. "Cohabiting changes
attitudes to a more individualistic, less relationship-oriented
viewpoint," she says. Live-ins become less committed to marriage and
that affects the quality of their married life later.
She finds that live-ins are less happy than marrieds, less sexually
faithful and less financially well-off. Cohabiting and being married
are not the same, she says. "Marriage forms a new unit. Cohabiting is
more like roommates with sex." Smock finds that fewer cohabitors are
choosing to marry, and women are more likely to live with men than to
marry if they get pregnant. The trends, she says, suggest cohabitation
is becoming a substitute for marriage.
The general public and even some experts don't realize the profound
impact the exploding numbers of live-ins will have on the American
family, Smock says.
The report notes everything from increasing numbers of children living
with couples who cohabit - possibly more vulnerable than those in
standard stepfamilies - to a suggestion that women who live in don't do
as well as men do.
Reasons for the soaring numbers of cohabitors run the gamut, from the
increased acceptance of premarital sex to the expanding economic
independence of women, freeing them from the need to marry.
While awaiting data from the Census, several researchers have new
findings: Living together now often involves kids. "About one-half of
previously married cohabitors and 35% of never-married cohabitors have
children in the household," Smock says. What happens to the kids if Mom
and her boyfriend split is one of the field's most hotly contested
issues.
Those who live together before marriage still tend to get divorced more
than those who don't, partly because they enter the union prepared to
end it. But the dismal numbers may be in retreat, says demographer
Robert Schoen of Pennsylvania State University in University Park.
Those who cohabited 15 years ago tended to be more liberal, not
particularly religious, not given to commitment, more independent - a
population more prone to divorce whether they lived together or not,
Schoen says.
Now that cohabiting "is majority behavior," Schoen says, that
population has been diluted by adults looking for more stable
unions. "As a group, cohabitors are now probably a lot less distinct
population." However, he says, "there is still a feeling in the field
that cohabitation is associated with divorce."
People who cohabit are less likely to marry their partners than in the
past. University of Wisconsin-Madison demographer and sociologist Larry
Bumpass says the probability of marrying within five years declined 8%
between the early '80s and the early '90s, while the probability of
breaking up without marrying rose 20%. Bumpass says the stigma
associated with cohabiting continues to decrease, encouraging those not
particularly interested in marriage to live together. Still, most
couples either break up or marry within 1 1/2 years.
Cohabiting may be a better deal for men than women. Women can end up
with the responsibilities of marriage but without the legal protections.
Researcher Susan Brown at Bowling Green (Ohio) State University finds
that women who cohabit are more prone to depression than married women,
especially if children are involved. If such women constantly feel the
union could dissolve at any time, "the instability is terribly
detrimental to their psychological well-being."
Other researchers are coming up with sophisticated profiles of who
lives together. And there is decreasing support for the "one size fits
all" view. Researchers Lynne Casper (National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development) and Liana Sayer (University of Maryland in
College Park) find that couples cohabit for a variety of reasons, all
of which affect the outcome. They say some view cohabiting as a:
Substitute for marriage.
They are certain about a partner but uncertain
about marriage itself. They tend to continue living together.
Precursor to marriage.
They are certain about both their partner and
marriage and are most apt to wed.
Trial period.
They are uncertain about a partner but certain about
marriage. They are apt to split up.
Serious dating relationship.
They are uncertain about everything "except
their desire for a good time." They are apt to break up.
It gets trickier, of course, if the partners disagree on what the
outcome should be. But overall, the two researchers emphasize the
diversity of
reasons couples live together.
So do Marshall Miller and Dorian Solot, cohabitors and twentysomethings
who celebrate those who live together for whatever reason and believe
that researchers miss the love boat by insisting on comparing
cohabitors
to marrieds. They have started the Alternatives to Marriage Project
(www.unmarried.org).
"There is danger in saying there is only one right answer for how to
create a relationship or a family," Solot says. Championing marriage
over
living together indicates "some element of denial about the realities
of
families today."
Demographer Bumpass agrees that those who live together are just
creating
a form of the American family that is undergoing complex
changes. "Living
together is more similar to marriage than it is dissimilar," he says.
And
"like marriage, it can be a good thing or a bad thing."
He also says he and demographer Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore believe that reported negative effects for
cohabitors don't mean doom for everyone. Statistics are about averages,
not the experience of any one particular person. "One's life script is
not written as a negative thing" because one cohabits, he says.
Bumpass says those who debate whether cohabiting weakens marriage must
remember that "living together is not going away. We have to realize
this
is the world we live in."
