Adapt or Be Irrelevant

A pitfall of conservatism is when a conservative fails to deal with the reality that things have changed.

I'm not bashing conservatives. Most people would probably classify me as a conservative if I described most of my political and social positions. Obvious exceptions you might have noticed if you've read other entries on this blog is that I warn most men not to marry and I think professional antiporn crusaders are misleading people for personal gain.

I recognize that the truth is the truth regardless of the culture or what is in fashion.

And a truth that conservatives need to deal with is that some things change and if you're going to be effective, you need to meet people where they are.

Let's bring this into the world, to where the rubber meets the road.

Example: State marriage licenses. They are issued to same-sex couples and that's not going to change, unless states cease issuing marriage licenses entirely. Most conservatives have conceded this. Some still appear to be devoting their resources to trying to reverse this shift.

Two talk radio hosts to which I listen via paid podcast subscription, both of whom I think do a lot of good for people, demonstrate the problem with not accepting change.

Dr. Laura, despite what people might think who only know her through what other people say, has always held some positions that go against conservative consensus.

However, she usually refuses to help callers who are cohabitating outside of legal marriage. She usually won't help them with the problem or concern that's coming up within their relationship as it is. Instead, she tells them to either move out or go to the courthouse and get married ASAP. Very few of the callers are going to do either, and dismissing them with that won't help them in their marriage (if they do marry) or interpersonal relationships with each other or others if they do move out from each other.

I am generally against "shacking up" myself. However, most people who marry these days lived together before they did, just like Dr. Laura and her late husband. It's perfectly valid for her to explain why she now opposes shacking up (as long as she doesn't rely on statistics in a misleading way), and she can still do that. But the callers, and a wide swatch of her audience, will benefit more if she deals with things as they are. There are several other examples I could cite when it comes to the Dr. Laura Program.

I don't know of anything more foundational to how Dennis Prager views life and talks/writes about life than the notion that men and women should marry and raise children together, and that it is man's lot in life to financially support a woman. He is so convinced of this he constantly urges men and women to order their life around this. If they aren't married now, they should be actively seeking to marry, including if they've been divorced multiple times. If the Lord Almighty were to part the clouds and boom from the skies with a command to someone walking alongside Dennis that they shouldn't marry, Dennis just might go atheist.

Even though he acknowledges the severe problems with family law and courts, he still urges people to subject themselves to them. He needs to accept that we no longer live in small farming villages on family farms our entire life and don't need to birth our own farm hands. Men and women can both thrive living "alone" or without marriage.

Antiporn crusaders write and talk like scientists who aren't in their tank can't research and network, and that people can't check things out for themselves now. Their claims from forty-plus years ago like porn rots brains and turns people into serial killers are easily debunked now, but they still try to use those scare tactics. Porn isn't going away.

Life has changed, and tactics and positions need to change with it, or someone becomes ineffective.

Thinking Critically About Cohabitation

Introduction: Is Unmarried Cohabitation Bad?

I've been carefully mulling over just about everything I've accepted about sociology.

Let's look at shacking up (unmarried cohabitation).

Don't misunderstand. I'm against shacking up. But I'm also against misleading people.

Dr. Laura (and many socially conservative commentators) will tell callers that shacking up is linked to negative indicators, such as:

• It makes it less likely you will get married
• It makes is less likely you will stay married
• Increased infidelity
• More abuse
  

When Dr. Laura (or any other commentator) barrages someone with all of this, most recipients aren't prepared for it and don't have the wherewithal or the time to counter the claims. Indeed, as Dr. Laura says, she refuses to argue or debate, which seems strange if she's confident that she's right. She hits her callers with this and that's that.


How Do We Know If It is Good or Bad?

More Fun With Statistics - Body Count and Marriage

"People who have no or fewer sex partners before marriage are more likely to be satisfied with their marriage and less likely to divorce."

Have you heard that or some variation of that?

Even if true, it would be completely useless to you if you've already married. If you've had "more" sex partners, then it would be all the more reason to avoid that terrible state contract! Or if she has. If you both have, that's EVEN MORE reason not to marry.

But some will find that statement useful in telling younger people to or anyone who has has "fewer" sex partners why they shouldn't have (more) sex outside of marriage.

It won't deter anyone who doesn't want to get married.

And it might not deter people who are good at analyzing data and statistics.

Let's look at a couple of graphs that are being used to push this message.

