The US Census has released the median age of marriage stats for 2018.
Here is the data for the last 19 years in table form (source has data back to 1890):
Note: I removed the duplicate for 2011 and just included the revised figure.
H/T Emperor Constantine
Related:
This is great data! It is a start, helping to understand our new America. But it fits women’s framing of “we’re all just delaying marriage.” We need a wider picture.
For example, what is the fraction of people married at each age – over time. As women delay marriage, what percent don’t marry (i.e., are unable to or uninterested)?
Women assume that the decline of marriage rates in their 20s will be offset by an increase in marriage rates in their 30s. That’s possible, of course. But biology – men’s preference for young women – might prevent a large rise in marriage rates for older women. Changes in society – men realizing marriage doesn’t work well for them – might *depress* marriage rates.
The other factor is that we focus too much on marriage and divorce rates. Cohabitation and break-up rates become increasingly important we become a post-marriage society.
Strong, independent women need to marry like a fish needs to ride a bicycle.
@Larry Kummer
You’ve said this a couple times. What do you mean by “important”? Important why? Is it also important to track the rate of “friends with benefits”?
Larry
The other factor is that we focus too much on marriage and divorce rates. Cohabitation and break-up rates become increasingly important we become a post-marriage society.
This is a very good point. However that data is going to be much “fuzzier” than marriage / divorce rates due to the informality of the arrangements. As “marriage” gradually becomes something that only certain economic groups and certain religious groups even bother with, these statistics will become without much meaning. Unfortunately the social and economic effects of single-motherhood are very real and will only get worse.
There are policies that US states and the Federal government could put in place that are pro-marriage, however as we saw from Dalrock’s previous article even tiny steps such as “joint custody” are strongly resisted by politically powerful groups. It is possible that the hate and misogyny are so strong in some political sectors that no reform to anti-family court will ever be possible in the US as it is currently configured.
Assuming current trends continue, at some point the age at first marriage should level off, but given the slope of the curve it’s going to be someplace over 30.
“But biology – men’s preference for young women ”
this is correct and why match-making and mating (or the strong desire thereof) is not restricted to age cohorts. A 40yr old man who wants kids looks for a low 30’s and below, i.e. a woman who has viable eggs; he doesn’t want to marry a 42 yr old woman. So it is we have a huge number of men ages 16-50 vying for a smaller number of women ages 16-35 in an almost 2:1 ratio. This is another example of the Pareto Principle that is viciously enforced by Mother Nature where women’s reproductive capability drops off a cliff over 30, while men’s continues into the 50s and beyond. The superabundance of men is due to there being no genocidal wars among Westerners for over 80 yrs., combined with safer working conditions and better health. But that is not historic or sustainable and female hypergamy, pressuring Western nations to open their borders to millions of military-aged men (further unbalancing the ratio) is Nature’s solution to precipitate a genocidal conflict. One side or the other will win, and women will be happy to mate with the whoever wins, having proved genetic superiority via their survival capability. IQ or other social adaptations like trust and generosity are not certain winners in the evolution game, and as it appears may actually be liabilities at scale.
Hopefully it’s not too late to prepare to survive the dark times ahead.
Cane,
Re: Cohabitation and break-up rates
“What do you mean by “important”? Important why?”
Because the shift of households from marriage to cohabitation is bad for the kids. And so bad for America. See the papers quoted here, a drop in the ocean of research showing this.
Science tells us why the family is dying.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/11/14/the-family-is-dying-lets-see-what-science-tells-us-about-it/
I believe that is this shift it is also bad for adults in America, but I have no data about that.
And now the snowball is really getting going, because it will become standard that ‘marriage is for 30 year olds.’ That will just be the proper cultural more and women will be enthusiastically complicit in this too. It will be the rare cultural element in which males and females are not adversarial. So the decision to marry or not is now in the purview of 28-34 year olds, not 18-24 year olds. That’s settled.
So 30 is the new 21 but these are not the same brains at all anymore. A 30 year old man has nothing in common with a 21 year old.
