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."
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
She attributes that to shacking up having insecurity and being unsure, and that "it's not a commitment. It's avoiding a commitment."
However, is commitment in attitude, or is it in legality? Married people can divorce unilaterally, without reason, and some can be rewarded for doing so. Legally marrying is only a commitment for the man to pay the woman in the event of divorce. That's the only legal commitment. People can choose an attitude of commitment without a formal wedding or a marriage license if they want to.
What if the satisfied group of people shacking up marries? Then they're counted in the married group and not the shacking up group. Why would dissatisfied people who are shacking up get married? This could be a matter of putting the cart before the horse. This could explain the disparity.
She said married women had a 54% likelihood of being in the highest relationship satisfaction group, and married men 49%. Funny, she never gave the percentages on dissatisfaction. There are married people who are extremely dissatisfied. Or they get divorced and are out of these stats entirely. But notice that 51% of married men, a majority are NOT in that highest satisfaction group. Some are somewhat satisfied, some are dissatisfied, and again, many of the dissatisfied have divorced, so they aren't counted.
Shaking up, the percentages are 40% and 35%. That means over a third of people shacking up are in the highest satisfaction group! (What are the odds they have even a smaller percentage of "dissatisfied" than the marrieds, since they have more freedom to leave?) By exercising a few tactics and principles, people planning to shack up could easy by in that very satisfied third. Remember, when she says "shacking up" that includes people who never planned it out, but kind of "fell into it."
Well, yeah! That's why they got married! Marriage probably didn't cause it so much as resulting from it. Some of the shacking up people were never intending commitment. This is like saying "People who plan to run a marathon are more likely to run more miles than people who weren't planning to run at all."
She cited that this was the case with 46% of married adults to slightly over 30% of shackups. It was defined by valuing the relationship and wanting it to continue.
Do you realize what that means? 54% - a MAJORITY - of married adults (and remember, that doesn't include the people who've already divorced), DO NOT have the high level of valuing the relationship and wanting it to continue! And for how many men is "wanting it to continue" meaning "I don't want to have to pay for two legal teams."? Also notice that for 30% of the shackups, a higher level of commitment is perceived/maintained. Dr. Laura either doesn't see or is hoping you don't see that, for those people, her assertion that shacking up isn't a commitment doesn't hold. Further, that's just the highest level. Far more are probably in a shared attitude of commitment.
She says shacking up is "It's 'we'll see how things ago.'"
What's wrong with that? Isn't it better that they don't marry and then discover they don't want to be together and then divorce?
She went on to say that by shacking up, both parties have developed a thought pattern of "What if this doesn't work out?", thinking they can move out and move on. That can undermine the sense of commitment essential to a thriving marriage, according to her.
But how? If they go on to get married, couldn't that mean that they got married even though they didn't have to, to live together? Doesn't that imply they value marriage and have decided that this is for the long term? People can and do leave marriages. People demonstrate their commitment to a marriage by staying in it.
"Most women want marriage and the commitment."
Unspoken fact that goes along with that: Some don't. And, as Dr. Laura has said many times, people do what what they want.
Again, maybe the stability is why they got married. And Mexican standoffs and hostage situations are stable. Doesn't mean they are good.
54% of married adults were in the top group for reporting stability vs. only 28% of shackups. This was determined by "Do you think this relationship is going to continue?" If they did, wouldn't a lot of them have married???
Again, 54% of adults are in the "top group" for reporting stability. How many don't expect the marriage to continue? She didn't say. But we know that 46% of marriage people are NOT in the top group, meaning that they at least aren't so sure the marriage is going to continue. This is all self-reporting based on supposed self-perception. It doesn't mean these marriage will ACTUALLY last. Many of them won't. Many of these people think their marriage is going to continue and then there will be a slow decline, and others will be "surprised" from their spouse announcing they are leaving. Many of them are delusional. And some of them might not want to admit anything less than total confidence in the future of their marriage because they think it is self-fulfilling, sinful, or a failure to say otherwise.
However, is commitment in attitude, or is it in legality? Married people can divorce unilaterally, without reason, and some can be rewarded for doing so. Legally marrying is only a commitment for the man to pay the woman in the event of divorce. That's the only legal commitment. People can choose an attitude of commitment without a formal wedding or a marriage license if they want to.