Sarah Abbott of San Francisco says she probably will marry her live-in
and definitely would if she were to have a child. But for now, living
with him is no big deal. "I can really only go on how it has worked for
me. I am surprised by how well it is working. I wouldn't want to do it
any other way."
______________
04/18/00
Wedded to relationship but not to marriage
By Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY
Living together without a marriage license tends to be a transitory
stage. Within about 18 months, most couples either wed or break up.
Only about one-sixth of live-ins last at least three years, and only
one-tenth endure five years or more, says University of Michigan
sociologist Pamela Smock.
Many social scientists are concerned about opposite-sex unmarrieds -
particularly those who plan children - and the future of the family.
"When you look at the data, it becomes difficult to maintain the
position
that marriage isn't better," Smock says.
Janna Cordeiro and Stephan Toomey fall into the one-tenth category,
couples who stay together for the long term. They are among many who
think the experts are off-base.
The two fell in love in college 10 years ago and elected to forsake
assigned housing with its unpredictable roommates and to live "with
someone we love," says Toomey, 30, of Atlanta. But over time they made
a
conscious decision to stay together and not marry.
"We did not take it for granted that we would still be able to make
each
other happy in five years," says Cordeiro, also 30. "We assumed that we
might change and grow apart. We decided to check in with each other on
a
regular basis and re-evaluate." At first it was about every six months,
because she felt too young to make a longer commitment.
Toomey, a graduate student at Georgia Institute of Technology, notes:
"For the first four or five years, we were very careful not to talk
about
plans years ahead. We were careful to give each other our own space, to
not be dependent on each other for ultimate happiness."
They do not need wedding vows to cement a union. "We didn't want a
relationship based on some false sense of security," says Cordeiro, who
works as an AIDS researcher with a consulting firm. "Our relationship
is
about getting up and treating each other each day with respect and
love.
I don't need a marriage license to give me that."
They have, she says, "built a life together. It is a cop-out to say
that
living together makes it easier if we want to leave. It would still be
hard, but in a way that would not involve a judge or court system."
They have talked through the nitty-gritty issues. "I never wanted to
fight with him about money," Cordeiro says. "It is not worth it. We
have
separate checkbooks. We split everything 50-50. In the beginning,
though,
we had different ideas about money. I worry about it; he doesn't."
He is, she says, "a better cook. He cleans better, too. But I do the
laundry better." They split such chores.
Cordeiro does not believe cohabiting will weaken their relationship.
Marriage is no guarantee of longevity, she says. "I've seen a lot of
people get divorced. Some divorces are amicable, and others are really
messy."
The "marriage industry" infuriates her. A friend's father "just spent
$40,000 on her wedding. That just takes the focus off the spiritual and
legal bond of marriage."
She also feels strongly about some political issues around marriage,
going back to when women were considered the property of husbands. And
she has "a lot of gay and lesbian friends, and just because I am
straight, why should I get all the privileges they don't?" Same-sex
partners can't legally marry.
The two are coming up on their 10th anniversary. They are planning
lifestyle changes, including having a baby and moving to San Francisco.
But they will not be looking for a justice of the peace. "We will get
the
paperwork done if we have a child, to protect his or her legal rights.
But I am not concerned about any stigma. The most important thing is
the
child is loved, not whether we have a license."
She would like to celebrate with a 10-year blowout party but is not
quite
sure what to do. "We have worked hard. I want a big celebration, but
any
kind of ritual is still connected to marriage."
The two have no regrets. But one reality still pulls at their
heartstrings. "One of the hardest things is that our relationship is
not
considered culturally legitimate," Cordeiro says. "We would like to
help
change that. We want people to value our 10-year partnership."
______________________
04/18/00
The legal path to unmarital bliss
By Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY
Couples who decide to live together without marrying need to talk
through
exactly what they expect from the relationship, says Janna Cordeiro,
30,
of Atlanta. She is a nine-year veteran of the growing trend to
cohabitation.
"Talk about everything from who does the laundry to your legal rights"
and where you want the relationship to go, she says. "Some people may
want to draw up a legal contract, although others won't go that far."
Increasing numbers of opposite-sex couples live together for reasons
varying from convenience to practice for a scheduled marriage. The
number
of live-in, opposite-sex couples increased from 523,000 in 1970 to
4,236,000 in 1998, the Census Bureau says. Within about 18 months, most
of those couples either marry or split up.