As Panscan points out, we're not seeing the entire graph. There's a 5 percent difference between people who have had 2 partners and people who've had eleven, twelve, or scores of partners. But it looks more dramatic when you remove all of the graph under 50 percent.

Also, if we're going to take the graph seriously, men who've had 6-10 partners are better off than men who've had four or five partners, and women who've had 11 or more partners are better off than women who've had 4 partners.

Even if a man "waited" for sex, there's still a 27 percent chance - more than 1 in 4, he will admit to not being very happy in his marriage. And for women, that's 35 percent - more than one in three!

Finally, notice that the husbands are happier than wives. Guys, don't be selfish by asking a woman to marry you!

Now let's look at the second graph.

This graph uses months.

Notice that people are divorcing a couple of years in. Guys, if you're foolish enough to marry, refuse to spend much on the wedding and related events.

80 months in (so a little over 6 and a half years in), the lowest rate of divorce is still 10 percent, meaning 1 in 10 couples. Most people will have had a 25 percent divorce rate! 1 in 4 couples!

Also, if we take this graph seriously, if you've had one premarital partner, you might as well have had countless, at lease as far as six years or so down the line.

What is really going on here?

Don't Go Further Down That Ladder

During his Male-Female Hour on Wednesday, January 25, 2023, Dennis Prager again tried to fool men into legally marrying.

This time, he did it under the guise of asking people who lived together before marriage what the difference was after they married.

Except he didn't leave it at that.

He asked men if they really want to go through life saying "This is my girlfriend" instead of "This is my wife."

See, he has an emotional fixation or being married and being a husband that he picked up very early in his childhood, and so that's a compelling argument to him. People who think through it rationally might say, "Yes, I'd rather keep saying that." or "We can all each other whatever we want. Nobody in our life ever asks to see a marriage license or wedding photos. So I can call her my wife without getting a terrible state contract."

He added that adults have wives and husbands, children have boyfriends and girlfriends.

Says who??? Again, this is his emotional fixation at work. Dr. Laura callers make a point of calling their spouse their boyfriend or girlfriend. (There are some things I would PAY to hear Dennis Prager and Dr. Laura discuss together.)

He said getting married is announcing to the world that you are committed.

Here comes one of his favorite phrases: "So What?"

Most people understand and accept that people who are living together, even people who aren't living together but consider themselves a couple, are committed in the sense that, unless they have indicated they swing or whatever, they are off-limits to new love interests. If one is being invited to an informal engagement, the other is being invited unless it was planned as "no partners."

As Dennis knows, anyone can divorce at any time. Getting legally married is committing to nothing more than a shift in wealth - usually from a man to a woman. That's the only commitment.

People can make an announcement of their commitment without a ceremony, without a terrible state contract.

Dennis asked what the argument for NOT marrying is if you've been living together for years, but he kind of answered his own question: the state contract is terrible.

He argues that living together unmarried is different than living together married. If he wasn't emotionally fixated on being married no matter how many divorces you've had, the answer is in his declaration: living together unmarried is different than being married. Some people are going to prefer living together unmarried. We all know Dennis doesn't. But most men don't have the emotional fixation he does.

Kudos to the last caller, who said his faith took him away from remarrying after his wife and the mother of his children divorced him.

As I've made clear repeatedly on this blog, I think shacking up generally a bad idea (although, there are situations in which is preferable to legally marrying.) So, I'm not defending unmarried cohabitation. Rather, I'm tired of Dennis Prager trying to fool men into legally marrying. He wants men to go further down that ladder. I don't.

UPDATE: Since I originally wrote this, I have learned that couples who cohabitate unmarried have more sex than married couples. That’s statistically, as groups. Individual situations can vary.

A False Dichotomy

Dr. Laura asserts the following dichotomy to her callers and her audience:

• Marriage means, among other things, having a state contract, making vows, living together, sharing finances, sexual exclusivity in complete privacy. Otherwise, it isn't marriage.
  
  
• Those things aren't part of dating, especially long-term dating, or living together without a state license (shacking up). There are no obligations and there are no agreements, such as an agreement to sexual exclusivity.

According to her, romantic relationships are either marriage as she defines it, or, if two years or fewer old, are mutually agreed to be on the way to marriage, or they are aren't worthwhile and there are no rules.

She's allowed to say what she wants on her program. But she can't dictate this for anyone else. The dichotomy she presents does not describe reality.