What if the satisfied group of people shacking up marries? Then they're counted in the married group and not the shacking up group. Why would dissatisfied people who are shacking up get married? This could be a matter of putting the cart before the horse. This could explain the disparity.
She said married women had a 54% likelihood of being in the highest relationship satisfaction group, and married men 49%. Funny, she never gave the percentages on dissatisfaction. There are married people who are extremely dissatisfied. Or they get divorced and are out of these stats entirely. But notice that 51% of married men, a majority are NOT in that highest satisfaction group. Some are somewhat satisfied, some are dissatisfied, and again, many of the dissatisfied have divorced, so they aren't counted.
Shaking up, the percentages are 40% and 35%. That means over a third of people shacking up are in the highest satisfaction group! (What are the odds they have even a smaller percentage of "dissatisfied" than the marrieds, since they have more freedom to leave?) By exercising a few tactics and principles, people planning to shack up could easy by in that very satisfied third. Remember, when she says "shacking up" that includes people who never planned it out, but kind of "fell into it."
2. Married adults are more likely to report higher levels of relationship commitment.
Well, yeah! That's why they got married! Marriage probably didn't cause it so much as resulting from it. Some of the shacking up people were never intending commitment. This is like saying "People who plan to run a marathon are more likely to run more miles than people who weren't planning to run at all."
She cited that this was the case with 46% of married adults to slightly over 30% of shackups. It was defined by valuing the relationship and wanting it to continue.
Do you realize what that means? 54% - a MAJORITY - of married adults (and remember, that doesn't include the people who've already divorced), DO NOT have the high level of valuing the relationship and wanting it to continue! And for how many men is "wanting it to continue" meaning "I don't want to have to pay for two legal teams."? Also notice that for 30% of the shackups, a higher level of commitment is perceived/maintained. Dr. Laura either doesn't see or is hoping you don't see that, for those people, her assertion that shacking up isn't a commitment doesn't hold. Further, that's just the highest level. Far more are probably in a shared attitude of commitment.
She says shacking up is "It's 'we'll see how things ago.'"
What's wrong with that? Isn't it better that they don't marry and then discover they don't want to be together and then divorce?
She went on to say that by shacking up, both parties have developed a thought pattern of "What if this doesn't work out?", thinking they can move out and move on. That can undermine the sense of commitment essential to a thriving marriage, according to her.
But how? If they go on to get married, couldn't that mean that they got married even though they didn't have to, to live together? Doesn't that imply they value marriage and have decided that this is for the long term? People can and do leave marriages. People demonstrate their commitment to a marriage by staying in it.
"Most women want marriage and the commitment."
Unspoken fact that goes along with that: Some don't. And, as Dr. Laura has said many times, people do what what they want.
3. Married adults are more likely than shackups to report higher levels of relationship stability.
Again, maybe the stability is why they got married. And Mexican standoffs and hostage situations are stable. Doesn't mean they are good.
54% of married adults were in the top group for reporting stability vs. only 28% of shackups. This was determined by "Do you think this relationship is going to continue?" If they did, wouldn't a lot of them have married???
Again, 54% of adults are in the "top group" for reporting stability. How many don't expect the marriage to continue? She didn't say. But we know that 46% of marriage people are NOT in the top group, meaning that they at least aren't so sure the marriage is going to continue. This is all self-reporting based on supposed self-perception. It doesn't mean these marriage will ACTUALLY last. Many of them won't. Many of these people think their marriage is going to continue and then there will be a slow decline, and others will be "surprised" from their spouse announcing they are leaving. Many of them are delusional. And some of them might not want to admit anything less than total confidence in the future of their marriage because they think it is self-fulfilling, sinful, or a failure to say otherwise.
"Shackups are significantly more likely to break up than married couples."
Yes, because 1) shackups are less like a hostage situation than marriage, and 2) many of them have one or both partners who never expected or intended it to last for life in the first place. If they had, maybe some would have married. If they HAD married, they would have likely increased the divorce rate, making marriages less likely, statistically, to last. See how that works???
"I always thought shacking up was a great institution for men."
Dr. Laura says this as though:
Yes, because 1) shackups are less like a hostage situation than marriage, and 2) many of them have one or both partners who never expected or intended it to last for life in the first place. If they had, maybe some would have married. If they HAD married, they would have likely increased the divorce rate, making marriages less likely, statistically, to last. See how that works???