Just how to handle a live-in relationship is a mystery for many
couples,
experts say. "No widely recognized social blueprint or script exists
for
the appropriate behavior of the cohabitors themselves, nor for the
behavior of the friends, family and other institutions with which they
interact," say researchers Lynne Casper and Liana Sayer.
"Because of the lack of rules and regulations surrounding cohabiting
relationships, cohabitors are forced to make up their own rules," the
two
told a recent meeting of the Population Association of America.
Various kinds of couples live together without marriage - and without
an
accepted social blueprint - for a host of reasons. Gay couples cohabit
because they are prohibited by law from marrying. Seniors cohabit
rather
than marry to protect finances, such as a pension from a previous
spouse,
experts say.
All types of live-in couples need to know what they are doing, say
Marshall Miller and Dorian Solot, live-ins for seven years who started
the Alternatives to Marriage Project in 1998. The project provides
financial, legal and personal information for a variety of couples
through its Web site, www.unmarried.org.
Their effort was the result of personal necessity. The two decided to
live together in a long-term, committed relationship, but they ran into
discrimination in the areas of health insurance, housing and tenant
insurance. They also dealt personally with "social pressure to get
married in a culture focused on marriage as the ideal," Miller says.
Their goal, Miller says, is to combat "the message people get over and
over again: If you are not married, you have fallen short. Something is
missing in your life."
Their Web site notes that "unmarried couples can gain most of the legal
rights of married couples, but it does not happen automatically: It
requires thought, paperwork and possibly the help of an attorney."
Many recommend a sort of pre nuptial agreement even though no nuptials
are planned. Couples need extra precautions if they're buying a house
or
bringing children into the relationship or having a child together or
adopting one, experts say. Live-ins also should be aware that some
states
have anti-cohabitation laws on the books, although they are rarely
enforced.
A small number of towns have registries for domestic partners. Couples
pay a small fee and become "registered," making a public statement that
they are together, the project says. While most registries accept all
couples, some are restricted to same-sex couples. The registries are
not
the same as domestic-partner benefits, Miller says, which are offered
by
some employers so unmarried partners have benefits similar to those
given
to spouses of employees.
There is a good deal of confusion about common-law marriages, Miller
and
Solot say. "There is a common misperception that if you live together
for
a certain length of time, you are common-law married. This is not true
in
most places," Solot says. Only 15 states recognize common-law
marriages,
she says, and they may require a variety of restrictions. At the least,
"you must use the same last name (and file) joint income tax returns."
The definition of the family is evolving, Miller says. "We have moved
away from the Ozzie & Harriet ideal of the 1950s. What our organization
does is recognize the diversity."
Randomity
>"There is danger in saying there is only one right answer for how to
>create a relationship or a family," Solot says. Championing marriage
>over living together indicates "some element of denial about the realities of
>families today."
My problem with the radio whore is that she is so damn inflexible. Times are a
changing as this article reflects and she is being left in the dust. Can you
accept that some adults can have good relationship without spending a day
dressing like dorks and sloshing through a mawkish ceremony. I know clean
scrubbed fundamentalist types need almost daily doses of maudlin activity but
like many adults I can do very well just being real.
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/18/00 1:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>realities of
>>families today."
Eve wrote:
You took the song right out of my mouth, Random......"The times they are
a-changin". Maybe for the better.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Jakthehmmr
Times are changing all right, Snake........But you Relics don't seem to like it
one bit.........Heehee.........
Tinas49ers
involved and their commitment to each other. Of course, I dont advocate living
together, but thats my opinion.
Tina
Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door.
donn...@my-deja.com
rand...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity) wrote:
> " . . . Can you accept that some adults can have good relationship
without spending a day dressing like dorks and sloshing through a
>Randomity
>
Randomity,
I gather that you are talking about the wedding ceremony itself.
I'm a big believer in the "mawkish ceremony" to which you refer. The
marriage ceremony is a long standing ritual in human history that, like
other societal rituals, plays an important role in the lives of the
people, community, and society as a whole - otherwise it would have
disappeared centuries ago. It is one of the few CULTURAL UNIVERSALS
found in every society on earth - its always been here and will always
be here because of its benefit to the well-being of men, women,
families and society. This is a cultural truism and a constant -
regardless of some that may think otherwise today!
Those who live together without a wedding ceremony have no lasting
commitments or responsibilities. Cohabitation involves no public
commitment, no pledge for the future, no official pronouncement of love
and responsibility.
Theirs is essentially a private arrangement based on an emotional bond.