There are married people who don't have a state license, never had a ceremony, keep separate finances, spend substantial periods of time apart, and/or aren't sexually exclusive. They use the terms "husband" and "wife," treat each other as spouses as far as doing things together and generally putting each other first and caring for each other, are recognized as spouses by the people around them, and might even be recognized as married by the state.

There are unmarried people who have been together for years, live together, share finances, and/or have agreed to sexual exclusivity. The people around them recognize that they are a couple and respect their agreements.

These things are happening every day. Millions of people do these things. This is going on, whether I like it or not and whether anyone else likes it or not. And for the record, I'm generally against, in most cases, agreeing to an ongoing exclusive relationship, living together, or marrying.

A state-licensed marriage isn't the only personal relationship with rules. Friendships usually have rules. So do most unmarried romances. Commitment is in behavior. The state license isn't a commitment to do anything other than have the spouse who earns more pay the other.

If she's going to deny a caller's reality, the reality they've been living, the caller should probably consider getting advice from another source.

A Common Red Flag When Considering Marriage

A tweet by Brad Wilcox:

New "research by Stanley & Rhoades [indicates...] men & women who cohabited w 2+ partners prior to marriage were 60% more likely to end up seeing their marriage end in divorce or separation"

Well, there you have it guys. Have you shacked up with at least two women, including your current girlfriend/fiancee? Has she? If either of you have, you have another reason to avoid marrying. Your marriage would be doomed!

Sure, the tweet and the report behind it are intended to try to get people who haven't shacked up yet not to do so. But we can still apply it to people who have, who should use the information to avert disaster. DO NOT MARRY!

Wilcox had a whole article about this.

Fun With Statistics - Cohabitation

Cohabitation, or "shacking up," as Dr. Laura (and I) still call it, leads to marriage.

That goes against what Dr. Laura says. Shacking up is one of her main no-nos, in her countercultural preaching. She often rattles off a few statistics (which may or may not be current) to try to bolster her point.

And yet, if someone is a marriage seller, as she is, I can use statistics to point out that cohabitation leads to marriage:

1) Most people in our culture who marry lived together before they married.

2) Couples who don't live together are far less likely to marry each other.

There it is! CONCLUSIVE PROOF that living together leads to marriage!

Right?

Well, in fairness:

1) Many people live together but never marry each other.

2) "Couples who don't live together" includes all those people who are only couples for a few months and then break up; of course they didn't marry.

My overall point is that using statistics can be misleading, as I already pointed out in this post, "Thinking Critically About Cohabitation."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not advocating living together unmarried with a romantic or sexual partner. I generally think it is a terrible idea. But more and more people will not marry someone unless they live with them first. To me, that's all the more reason to avoid shacking up, as I discourage most men from marrying and encourage them to stay free. Despite what Dr. Laura says, when a guy has his girlfriend living with him, it reduces his freedom.

How to Prevent Domestic Violence, Cheating, and Divorce

This is how you can prevent domestic violence, cheating, and divorce:

Do not marry.

Do not live together.

Do not promise nor expect exclusivity.

Free Men who want to remain free men in good standing do not engage in rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, stealthing, stalking, or revenge porn.

Free men, if they want sex, run game, which ensures that they don't waste time with women who do not want sex. Free men do not marry nor live with women. Free men do not agree to exclusivity. This prevents domestic violence, cheating, and divorce. It also prevents rape.

More men should be Free Men.

Dennis Prager Again Tries to Get Shackups to Marry

Dennis Prager decided to revisit last week's Male/Female Hour with a continuation of the topic for that hour yesterday, Wednesday February 1, 2023, which was about living together vs. being married. [This entry has been bumped up.]

He said he is puzzled by women who want to live together but not get married.

A caller had her screening statement read by Dennis on the air, even though he didn't take her call. She said her married friends have said that "marriage is the death of romance." While people will think that means the man stops pursuing the woman, I think the truth of it is more that most women think they are settling; most women want the same small group of men, and most can't have one them. Marrying kills their "romantic" fantasy that they'll end up with someone "better" than the guy they're with.

In addition to that, any woman who earns more or thinks she will earn more has reason to avoid legally marrying. There are also women who don't want the state further involved in their lives, and women who do not want what they see as a religious ceremony.

But back to "marriage is the death of romance." Dennis said no, having children is the death of romance. He's expressed that multiple times before, and he is someone who urges people to raise children. Take note, guys! Don't ignore the truth, even when said "in jest."