"I always thought shacking up was a great institution for men."
Dr. Laura says this as though:
1) Men don't want relationships to last or care about their quality
2) Women shacking up act like good wives and men shacking up don't act like good husbands
The most significant objective difference between shacking up and legal marriage is that the higher earning spouse isn't (usually) compelled by government force to give away his earnings, including long after the relationship has ended. I say shacking up is NOT a good deal for men. It just looks that way because marriage is such a bad deal for men that shacking up looks great in comparison.
Dr. Laura is buying into a direction of causality here that might not exist, at least not significantly. She wants children raised in intact homes, she sees that marriages are more likely to last than shackups, and so she wants people to marry and not shack up. (She still is against childfree shacking up, though.) But we don't really have any proof that the kind of people who shack up would be better parents and stay together to raise their kids if they had married instead of shacking up or without having first shacked up. I also suspect there's religious morality creeping in to Dr. Laura's position, but she can't say that because she maintains that her program is a secular one.
This entire essay she gave was based on self-reporting of perceptions, if the people participating were actually telling the truth. We can be sure at least some of these people are deluded. Dr. Laura is all about reality, usually. It's why she says you can't have a relationship (of any sort) with a drunk: since a drunk avoids reality by drinking, you can't have a relationship with them. Well, some people are married to people who avoid reality with these delusions. So they're marriages must not be real marriages.
None of what was said gave any hard evidence for the quality of marriages, only what spouses perceived. For example, it is entirely possible that one spouse thinks the marriage is great and the other thinks it is miserable. By default, that means the marriage is of low quality. Yet one of the spouses reported that it was good.
Once again, I will state explicitly that I do not advocate shacking up. I never did it even when I was invited to. In general, shacking up is a bad idea. I encourage men to stay free. I do agree with Dr. Laura that it is bad for children if their parents have an unstable relationship and break up their family. But no man should think legally marrying will be some sort of magic wand for any children he has or wants to have. He can be a good husband and a good father without signing a terrible state contract. And that contract will not keep a woman around and can't make her be a good mother.
Thinking Critically About Cohabitation
2) Women shacking up act like good wives and men shacking up don't act like good husbands
The most significant objective difference between shacking up and legal marriage is that the higher earning spouse isn't (usually) compelled by government force to give away his earnings, including long after the relationship has ended. I say shacking up is NOT a good deal for men. It just looks that way because marriage is such a bad deal for men that shacking up looks great in comparison.
Dr. Laura is buying into a direction of causality here that might not exist, at least not significantly. She wants children raised in intact homes, she sees that marriages are more likely to last than shackups, and so she wants people to marry and not shack up. (She still is against childfree shacking up, though.) But we don't really have any proof that the kind of people who shack up would be better parents and stay together to raise their kids if they had married instead of shacking up or without having first shacked up. I also suspect there's religious morality creeping in to Dr. Laura's position, but she can't say that because she maintains that her program is a secular one.
This entire essay she gave was based on self-reporting of perceptions, if the people participating were actually telling the truth. We can be sure at least some of these people are deluded. Dr. Laura is all about reality, usually. It's why she says you can't have a relationship (of any sort) with a drunk: since a drunk avoids reality by drinking, you can't have a relationship with them. Well, some people are married to people who avoid reality with these delusions. So they're marriages must not be real marriages.
None of what was said gave any hard evidence for the quality of marriages, only what spouses perceived. For example, it is entirely possible that one spouse thinks the marriage is great and the other thinks it is miserable. By default, that means the marriage is of low quality. Yet one of the spouses reported that it was good.
Once again, I will state explicitly that I do not advocate shacking up. I never did it even when I was invited to. In general, shacking up is a bad idea. I encourage men to stay free. I do agree with Dr. Laura that it is bad for children if their parents have an unstable relationship and break up their family. But no man should think legally marrying will be some sort of magic wand for any children he has or wants to have. He can be a good husband and a good father without signing a terrible state contract. And that contract will not keep a woman around and can't make her be a good mother.
Thinking Critically About Cohabitation
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please no "cussing" or profanities or your comment won't be published. I have to approve your comment before it appears. I won't reject your comment for disagreement - I actually welcome disagreement. But I will not allow libelous comments (which is my main reason for requiring approval) and please try to avoid profanities. Thanks!