He’ll have (likely);
-been overseas (mind-altering to see how a 12 hour flight inflates your SMV by 3-4 points, while knocking 2-3 pts off of your hometown oneitis)
-already had at least a few mind blowing sexual flings (SO crucial to this whole deal)
-had friends well into their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s as age range in friendship has much greater lassitude by the year. He will be well warned of what happens. A 42 year old divorce rapee will be his buddy and peer, not some guy from a whole different epoch (as the 21 year old sees him)
-he’ll have gotten wind of the redpill, if not direct exposure to the manosphere.
-he’ll have a pile of money to protect, unlike the 21 year old.
-he might have hobbies/pursuits that he’s had an extra 11 years to develop that make marriage a threat to his passions.
-he will simply have had the chance to witness hundreds of females in action, with him, his friends, and family. This is nothing like the T&A-hazed mind of a 21 year old.
-he’ll be sizing up 28 year olds and their carb-worn bodies, not 18 year olds at their breathtaking peak.
I could keep going. The ultimate point is that a 30 year old will have the mental development to simply make the more rational decision. Now that grown men will be the ones deciding on marriage and not hormone crazed 25 and unders, there will be an even more rapid decrease in marriage rates. Marriage began to die at the behest of 23 year olds, imagine how unappealing it is to men who have so much more data and experience to draw from.
Anon Reader,
“However that data is going to be much “fuzzier” than marriage / divorce rates due to the informality of the arrangements. ”
To some degree. But simple surveys ask who is in the household, their relationships, and history. Social science is seldom perfect, but the data we have is more than adequate to draw some simple conclusions.
My guess is that the answers are both disturbing and politically incorrect. So we focus instead about marriage and the circus of multiple genders and LBTQ – and whatever else is trendy.
The great Wolfgang Schivelbusch wrote “Culture of Defeat” (2000), describing how defeated nations construct fantasies to mask the pain. I wonder if that’s what we’re doing, rather than watch the bolts pop out of American culture. It’s very Weimar.
A very important thing to note about that chart is how the age difference between men and women marrying is narrowing. You can infer that since the stats are medians, the age gap represents the median gap. So why is it narrowing? It’s because women generally prefer men closer to their own age, and since there is an abundance of men (as well as resources) they can successfully achieve this. If the ratio of men to women were smaller (and resources less), women would select differently and some actually prefer the “silver fox” as age is a different signal of mate suitability (age signals survivability – hence greater chances of successful, sustained resource acquisition) over a more reckless young buck who has no proven track record of being able to provide and could die young as a result of his reckless impulsiveness (but the thrill he provides!). Today there is zero pressure to select on resources criteria and plenty of men of all ages to select from, so women will select the younger man as optimal.
Larry
But simple surveys ask who is in the household, their relationships, and history.
I’m assuming you understand the limitations on surveys in terms of Confidence Interval / error, etc. is that correct? Even the Census data, which is much higher quality than any survey will never be as clear as legal documents such as “marriage license” and “divorce decree”. As the definition of “family” becomes fuzzier, the data on family formation must become fuzzier. It is elementary logic.
You choose some curious things to argue about.
IQ or other social adaptations like trust and generosity are not certain winners in the evolution game,
The high IQ ruling elite (who own the media and internet) will be safe in their compounds and bunkers. They’ll manipulate the genocidal wars among the proles, while remaining safely protected with their harems.
@Larry Kummer
Thanks for the response.
Just a note: prior to 1950, scientific studies and the census were not reliable, and many did not report. Many try to argue that early 20s was standard during the 1700s and 1800s, based on diaries. That method is flawed due to literacy rates, survival of records, and the location of the records that survived (urban centers).
They will end up marrying a fish riding a bicycle
I will also note that if you tracked the age of first sexual encounter, we would see the reverse of this graph.
@Cane Caldo
I won’t speak for Larry, but I suspect he is saying “cohabitation and breakup rates” are “important” for multiple reasons, including but not limited to, the vast variances in the physical, emotional and psychological well-being of children who are raised under and subjected to cohab vs. married family arrangements.
