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.

"Why are you becoming an unpaid whore?...Men used to have to pay to have a whore do this. Now you women are just providing it." Once again, we can infer that Dr. Laura thinks men should pay for sex, and that sex is something women do for men, as though women don't enjoy it themselves. Also, that the only reason to live together is for sex, and women get no benefit whatsoever from such companionship. Dr. Laura explained some of the reasons she is against shacking up. "The satisfaction in a relationship drops, the chances of you getting married to him drops, the chances of marriage holding together once and if you get married drops, the incidence of violence increases, the incidence of mental disorders increases because there's no stability to there's a lot of insecurity and anxiety, and I could go on, but that's what you just signed up for." Now, Dr. Laura isn't stupid or ignorant. But she's hoping a lot of the listeners aren't able to discern the actual facts or think critically enough to see how weak some of these arguments are (and again, I'm against shacking up, too). Satisfaction. Let's accept as true that married people report being satisfied with their relationship more than people who are shacking up. What Dr. Laura wants listeners to get from that is that being legally married makes people more satisfied than shacking up. But it isn't necessarily so. There are many other realistically possible explanations. It could be that the kind of people who are more likely to be satisfied are more likely to marry. It could be that one reason people haven't married is that they aren't as satisfied with their relationship. It could be that some married people TELL researchers they are more satisfied, because that's what they think they're supposed to say, or because they have what amounts to the Stockholm syndrome, or they think it is an affront to their Lord if they express dissatisfaction with their marriage, or even that they think saying they are satisfied will magically make it better (yes, there are people who think that way... they call it things like "positive confession".) The bottom line is that there is no way to know for sure if Michelle (or her boyfriend) would be more satisfied if they were legally marred, and there are people who are shacking up who are very satisfied.

Lower chance of marrying. This isn't even persuasive to someone who doesn't want to marry (again). Sometimes, neither person in the relationship is looking to marry. So we must ask, "Compared to whom?" Do such statistics take into account all couples who have been dating a certain amount of time, who are open to marrying? Yes, it can make sense that if people are shacking up, they, especially the participant who earns more, might put off marriage because they already have everything they want. But even assuming Michelle (or a listener) wants to marry, would refusing to shack up get her boyfriend (or someone else) to marry her? Not necessarily. Some people who shack up marry.

The chances of marriage holding together once and if you get married drops. Some people don't believe this one, but I do. But again, it doesn't apply to people who don't want to or won't marry. And again, there are many reasons this can be the case, and apples have to be compared to apples. Some of the reasons this happens is that the people never should have married in the first place, but shacking up makes it harder to break up, and they think marriage might fix the relationship. Also, the kind of person more likely to shack up is probably going to have fewer qualms about divorcing - and some might see that as a GOOD, because they won't stick around in a bad marriage (even though they might have reasoned that moving in together was to see if they could be happy living together in the first place). Is it really better if someone doesn't shack up, gets married, and then refuses to leave a bad/incompatible marriage? What Dr. Laura has pointed out at other times that rings true to me is that one of the reasons this happens is that people establish patterns as unmarried cohabitants that carry over into the marriage, to the detriment of the marriage. But apples have to be compared to apples. Some people who are shacking up "fell into" it. A young woman's mother dies and the young woman, who'd been living with her mother, starts living with her boyfriend. Or, he's over at her place so often they figure he shouldn't keep paying rent on a separate apartment. Stuff like that. The rate of divorce for people who were established, independent people in their late twenties or older, dating for a couple of years, who talked deliberately before agreeing to move in together about their expectations, goals, responsibilities, etc. is going to be far lower than for people who fell into living together and then married because they figured it was the next step. Some people who shack up get married and stay married. The incidence of violence increases. Either Michelle's relationship involves violence or it doesn't, and if she marries her boyfriend, is that really likely to decrease any violence? But this is one of those things meant to dissuade listeners from shacking up; it doesn't really apply to Michelle. These statistics can come down this way for any number of reasons. If someone is shacking up and there is violence and the victim leaves, they didn't get married (ah ha! so another shackup relationship that "reduced" the likelihood of marrying!). Isn't it good they didn't get married?!? But now the statistic is that the shackup relationship had violence. Some people might be willing to shack up with, but not marry, a violent person. And it could be that married people are less likely to report being abused because they don't want to cause trouble for their spouse, since their finances are comingled. Some people who shack up do not experience any violence. The incidence of mental disorders increases because there's no stability to there's a lot of insecurity and anxiety. Is that really why? Or could it be that people shack up, one realizes the other has mental problems, and they refuse to marry someone with such problems, whether they break up or not? I refused to shack up. If I had, I probably would have found out about my wife's mental health problems before it was too late. Unstable, anxious people might shack up, and might move from one situation to another, skewing the statistics. If the caller and her boyfriend are stable, secure people not prone to anxiety and without mental health problems, then this is unlikely to apply to them. But I can see that if someone really wants to get married and the other person doesn't, how being in a shackup situation can cause problems. But some people who shack up don't deal with any mental health problems. "and I could go on, but that's what you just signed up for."
She signed up to live with her boyfriend, whose company, presumably, she enjoyed.

"There's nothing in it for you." Yes, yes there is. Or she wouldn't have done it, as Dr. Laura tells callers in many other situations... people keep doing things because they get something out of it.

Dr. Laura again used the unpaid whore phrase twice, then "shackup honey".

"You mean nothing past that. Because if you meant something he'd be on one knee begging to lay down his life for you." Really now. So friendships don't mean anything? I know Dr. Laura is big on friends. How many have signed a legal contract and proposed on bended knees? And notice again, guys, that marriage is laying down your life. "You're just giving it away easy... He owes you nothing, he has no obligation to you, he can date other women and have sex with other women, because there is no rules to this." No rules? Says who? Says Dr. Laura. But she's not in the relationship, is she?

And what is she giving away? Nothing he isn't giving away. So it's a mutual exchange.

Dr. Laura then brought the caller's adult children into this, and her boyfriend's.

"And they respect their mom for being an unpaid whore? ...available to hump him with no commitment?" Chances are, the adult children are also humping people with "no commitment", and would do so regardless of what Michelle does.

As it turned out, the boyfriend's 19 year-old daughter has changed her attitude and is acting out. Of course Dr. Laura attributed that to the shacking up. Because that sort of thing never happens otherwise, right? But she asked the caller, repeatedly, about what this is teaching her boyfriend's daughter. "You're teaching her to disrespect her body." As far as I can tell, "disrespect" in this case means to enjoy the company of a man without having him sign a legal contract.

Later, Dr. Laura said on the air that Dan the screener got yelled at by a male caller over the term unpaid whore. It's too bad she didn't discuss it with the caller, but that would have run the risk of the caller exposing the problems with the term. But shacking up is generally a bad idea, even aside from morality. For men who have their act together, it adds expenses, reduces your freedom and control over your own life, and makes it harder to break up with her even when you know you should.