The ‘commitment' of living together is simply a month-to-month rental
agreement. "As long as you behave yourself and keep me happy, I'll
stick around." Marriage, on the other hand, is much more than a love
partnership. It is a public event that involves legal and societal
responsibilities. It brings together not just two people but also two
families and two communities. It is not just for the here and now; it
is, most newlyweds hope, "till death do us part" or for eternity.
Getting married changes what you expect from your mate and yourself.
Some would argue that "the marriage license is only a piece of paper"
and that "if God knows the heart, then He knows the truth of the
marriage" and therefore being "married" by the church or state is an
imposition and irrelevant. We are, however, admonished to obey the laws
of our government in scriptures which requires us to have legal
marriages. (Common law marriages are recognized, in varying forms,in
only 16 states).
Jessie Bernard in "The Future Of Marriage" states:
"One fundamental fact underlies the conception of marriage itself. Some
kind of commitment must be involved... Merely fly-by-night, touch and
go relationships do not qualify. People who marry 'til death do us
part' have a quite different level of commitment, therefore a quite
different level of security, thus a quite different level of freedom,
and as a result a quite different level of happiness than those who
marry 'so long as love doth last.' The 'love doth last' folks are
always anticipating the moment when they or their mate wakes up one
morning and finds the good feeling that holds them afloat has dissolved
beneath them."
Randomity
>I dont think it matters what the stats say. I think it depends on the 2
>people
>involved and their commitment to each other. Of course, I dont advocate
>living
>together, but thats my opinion.
>
>
> Tina
>
I'm starting to like you. Please say something outrageous so I can make sense
of this day.
Cleo
>Those who live together without a wedding ceremony have no lasting
>commitments or responsibilities.
A quick look at divorce rates will show that about half of the people
who get married have a low level of committment.
>Getting married changes what you expect from your mate and yourself.
I do not agree. Don't get me wrong; I'm married. I'm still with my
first husband, and we'll be married 10 years this fall. I love being
married, and can't imagine my life without him. But getting married
did not change our expectations of each other, or of ourselves. Our
committment to each other existed long before our marriage was legal.
Our committment was not because of our marriage, our marriage was
because of our committment. If two people lack a sense of
committment, getting married won't change that. If it ain't there
before the wedding, it won't be there after, either.
This is the central point I think is often lost in the "marriage vs.
cohabitation" argument. Getting married won't make an uncommitted
person into a committed person. If I'm going to live in fear that my
partner will bolt at the first opportunity, I'd rather find that out
BEFORE I marry him.
I also think it's a bad idea to imbue marriage with magical
properties. It's misleading to imply that the very act of entering
into a marriage will change the people involved, or the relationship
between those people. It's this magical thinking that caused some
women my age to marry right out of school in order to ensure their
future, and others to "accidently" get pregnant in order to make sure
their men didn't get away. Then, when the husband realized he had
been trapped, the wives were not only alone again, but single parents,
to boot.
Cleo
Wife of a pretty cool guy
k
news:20000420154602...@ng-co1.aol.com...
Uhm excuse me...Random, I'm getting jealous....:-)
k
"so many taters, so few tailpipes"
donn...@my-deja.com
>"Personally, I would rather be free to experiment
>as a young adult, then get all tied up in marriage
>just to have sex."
>Your faithful serpent,
>Eve
Is sex the ONLY thing living together is about?
"Casual recreational sex is hardly a feast - not even a hearty
sandwich. It is a diet of fast food served in plastic containers.
Life's feast is available only to those who are willing and able to
engage life on a deeply personal level, giving all, holding back
nothing." - Journalist George Leonard
donn7111
http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/
donn...@my-deja.com
cleo_patra@REMOVE_THISmailcity.com (Cleo) wrote:
>
> "A quick look at divorce rates will show that about half of the people
> who get married have a low level of committment.
>
> cohabitation" argument. Getting married won't make an uncommitted
> I also think it's a bad idea to imbue marriage with magical
> properties. It's misleading to imply that the very act of entering
> into a marriage will change the people involved, or the relationship
> between those people. It's this magical thinking that caused some
> women my age to marry right out of school in order to ensure their
> future, and others to "accidently" get pregnant in order to make sure
>
> Cleo
> Wife of a pretty cool guy
>
Hi Cleo,
I agree - there's nothing magic about marriage. Norman and Ann Bales
from "All About Families" have recently listed a couple of these myths
about marriage:
1. "Myth: Marriage will bring total happiness.