Despite what secular voices, and now more feminist and permissive Christian voices are insisting, there simply is no comparison. Cohab is not just a bad substitute, it is a piss poor one. The evidence reveals that married families are still hands-down better for the well-being of children.
So the decline in marriage in the west, and the rise of its heavily discounted substitute, namely cohabitation, really is a human pathology that requires more moralizing – not less, more public education and awareness for public policy, and more research in order to find incentives to drive cogent solutions. One solution would be to reinstill incentives for marriage and intact families, or reduce/remove legal and financial disincentives and termination clauses.
Just my $0.02
It would also be interesting if we had the average age that human females have been hitting their first menstrual cycle (i.e. commencement of reproductive fertility)
Oh, wait a minute…..nice job France!
To the above, what on earth could a negative slope mean? Golly!
My fiancee is 18, doing my bit..
@constrainedlocus
Nutrition and disease conditions have changed quite a bit since 1840, just for a start.
What conclusions do you draw from this data?
I believe one biological factor as to why menstration ages drop is either due to the lack of a father in the home or the general tone is a state of war (hence fertility would need to speed up in order to repopulate).
https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/09/17/puberty/
Why they think income factors into this I’m not sure unless that means better living quarters.
At the rate our social engineering is going marriage might be in the same booth as the rotary phone, VCRs, and fax machines. Sad really.
Guess you better continue to invest in cat food and winery stocks.
I too recall reading studies that show that girls who do not live with their biological fathers have their first menses earlier, by years, compared to girls who do live with dad.
Burner Prime says:
November 15, 2018 at 1:57 pm
”Nature’s solution to precipitate a genocidal conflict. One side or the other will win, and women will be happy to mate with the whoever wins, having proved genetic superiority via their survival capability. IQ or other social adaptations like trust and generosity are not certain winners in the evolution game, and as it appears may actually be liabilities at scale.
Hopefully it’s not too late to prepare to survive the dark times ahead.”
…I agree with the Apocalyptic view of the world you have here, except the point of genetic superiority.
The ”conquerors” will not be genetically better.
Scientists have pointed out that Neanderthals were predominant in Europe. They mated with other humans to become modern humans, Homo sapiens. Neanderthals were larger, taller, stronger and more social than their contemporaries, enabling them to live coherently in adverse climates, work together to mass-produce and store food (thus evening out seasonal food fluctuations).
Neanderthals moved out from Europe and into the greater Asian landmass. So modern Europeans and Asiatics have Neanderthal DNA.
Sub-Saharan Africans did not share in this migration, being cut off by some cataclysmic flood of the Nile area, or an Ice Age. They lack Neanderthal DNA. This does not make them either superior or inferior, just different. The traits of the Neanderthals described above Inherent in Europeans, would have to be culturally enforced and reinforced through culture in order for them to function as those containing Neanderthal DNA. As this is now impossible because ”colonialism” is evil, their survival is questionable. It also means that as more sub-Saharan African traits become dominant in the West and Neanderthal traits rarer, so too will be the civilizing effects of Neanderthal DNA, further reducing the civilizing effects of those genes.
As for our Islamic friends, well, they have been killing off intellectuals who criticise them, mating with their cousins, and killing foreigners who refuse to live by their schizoid cult. They aren’t for a second, genetically better, since they have killed off anyone genetically better.
I’m aware this sounds horribly racist, but it is the truth about how the various races fit together. It does not bode well for the future. Ignore it and continue down the track in the name of ”tolerance” and ”diversity” and we will end up with a world full of needy, dependent people with no technological and economic engine to help them.
Here is the percent change from 2004 to 2017 in the percent of never married women by age. To avoid changes in demography, it includes only non-hispanic white women. I expected more of a generational wave in the data. And an acceleration. Nope, neither.
The percent never married rose the same amount over the full “marriageable range” (as it is today) of 25 – 44. Also, the rate of increase slowed. Both periods had economic growth (real GDP up 8.5% vs. 14.0%).