The first caller who got on the air said it was the women he's with who had been reluctant to get married. He mentioned she had been married before to a wealthy executive. Dennis was either too fixated or didn't want to ask, but to me, that sounds like she was getting a lot in alimony, which would end if she married. What Dennis did say was "Ask her, if not for the financials, would you marry?" HUH?!? That's like asking, "If there was no soccer ball involved, would you want to play soccer?" Marriage is primarily financial. It's a wealth transfer mechanism.

As he often does during the last segment of an hour, Dennis read the screening info of the callers rather than actually taking the calls. The last one said "The marriage contract is stacked against men." Too bad that caller didn't get on the air, but kudos to them!

During the hour, Dennis did bring up a question he plans to use as a future topic:

"Why do men fear marriage?"

As I've said before, fearing rattlesnakes is good sense. It is logical. But "fear" might not be the right word for this. Men have evaluated the situation and are increasingly choosing wisely.

• The state marriage contract is bad.
• Today's social marriage contract is bad.
• Most marriages fail, and divorce often screws men over.
• Wives are burdened by and resentful of their husbands.
• More women don't truly want to be wives.
• Fewer women are prepared and willing to be wives.
  
• Men can have everything in life they want to without marrying.
• Being free is the default. Men lack compelling reasons to give up their freedom and power.
  

It's not "Why do men fear marriage?" The question should be "What compelling reason do men have to marry?" Dennis cites "reasons" he finds compelling, but he mostly finds them compelling because he developed, at a very early age, an emotional fixation on being a husband. Most men aren't going to find his reasons compelling.

Again, Dennis, you need a marriage striker on your show. It would be clarifying,

Does Living Together Mean Doom?

Dr. Laura makes it sound like your marriage is doomed if you two cohabitate (“shack up”) with each other before you two marry. Well, chances are, it IS doomed, because it’s marriage and most marriages fail. Anyway, she also makes it sound like you won’t get married if you cohabitate while unmarried.

She’s highly likely to be basing that on very old data. But let’s grant that current data indicates “couples who cohabitated before marriage divorce at a higher rate than couples who didn’t cohabitate before marriage.” I don’t even know how anyone could word the second point. “Couples who cohabitate are less likely to marry than couples who don’t” is clearly not the case. Most couples don’t marry. Most people who marry had been a part of a different coupling multiple times before they ever married.

It’s possible to say AN INDIVIDUAL who shacks up tends to marry later or never marry in comparison than those who don’t. 

If the data takes couples who have plans to marry and tracks them over time, and sees that those who cohabitated before marrying had a higher rate of never marrying than those who didn’t cohabitate before marrying, that would be something. But since we don’t know the control group being used for the claim “couples who cohabitated unmarried were less likely to marry,” it’s a suspect claim. It’s far easier to make the first claim, as that is objectively, to some extent, observable: they married. They either lived together before they married or they didn’t. And over a certain amount of time, they either divorced or they didn’t. 

But what even counts as cohabitation? Even married people who didn’t officially share an address might have frequently spent days, weeks, even months in the same place. Back in my youth, I often spent 3-4 nights per week at my girlfriend’s place. I had my own place. I never claimed a girlfriend’s address as mine. Does that count? What if they spend almost every night together, some at his place and some at hers?

Keep in mind divorce is just one way a marriage can be terrible. A marriage can be legally intact but awful. Dr. Laura would claim the data also shows the quality of the marriage is better for couples who didn’t first shack up, but I’m not so sure. It could be that couples who didn’t cohabitate before marriage are less likely to be honest - with a sociologist or even themselves - if their marriage is crappy, and that could be for religious reasons, among other explanations.

Here’s the reality today whether anyone likes it or not:

-Most couples who marry cohabitated. (Twisting Dr. Laura’s tactic on its head, we can say shacking up leads to marriage, since most people who married shacked up.)

-Most people won’t marry someone they didn’t cohabitate with first.

-There are couples who’ve been together for decades, including officially or unofficially living together, who’ve never had even a courthouse wedding.

-There are people who’ve been married for decades who lived together before they married.

-If you want to be in either of those groups, there are things you can do to make it more likely.

One of the “dirty secrets” of the data Dr. Laura is using is that it lumps all unmarried cohabitation together, including people who never intended to marry or be permanent in the first place, and people who “fell into” living together. Data that separates out independently established, stable people who PLANNED out their cohabitation in advance, discussed and sincerely agreed about goals, intentions, rules, etc, and had a high level of general compatibility will show much better results.