Fact: Every married couple will have to deal with unpleasant and
unanticipated complications sooner or later. We can not predict the
troubles that will arise in any marriage relationship. But we can know
this for sure. Crises will arise - health uncertainties,
misunderstandings, communication failure, disappointments, thoughtless
critical remarks, job losses, problems with children, changing economic
circumstances. Actually there are hundreds of variables. The marriage
road is strewn with potentially explosive land mines. How you negotiate
that minefield determines the quality of your relationship, but if you
expect there will be no land mines, you expect the impossible.
Besides that, we are flawed people.
"Marriages can never be perfect because people are not perfect."
(Les and Leslie Parrott "Saving Your Marriage Before it Starts."
2. Myth: Somewhere out in the world, there is a person who is just
right for me.
Fact: We all have the capacity to make choices and the "pool" of
potentially satisfactory mates may be larger than we think. Billions of
people live on the earth. It is irrational to think that only one
person of that vast number is "just right" for you. It is even more
irrational to think that you ought to leave a marriage because you
didn't choose the "right one." John Fisher wrote, "The success of
marriage comes not in finding the 'right' person, but in the ability of
both partners to adjust to the real person they inevitably realize they
married."
3. Myth: My marriage partner will make up for all my deficiencies.
Fact: While your marriage partner may help you improve, no
marriage partner can "make you whole." The Parrotts warn, "Couples who
swallow the myth that their spouse can make them whole become dependent
on their partner in a way that is by all standards unhealthy. These
couples cultivate what experts call an enmeshed relationship,
characterized by general reliance on their spouse for continual
support, assurance and wholeness."
When we expect our partners to make us whole, we inevitably set
ourselves up for disappointment. We never stop they think that our
partners expect the same thing of us. Such expectations are
unrealistic and doomed to failure. It is only when we learn to
profit from one another's strengths and accept responsibility for our
own shortcomings that we can grow in a marriage relationship."
Regards,
Donn7111
http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/
Tinas49ers
>My problem with the radio whore is that she is so damn inflexible. Times are
>a
>changing as this article reflects and she is being left in the dust.
Why would you think morals would change?
Jim Gray
Tinas49ers wrote:
>
> Randy wrote:
> >My problem with the radio whore is that she is so damn inflexible. Times are
> >a
> >changing as this article reflects and she is being left in the dust.
>
> Why would you think morals would change?
>
Um...I don't know...200 years ago it was perfectly moral to own human
beings. 100 years ago it was perfectly moral for men to dominate women
to the point of women practically being property. 50 years ago it was
perfectly moral to forbid people from sitting and eating together based
on the color of their skin. Nowadays it is perfectly moral for most
people to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. In the future it may
be perfectly moral for two men or two women (or four men _and_ four
women) to be married.
Morals are very much relative to the era. Just because slavery,
objectitude of women, and segregation are repulsive to us now does _not_
mean that we can project those morals backward in time. They are
repulsive now. They were moral then. In the same way, the idea of
same-sex marriage and polyamory is resisted now, but in twenty or thirty
years, the attitude may be the same as we now have about
segregation..."what were they thinking?"
Jim (immoral moralist) Gray
--
Jim's List of Faults (so far):
1. no charisma
2. lies to his mother
3. immoral moralist
georgann
> Randy wrote:
> >My problem with the radio whore is that she is so damn inflexible. Times are
> >a changing as this article reflects and she is being left in the dust.
Tinas49ers wrote:
> Why would you think morals would change?
> Tina
georgann wrote:
Didn't you say yours did, Tina?
I seem to recall something like that buzzing in here dozens ... no
hundreds ... of times.
c.c.
georgann
---forgiven since 33 A.D.---
Martha Hughes
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39003CF2...@mindspring.com...
>
> > Randy wrote:
> > >My problem with the radio whore is that she is so damn inflexible.
Times are
> > >a changing as this article reflects and she is being left in the dust.
>
> Tinas49ers wrote:
> > Why would you think morals would change?
> > Tina
>
> georgann wrote:
> Didn't you say yours did, Tina?
> I seem to recall something like that buzzing in here dozens ... no
> hundreds ... of times.
about 1/100000th of the posts georgann has made.
georgann
> > > Why would you think morals would change?
> > > Tina
> > georgann wrote:
> > Didn't you say yours did, Tina?
> > I seem to recall something like that buzzing in here dozens ... no
> > hundreds ... of times.
Martha Hughes wrote:
> about 1/100000th of the posts georgann has made.
georgann wrote:
Good dog Martha!
Now go fetch Tina a man.