Age. 2004-10 2011-17
18 to 24 106% 103%
25 to 34 121% 113%
35 to 44 120% 113%
45 to 54 118% 106%
Are women delaying marriage? Men refusing to marry? The women doing so in their 20s and men for women in their 30s? Other factors? Too many variables.
The Census data is from here: https://www.census.gov/cps/data/cpstablecreator.html
Here is an article about the effect Frank mentions:
“Girl’s First Period Depends on Who She Lives With” by Ker Than at LiveScience, 13 July 2006.
“The study finds that the absence of a father, the presence of half- and step-brothers, and living in an urban environment are all associated with the earlier onset of a girl’s first period, known as “menarche.” Meanwhile, the presence of sisters in the household while growing up has the opposite effect. …
“Contrary to what was predicted, having a stepfather in the house was not associated with a delay of menarche. One possible explanation that comes from animal studies is that female sexual maturation speeds up in the presence of any unrelated male who is fertile.”
https://www.livescience.com/4143-girl-period-depends-lives.html
@earl @constrainedlocus
”I believe one biological factor as to why menstration ages drop is either due to the lack of a father in the home or the general tone is a state of war (hence fertility would need to speed up in order to repopulate).”
Not only that but females nowadays aren’t malnourished like their ancestors. Hence as a result of resource abundance women are maturing sooner and becoming fertile sooner as a result but I think that it will stop at some point because of genetic limits.
Pingback: 2018 Median Age of Marriage | Reaction Times
“But biology – men’s preference for young women – might prevent a large rise in marriage rates for older women.”
Sexbots will have more to do with this in the near future.
vfm7916,
Re: sexbots.
Women see them coming! H/t Chateau Heartiste
“Jealousy 4.0? An empirical study on jealousy-related discomfort of women evoked by other women and gynoid robots” by Jessica M. Szczuka and Nicole C. Krämer in Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 2018.
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/pjbr.2018.9.issue-1/pjbr-2018-0023/pjbr-2018-0023.pdf
Dalrock, Please bow down to the pure boss-ness of Jaime Sloan. Jaime Sloan, 34, gave birth seven months ago. While most of us would consider the year after popping out a child as a time to try to relax and feel like a human again, Jaime chose a different path. She decided to do an Ironman 70.3. You know, that grueling triathlon made up of a 1.2 mile swim, a 56 mile cycle, and a 13.1 mile run? Told you she’s a boss.
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/10/mum-completes-ironman-challenge-while-pumping-breast-milk-8124644/?ito=cbshare
There are also a lot of compounds in the environment that mimic hormones, such as parabens and bisphenols, etc. Testosterone levels and sperm counts have been declining in the US and other industrialized countries for at least 20 to 25 years if not longer. A similar effect upon girls may be involved in earlier menarche.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/01/i-found-the-perfect-sperm-donor-but-i-never-got-my-happy-ending-8093804/
Tune in Live
OT
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2018/11/16/just-wait-for-them-they-will-be-here-soon-enough/
Carry on.
I too recall reading studies that show that girls who do not live with their biological fathers have their first menses earlier, by years, compared to girls who do live with dad.
Could this have anything to do with forced maturity, where girls not living with their dads were faced with challenges which forced them to take on adult roles? We already know that kids are forced to mature faster when placed under certain adult demands (e.g. a kid forced to care for her siblings due to the death of parents).
@Burner Prime “This is another example of the Pareto Principle that is viciously enforced by Mother Nature where women’s reproductive capability drops off a cliff over 30, while men’s continues into the 50s and beyond.”
Pareto Principles are never enforced, but are a common statistical phenomenon. Screw ‘Mother Nature’, I don’t care about that false idol.
From a Christian perspective: our goal is not to conceive as many children as we can, that is not even the goal of marriage, although marriage is the only allowable condition to potentially receive children out of the hand of God.
If you must marry, marry without concerns about fertility (other than personal preferences).