Maybe you don’t want to marry.

Maybe you do.

Either way, cohabitation will be more likely and even may most likely work out if:

-It’s thoroughly planned out ahead of time, with sincere, honest, realistic discussions and agreement about goals, timelines, intentions, rules, etc. (Dr. Laura says there are no rules, but she doesn’t get to decide that for you.)

-It is done out of mutual intention, not incrementalism or “falling into it”, and an informed, experienced desire to live with each other, not out of desperation or zombie relationship escalators.

-You’re both responsible, established, independent adults who can generally handle life well and are fundamentally compatible.

Dr. Laura claims the intentions are different in shacking up, and that it is to avoid commitment. She was a trained, licensed, experienced therapist but she is not a mind reader. She doesn’t know what a caller she’s been talking with for 20 seconds really intended, and she certainly doesn’t know what their partner, who isn’t on the call, intended. She can make an experienced guess. Sometimes. 

Most of her listeners probably have no idea she did “everything” wrong. She shacked up for years with an older man who was a married father when she took up with him. She got pregnant at least once. And yet they subsequently married (as he had, she had been married before) and stayed married for decades, until he died. It apparently worked out for them. Although she’d say they beat the odds, if you could ever discuss it with her (she’d never let such a discussion about herself make it to air). If she’d discuss it and be honest about it, she’d probably say there was much misery because of how things started. 

I am compelled by my conscience not to end this post without stressing that  I think most men should avoid shacking up/cohabitating. It’s almost as bad as marrying. It’s costly and puts you at risks, shifting much of your power to her, and you can get kicked out of your own home. But if you’re going to do it, there are ways, as I explained, that make it more likely to work out. 

Red Flags

I generally advise against marrying, shacking up, or getting into exclusive relationships. But if you're going to do any of those things, especially if you're going to have children with a woman, there are some red flags to look out for if you insist on doing these things with a woman.

Basic Incompatibility. If your major goals, worldviews, lifestyles, strengths/weaknesses, or personalities are incompatible, then you're not a match, no matter how attractive you find her or other ways she impresses you. If one of you wants to have a lot of children and the other doesn't want to have any children, that's a red flag. If one of you is an atheist who is highly suspicious or dismissive of clergy and the other is a Christian who turns to a pastor when dealing with problems, that's a red flag. If one of you wants to live in a high rise in a big city and the other one wants to live on a farm with no town center in sight, that's a problem. If you both need to be the dominant person in the relationship, it ain't gonna work. If you are both disorganized or bad with money, it's a nightmare waiting to happen. You might have a wild fling, but this isn't a person with whom you should make babies, or live, or marry, or pledge exclusivity. You might not think religion matters that much, but it becomes much more important when you have kids, or at least when you share a residence and finances and are legally responsible for each other. Also, don't think you can give up your goals and be happy about it.

Note that the above are determined by who you are and what you need and want. The below are generally applicable regardless of who you are.

She Has Minor Children. Nope, nope, nope!!!

She's a Coworker or Working in the Same Company, Location, Profession, or Industry. It is FAR too risky for man to even compliment a woman under these circumstances. Even if she won't file allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, or worse, someone else could merely because they heard or saw you together. A bad breakup will mess up your career. Do not date any woman with a nexus to your job.

Exiting a Relationship With a Single Mother or a Childless Shack Up

Introduction

So you've either been woken out of your stupor or the slow-building discontent has finally become too intense, and you're ready to get out of your relationship with a single mother or a childless shack up. Being with a single mother* or living with a woman brings all sorts of complications and risks. So depending on how deep you're in, there are going to be different considerations.

Men who are NOT in such relationships should read this, too, to be informed about just how much trouble being in, and getting out of, such relationships can be, so they'll be motivated to avoid them.

How deep are you in?

If you married this woman (which would mean she's not a single mother anymore) and made a baby or babies with her, that's the worst of all scenarios, especially if you have adopted her children. Unless she is abusing you or the kids, the the best thing for the children is usually to stay put and be polite and as pleasant as possible until the youngest child is 18. The problem with that, is, in some places, like the state I live in, being married for ten years or "close enough" means you'll be paying lifetime alimony to her. The bulk of this entry is addressed to guys who haven't married the woman and haven't legally adopted her children.