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/20/00 6:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Eve wrote:
>>"Personally, I would rather be free to experiment
>>as a young adult, then get all tied up in marriage
>>just to have sex."
>donn7111 wrote:<
>Is sex the ONLY thing living together is about?
>"Casual recreational sex is hardly a feast - not even a hearty
>sandwich. It is a diet of fast food served in plastic containers.
>Life's feast is available only to those who are willing and able to
>engage life on a deeply personal level, giving all, holding back
>nothing." - Journalist George Leonard
Eve wrote:
If you ask DL, the answer is yes. Most of the people against cohabitation are
outraged that unmarried persons can live together as tho married (meaning, have
sex in their own bed). A lot of people, especially ultra religious types,
marry simply to have sex. Don't you wonder what makes the divorce rate so high
in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, etc.?
Question for you. Why are you so concerned about who does or doesn't cohabit?
It's none of your business and surely no skin off of your nose. So why all the
angst about it?
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Eve DuJardin
>Randomity,
>I gather that you are talking about the wedding ceremony itself.
>I'm a big believer in the "mawkish ceremony" to which you refer. The
>marriage ceremony is a long standing ritual in human history that, like
>other societal rituals, plays an
>other societal rituals, plays an important role in the lives of the
>people, community, and society as a whole - otherwise it would have
>disappeared centuries ago. It is one of the few CULTURAL UNIVERSALS
>found in every society on earth - its always been here and will always
Eve wrote:
Read your history, donn7111. Marriage, as we understand and practice in
theWestern culture is very different from what it started out to be and still
is in many Eastern cultures.
(1)Marriage was a sale of a woman by her father or brothers to a man for a
price.
(2)Men protected or didnt protect their "wives" depending on the value of the
woman and the mores of the tribe they belonged to. Some tribes bartered their
wives for goods, others "lent" their wives in the name of hospitality.
(3) Marriage was primarily for bringing children into the world to be
"workers", "inheritors", and "caretakers of the parents in old age."
(4)Marriage was concidered necessary to keep lines of inheritance clear from
the father to the son.
>always been here and will always
>be here because of its benefit to the well-being of men, women,
>families and society. This is a cultural truism and a constant -
>regardless of some that may think otherwise today!
>
>Those who live together without a wedding ceremony have no lasting
>commitments or responsibilities. Cohabitation involves no public
>commitment, no pledge for the future, no official pronouncement of love
>and responsibility.
Eve wrote:
Oh, I see. Those divorce statistics that one in three marriages ends in
divorce are just some silly aberration, right? Really does prove now the
ceremony makes the official pronouncement of love and responsibility stick,
doesn't it?
>Theirs is essentially a private arrangement based on an emotional bond.
>The ‘commitment' of living together is simply a month-to-month rental
>agreement. "As long as you behave yourself and keep me happy, I'll
>stick around." Marriage, on the other hand, is much more than a love
>partnership. It is a public event that involves legal and societal
>responsibilities. It brings together not just two people but also two
>families and two communities. It is not just for the here and now; it
>is, most newlyweds hope, "till death do us part" or for eternity.
Eve wrote:
As to marrying each other's families and communities, aren't you harking back
rather a long way in history? Are you actually trying to say that "it takes a
village to make a marriage work"? What about all the Conservative outcry at
Hillary Clinton's book? Were you all just mad cause she thought of it first?
>Getting married changes what you expect from your mate and yourself.
>Some would argue that "the marriage license is only a piece of paper"
>and that "if God knows the heart, then He knows the truth of the
>marriage" and therefore being "married" by the church or state is an
>imposition and irrelevant. We are, however, admonished to obey the laws
>of our government in scriptures which requires us to have legal
>marriages. (Common law marriages are recognized, in varying forms,in
>only 16 states).
Eve wrote:
As it happens, most people who cohabit, eventually marry. Maybe not to each
other, but then perhaps forewarned is forearmed.
The days are happily gone, in the West at least, where men and women are stuck
in loveless, hopeless marriages, with no option but to endure.
>Snip The Future of
Marriage<
>"One fundamental fact underlies the conception of marriage itself. Some
>kind of commitment must be involved... Merely fly-by-night, touch and
>go relationships do not qualify. People who marry 'til death do us
>part' have a quite different level of commitment, therefore a quite
>different level of security, thus a quite different level of freedom,
>and as a result a quite different level of happiness than those who
>marry 'so long as love doth last.' The 'love doth last' folks are
>always anticipating the moment when they or their mate wakes up one
>morning and finds the good feeling that holds them afloat has dissolved
>beneath them."