Dave says:
November 16, 2018 at 1:53 am
I too recall reading studies that show that girls who do not live with their biological fathers have their first menses earlier, by years, compared to girls who do live with dad.
Could this have anything to do with forced maturity? […]
In fact, Stefan Molyneux spoke about it, and I read somewhere about it too time ago, well, in fact, technically, a fatherless kid would have been more likely to be neglected, abused, murdered and killed.
The defeated alpha lion brood is killed. In humans, when the mother has custody of the kids but she gets a new man, she’ll be either a silent accomplice of the kid abuse and neglect to death, she’ll be the initiator, or she’ll participate.
The kids, are neglected, uneducated, barely clothed or fed the minimum to not “waste” resources of them.
Aparte: the biggest victims of domestic violence are boys, and more precisely, black boys of single mothers. They’re most likely to be killed by their own mother or the mother’s boyfriend/the stepfather.
Back to topic: so, by hitting puberty earlier, a young girl will be attractive to possible partners who will be willing to court her with gifts, and take her away from the “dragon”, or she’s more likely to survive after a war let’s say, if the male of the winning side doesn’t see her as a burden, a toddler to feed, but as a potential bride for them or their sons… .
TL; DR
So, basically, it’s a survival strategy that fatherless girls hit puberty/develop women’s physical traits earlier…
OT: I don’t remember this being posted yet:
https://world.wng.org/2018/11/thank_god_for_men
A little something positive going into Thanksgiving.
NickM
Tri women are often cute because they are in good shape and have a self-discipline that is appealing (it can fool us into thinking they understand cause and effect and will be enjoyable helpmates)…….but, they are miserable people for being an actual helpmate. A man is an accesory or complement to them. They need a bicycle more than a man.
“If you must marry, marry without concerns about fertility”
Insane.
Marriage, particularly Christian marriage, in large part is about reproduction. It is about creating a stable environment in which to raise children.
Are women delaying marriage? Men refusing to marry? The women doing so in their 20s and men for women in their 30s? Other factors? Too many variables.
My guess, from what I have observed going on now and in recent years, and also from talking with younger men, is that women are the principal marriage delayers initially, in that they do not generally wish to marry before the later 20s today (at least in large population centers), but would like to marry between 28-34. The issue some of them run into is that they aren’t finding men they want to marry, particularly as they age into the middle-30s. It isn’t that men are avoiding marriage to any significant degree … there is a small number of high-value men that is avoiding marriage, but it’s a small enough number that it doesn’t have a significant impact but a marginal one. The problem is that some portion of women doesn’t like what is on offer for marriage when they are 34-36. This group then either settles for what is actually on offer, or delays even longer until they find a man they want — Wendy Griffith, who gets discussed here every now and then, is an extreme example of this at 53.
As for the men, there is the small group of “never want to marry” guys, but the rest who are unmarried are not generally avoiding marriage as much as they are not being picked by women for various reasons. Most men do, however, still marry, as do most women.
—–
On the cohabitation stats, if we were to look at those together with the marriage stats, we could get an idea, even if an imperfect one, of the state of “coupling” — that is, how many people are actually coupled, whether cohab or marriage, and how many are more or less uncoupled. My guess, without any data, is that the cohab numbers have gone up at the expense of the marriage numbers, but that overall the single/uncoupled number has gone up as well.
Swanny River,
🙂 They also need good running shoes and a swimsuit.
More importantly, it is likely their training and competing would have a higher priority than any man in their life.
My question is what was going on in the 1890s?
“My question is what was going on in the 1890s?”
I think there were still a considerable number of wars, typhoid fever outbreaks as well as the the world being 20 years well into the 2nd Industrial revolution (1870) with electricity and mass production being the decisive force :
It’s the 4th industrial revolution (you are here) that has had enormous (exponential) impact on the individual – socio-economic, physical, psychological. It’s easy to understand now how and why obesity, cancers, diabetes and cardiovascular disease is killing us off with the highest efficacy.
We probably should count cohabitation with marriages since it is really similar, even if is theoretically easier to break.