You need an exit plan for your own self-preservation. If she or anyone else accuses you of not being a "real man" or that you're somehow lesser because you don't want to put up with mistreatment or someone else's responsibilities any more, just let it roll off your back. Who cares what they say? This is what they're saying, when you get right down to it. "You should spend your time, money, and energy doing things for me/her so I/she can spend  more of my/her own time, money, and energy on my/herself." She might cite things she does for you, and even if she does do those things, it doesn't matter. You're not obligated to stay with her, and you can either get by without those things or get them for a lot less money, time, and effort, or with someone who is more compatible with you and brings fewer negatives to the situation. You may have some emotional discomfort over the breakup, but that would fall entirely in the realm of normal, because the relationship became familiar to you and part of your routine. The discomfort will go away and it is better in the long run to be out of that relationship.

Is It Really Sacred?

Since I listen to every (new) minute of the Dr. Laura Program, I heard her give this monologue recently. It has been posted on her website as a blog post. I still don't see an ongoing blog tab anywhere on the site, but this was tweeted out (by her staff, since she doesn't touch Twitter). It is titled "Respect Your Marriage Vows by Not Shacking Up First".

As regular readers of this blog know, I think shacking up is a generally bad idea; it's almost as bad as legally marrying.

But Dr. Laura promotes marriage and is against shacking up. Dr. Laura maintains that her program is a secular, non-religious program. But if you pay attention, she invokes religious concepts sometimes.

If someone isn't planning to marry, shacking up can't possibly disrespect their marriage vows. And now, many, perhaps most people, who do want to marry will refuse to do so without first living with the person they are considering as a possible spouse. The secular world has made it clear that they see shacking up as a normal part of relationship cycles. Without invoking religion, it is extremely difficult to explain how this would disrespect their future marriage vows. Dr. Laura has tried to teach that it is objectively detrimental to shack up, which I address here. In this blog posting of hers, she tries to explain why shacking up is bad a different way.

If you call anything a ‘piece of artwork’ or if you call something sacred, don't you immediately look at it differently from everyday objects or experiences? It doesn't matter if you're religious or not, I think when we say something is sacred, everybody lowers their voice and shows more respect. It's not accidental.

So, playing a mind game with oneself? Then someone could call shacking up "sacred" and this is all over.

Dependent Shackup Tells Dear Abby She’s Abused

Time for some more true love!

BAD SCENE IN THE MIDWEST wrote in to Dear Abby:

I'm a 37-year-old stay-at-home mother of two teens.

Not employed, not running a business. Doesn't say she homeschools. She stays home and has two teens.

I've been in a relationship with a guy I'll call "Doug" for four years.

What happened to the father or fathers of the teens?

I feel he only wants me here for sex.

That's true of most men, when you really get down to it. I mean, many value the companionship and friendship is there is some, too, but that's more of a byproduct. They often have to be friends and companions with the women to get the sex, or so they think, and the women take up their time, and, they're there. There are couples, including married, who really don't do much together. They may or may not have sex, and attend certain events together, but that's about it.

The way she says "here" and the rest of the letter imply she and her children are living in Doug's place. They're not married. How much money is Doug spending on these three people? Remember, she's not working.

If I say no, he either tries to force it or verbally abuses me.

Force or abuse are unacceptable, period. But clarification on "tries to" and "verbally abuses" would be helpful. "You don't give me what I need" isn't verbal abuse. "You're worthless" is.

But even if he wasn't abusive, if she doesn't want to have sex with him, she should leave.

You know why she doesn't? Because he provides money and services.

He tells me if I don't give him sex, I need to leave so he can bring another woman to do it.

Well that's just silly. He could go out and run game, part of which would be doing it elsewhere. But the real reason you need to leave, in addition to it being an abusive situation, is that it isn't your place.

He will destroy my belongings or call me names.

He couldn't do either of those things if you weren't there.

He says it's my fault that he does that to me.

His actions are his responsibility.

I'm not sure what to do here.

Get out.

Right... but you depend on him. That mistake is going to make things harder, but you have to.

What she can likely do, and a lawyer can fill her in on this, is call the police on the guy and have him kicked out of his own place and still compelled to pay for it, and, possibly, pay her as well and pay child support for those kids even though they aren't his. While he might "deserve" that for being an abuser, most men should NEVER move a woman in to their place, ESPECIALLY one with kids.

When a boyfriend (or husband for that matter) forces their partner to have sex, it isn't foreplay; it is rape.