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Tinas49ers
>>I dont think it matters what the stats say. I think it depends on the 2
>>people
>>involved and their commitment to each other. Of course, I dont advocate
>>living
>>together, but thats my opinion.
>>
>>
>> Tina
>>
>Dammit Tina, what with your battle with Georgann and now this reasonable
>post,
>I'm starting to like you. Please say something outrageous so I can make sense
>of this day.
>
hehehe....I knew I could win you over. You were the last hold out. I have WON
the NG!
Tina
Queen of the NG
sharing honors with Greg of course
Tinas49ers
>
>Uhm excuse me...Random, I'm getting jealous....:-)
Anyone surprised?
Jim Gray
Tinas49ers wrote:
>
> Kelly wrote:
> >
> >Uhm excuse me...Random, I'm getting jealous....:-)
>
> Anyone surprised?
>
Ahem...
NAZI!NAZI!NAZI!NAZI!HITLER!HITLER!
Jim (note that I'm _not_ calling either Tina or Kelly a Nazi...just
hoping I can invoke Godwin's Law to stop this subthread before it gets
going) Gray
--
"People who didn't need people needed people
around to know that they were the kind of
people who didn't need people."
-Terry Pratchett, "Maskerade"
Tinas49ers
>Tinas49ers wrote:
>>
>> Kelly wrote:
>> >
>> >Uhm excuse me...Random, I'm getting jealous....:-)
>>
>> Anyone surprised?
>>
>Ahem...
>
>NAZI!NAZI!NAZI!NAZI!HITLER!HITLER!
>
>Jim (note that I'm _not_ calling either Tina or Kelly a Nazi...just
>hoping I can invoke Godwin's Law to stop this subthread before it gets
>going) Gray
>--
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/22/00 11:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Jim (note that I'm _not_ calling either Tina or Kelly a Nazi...just
>>hoping I can invoke Godwin's Law to stop this subthread before it gets
>>going) Gray
>>--
>Tina wrote:<
>Jim, you're so cute!
Eve wrote:
See, Jim, I told you your charisma was peeking out!
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Tinas49ers
>Um...I don't know...200 years ago it was perfectly moral to own human
>beings. 100 years ago it was perfectly moral for men to dominate women
>to the point of women practically being property. 50 years ago it was
>perfectly moral to forbid people from sitting and eating together based
>on the color of their skin. Nowadays it is perfectly moral for most
>people to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.
I disagree that any of that was "moral", as social acceptable. There is a
difference.
>In the future it may
>be perfectly moral for two men or two women (or four men _and_ four
>women) to be married.
God forbid.
Tinas49ers
>Didn't you say yours did, Tina?
>> I seem to recall something like that buzzing in here dozens ... no
>> hundreds ... of times.
A persons moral can change yes, but I dont think morals in general do.
Eve DuJardin
>Georgann wrote:
>>Didn't you say yours did, Tina?
>>> I seem to recall something like that buzzing in here dozens ... no
>>> hundreds ... of times.
>Tina wrote<
>A persons moral can change yes,
>but I dont think morals in general do.
Eve wrote:
A society's morals, can and do change quite often. This may be good or bad,
I'm not sure.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Tinas49ers
>
>
>>>Jim (note that I'm _not_ calling either Tina or Kelly a Nazi...just
>>>hoping I can invoke Godwin's Law to stop this subthread before it gets
>>>going) Gray
>>>--
>
>>Tina wrote:<
>>Jim, you're so cute!
>
>Eve wrote:
>See, Jim, I told you your charisma was peeking out!
Its not peeking out, its spread eagle! He has to try harder if he wants to hide
his charisma.
Tina
betting Jim's glad he stopped lurking
Jim Gray
Tinas49ers wrote:
>
> Eve wrote:
> >
> >Eve wrote:
> >See, Jim, I told you your charisma was peeking out!
>
> Its not peeking out, its spread eagle! He has to try harder if he wants to hide
> his charisma.
>
Spread eagle?! Oh, my!
Jim (just call me Laura) Gray
Jim Gray
Tinas49ers wrote:
>
> Eve wrote:
> >>From: Jim Gray jg...@altoona.com
> >>Date: 4/22/00 10:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >
> >>> >Eve wrote:
> >>> >See, Jim, I told you your charisma was peeking out!
> >>>
> >
> >>Tina wrote<
> >>> Its not peeking out, its spread eagle! He has to try harder if he wants to
> >>hide
> >>> his charisma.
> >
> >>Jim (just call me Laura) Gray wrote:
> >>Spread eagle?! Oh, my!
> >
> >Eve wrote:
> >Quick, Jim, the cite, the cite!!
> >
>
> Yes Please, Jim we need a sight!
>
> Tina
> still smitten by the e-mail Jim sent me
Oh, the embarrassment! I'm ashamed to admit that you've both lost me
completely here. The cite for what?
Jim (usually follows these things fairly well) Gray
--
"Sin is cruelty and injustice, all else is pecadillo.
Oh, a sense of sin comes from violating the customs
of your tribe. But breaking customs is not sin even
when it feels so; sin is wronging another person."
-Robert A. Heinlein, "Glory Road"
Jim Gray
Eve DuJardin wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Is cohabitation really so bad?
> >From: Jim Gray jg...@altoona.com
> >Date: 4/23/00 7:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> > Eve wrote:
> >> >>From: Jim Gray jg...@altoona.com
> >> >>Date: 4/22/00 10:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >> >
> >> >>> >Eve wrote:
> >> >>> >See, Jim, I told you your
>
> >charisma was peeking out!
>
> >> >>Tina wrote<
> >> >>> Its not peeking out, its spread eagle! He has to try harder if he wants
> >to
> >> >>hide
> >> >>> his charisma.
> >> >
>
> >> >>Jim (just call me Laura) Gray wrote:
> >> >>Spread eagle?! Oh, my!
>
> >> >Eve wrote:
> >> >Quick, Jim, the cite, the cite!!
> >> >
> >Tina wrote:<
> >> Yes Please, Jim we need a sight!
>
> >Jim (oh the embarrassment) Gray wrote:
> >Oh, the embarrassment! I'm ashamed to admit that you've both lost me
> >completely here. The cite for what?
>
> Eve wrote: Weeellllll, DL's moneymaker was spread eagled all over certain
> websites. And, well, we thought that maybe you had a certain picture of
> yourself, uh, modeled after the DL pic, on the web....See? Gads, now I'M
> embarrassed!
> Your faithful serpent,
> Eve
Oh, my! (I seem to be saying that a lot lately...)
No, I don't have any of _those_ kind of pictures out in webland. And I
don't e-mail them anymore either, not after that little addy mix-up a
year or so ago...
Jim (does, however, _have_ those kind of pictures, for what that's
worth...) Gray
Eve DuJardin
>> >Eve wrote:
>> >See, Jim, I told you your charisma was peeking out!
>>
>Tina wrote<
>> Its not peeking out, its spread eagle! He has to try harder if he wants to
>hide
>> his charisma.
>Jim (just call me Laura) Gray wrote:
>Spread eagle?! Oh, my!
Eve wrote:
Quick, Jim, the cite, the cite!!
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Tinas49ers
>>From: Jim Gray jg...@altoona.com
>>Date: 4/22/00 10:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>>> >Eve wrote:
>>> >See, Jim, I told you your charisma was peeking out!
>>>
>
>>Tina wrote<
>>> Its not peeking out, its spread eagle! He has to try harder if he wants to
>>hide
>>> his charisma.
>
>>Jim (just call me Laura) Gray wrote:
>>Spread eagle?! Oh, my!
>
>Eve wrote:
>Quick, Jim, the cite, the cite!!
>
Yes Please, Jim we need a sight!
Tina
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 4/23/00 7:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> Eve wrote:
>> >>From: Jim Gray jg...@altoona.com
>> >>Date: 4/22/00 10:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >
>> >>> >Eve wrote:
>> >>> >See, Jim, I told you your
>charisma was peeking out!
>> >>Tina wrote<
>> >>> Its not peeking out, its spread eagle! He has to try harder if he wants
>to
>> >>hide
>> >>> his charisma.
>> >
>> >>Jim (just call me Laura) Gray wrote:
>> >>Spread eagle?! Oh, my!
>> >Eve wrote:
>> >Quick, Jim, the cite, the cite!!
>> >
>Tina wrote:<
>> Yes Please, Jim we need a sight!
>Jim (oh the embarrassment) Gray wrote:
Tinas49ers
>Oh, my! (I seem to be saying that a lot lately...)
Yes and you're so cute when you do it!
>No, I don't have any of _those_ kind of pictures out in webland. And I
>don't e-mail them anymore either, not after that little addy mix-up a
>year or so ago...
Well, what kind of pics do you have to offer up?
>Jim (does, however, _have_ those kind of pictures, for what that's
>worth...) Gray
I'll take whatcha got.
Tina
still waiting for Charlies too