Agreed. And what is it called when someone is forced to labor for another adult?

What you need to do now is get out of there as safely as you can. Place a confidential call to the National Domestic Violence Hotline (800-799-7233) and ask for help formulating a plan to safely escape your abuser, because that is what this man is.

She has places to go, thankfully. It's not as easy for abused men.

I'm trying to get the domestic abuse rate down to zero. The best way to avoid abuse is to be independent and don't move in with an abusive person.

This woman apparently has a habit of picking bad men. Bad men apparently turn her on. That’s what young men see over and over again. What do they learn from that?

Shocker: People Who Will Stay Together Longer More Likely to Marry

Our "friends" at the Institute for Family Studies published another marriage-seller piece, this one by Harry Benson, who is Research Director of the UK-based Marriage Foundation.

After all, marriage rates have been falling across the developed world since the 1970s.

Good.

Cohabitation has become normalized.

Shacking up is almost as bad as marrying. Don't do it, guys.

People talk about long-term committed couples and relationships as the equivalent of marriage.

What makes something marriage, if not committing to be together?

You Might Not Find a Better Relationship

Most relationships are NOT "happily ever after". They end or experience significant misery. Not all relationships are anything close to ideal or healthy. Some are abusive.

That all being said, we should never promise someone they will find a better relationship if they leave the one they're in.

They might not.

Does Marriage Help Some People Delude Themselves?

On Monday, January 17, 2022, Dr. Laura opened her program with a prepared monologue. Back in the day, the text of this would have been on her website, perhaps in a blog, but apparently she or her staff or contractor have decided not to do that anymore.

 

But I am able to listen and type, so I did.

Dr. Laura addressed one of her pet topics: Shacking up vs. Marriage. At least this time, she acknowledged how prevalent and "normative" shacking up is.

"Shacking up does not compare to marriage."

That really depends. I like to say that shacking up is terrible; almost as bad as marriage.

She went on to cite the Census Bureau to point out that shacking up has increased for 25-34 year-olds (that's too bad), and marriage has declined for the same age group (yay!).

She mentioned people seeing shacking up as  "a step towards marriage or the equivalent".

For some, it IS s step towards marriage. Some of them won't marry someone they don't first shack up with. For some, it really is the equivalent of marriage, or the closest they will get to marriage. And yes, some others are mistaken when they see it as tied to marriage. Different people, different situations.

"Shotgun shacking up is overtaking shotgun marriage."

Is it though? For any given couple it might be either shotgun shacking up or the kid having two homes to visit from the very start. I'd prefer, in most cases, the kid have both parents there.

"This is shocking and horrendous for kids."

Not if the parents behave well. Getting legally married will not make terrible partners/parents better.

She went on to try to impress upon listeners "the relationship quality gap between shacking up and marriage."

1. Married adults are more likely than shacking up adults to report... satisfaction

 

Women Get Something Out of Shacking Up, Fornication

This is something I wrote several years ago. It is as relevant as ever.

Dr. Laura Gets a Lot of Calls From Shackups

Shacking up is so common and accepted these days that people who don't listen much to Dr. Laura might be surprised that she's against it, and how strongly she condemns it (as do I). She will even hang up on some male callers who are shacking up without bothering to let them ask their question. For other callers, she will usually make an example of them.

During the first hour of the Wednesday, February 27, 2019 show, she took a call from "Michelle" who said she has a boyfriend of a few years and she's moved in with him to what had been his former marital home. She had also been previously married. They both have grown children.

But before Michelle could really get that out, Dr. Laura started in.

Don't Be This Guy

Reading the Dear Abby column an result in daily facepalms. Just check out this recent letter by HUNG UP ON THE RING IN RENO:

My girlfriend and I love each other very much and have been living together with our children for five years. 

Ugh. Either they have children together, they brought in children from other relationships, or both. He doesn't say. If she already had minor kids he shouldn't have dated her. If he already had minor kids, he shouldn't have introduced his new lover to his kids. Shacking up is a terrible idea in general, but even more so with kids. And then if they had kids together outside of marriage, that was a horrible thing to do.

We intend to get married soon.

Why bother?

Here is the rub: She's "old school." She believes she should receive a diamond ring as part of the marriage proposal.

MUHUHUHUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Old school?!? That's a good one. Old school.

OLD SCHOOL WOMEN DON'T SHACK UP!!!