I wouldn’t count cohabitation with marriages because while on the outside they appear similar they are fundamentally different.
Just like fornicaton and the marital act are fundamentally different.
@Novaseeker
I think one of the reasons they are not being picked is a woman can be bi-sexual and have her sexual needs satisfied by another woman without any social concern. For a man, it is much more rare to be bi-sexual. He is either gay or straight.
You have to include co-habitation with marriage or you’ll never get an accurate picture of changing marriage stats. Cohabitation is the new marriage. Forget the moralizing, that just confuses the picture. At it’s heart they are the same: two people conjoining their lives and, often, raising children together.
Other than a meaningless piece of paper, there is no practical difference between co-habitation and marriage today. That piece of paper has no moral or scriptural import. And it’s not like people don’t arbitrarily end marriage and arbitrarily end their marriage commitments.
If you go down the rabbit hole of ‘cohab isn’t marriage’ then I’ll counter every time with ‘modern marriage isn’t really marriage either’. That piece of paper is a modern novelty while modern marriage lacks a whole suite of features marriage has had since ancient times.
I’m curious, Dalrock, if you would be willing to be interviewed for a podcast episode on the subject of Chivalry in the church. I can of course vocode you.
Is so, you can reach out through the “contact” form on the web page linked in my name. If not, just ignore me. 😉
I’m grateful for your work.
@Joe2 “I think one of the reasons they are not being picked is a woman can be bi-sexual and have her sexual needs satisfied by another woman without any social concern.”
Maybe, but Boston Marriages have been around for awhile IIRC (old maids, spinsters, cunning women too!) The problem with today is that women who should be young, lovely, Christian mothers have been turned into 20 something whores who would prefer a mundane job in an HR department over a “boring” male provider.
Well I won’t rebuke that counter. Considering how easy it is to destroy an institution that is supposed to be until death between a man and woman…no fault has cheapened marriage as much as fornication, calling same sex couples a union and cohabitation.
But I’m not falling into the trap of calling two things superfically equal when they are fundamentally different. Cohab and marriage aren’t the same just like men and women aren’t the same.
Then you’re in a no man’s land where we can’t know anything about today. Because marriage today and marriage yesterday are fundamentally different as well. None of that helps us understand what is happening around us.
Your objection belies an emotional attachment to “marriage”.There isn’t any fundamental difference between cohab and marriage; it’s only in the details and social baggage. You can wax poetically about the morality of it all day long, but the fact of the matter is co-hab is the new marriage. You have to be stupid to get a piece of paper today. All it does is give her greater incentive to blow up the marriage.
@Gary Eden
It isn’t moralizing. It’s ontology. Marriage was instituted by God; cohabitation is a purely human choice. The apologetic problem marriage has in the West is that, instead of being a religious act with civil implications, it has grown to be seen as a civil act with – at best – religious implications. On that basis, I agree it is impossible to advocate for its unique position among human relationships. Civil administration elevates different things at different times: why should marriage be any different unless it has a definition that has the ontological priority?
But marriage was instituted by God, setting it apart a priori. And history will continuously bear this out, no matter how grim marriage’s prospects look now. It is different, at the ontological level. Mixing it with lower things in the statistical record corrupts analysis from the get-go.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/12/thanks-not-raping-us-all-you-good-men-its-not-enough/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b81d49ebe928
That’s what modern marriage may build for your golden years.
*Extreme* eye bleach warning. Comments are entertaining.
Truth or myth: There are quality Christian men who want to get married eventually (say late 20s-early 30s) but are choosing to wait while they get off the ground financially and develop a career that will support a family. Oh, and also they are not hooking up with women during this time.
So is this really the intentional plan of a segment of the male population or is it more just based on anecdotes about people’s amazing but single nephews? People have told my daughter about men like this and make it sound like a conscious plan not to even seek
a wife until they’re financially sound.
@Jean
If a young man said that to me, I would think it was one of two things:
1. Bullshit.
2. Bad teaching/counsel from his parents and elders.
Truth.
At least in my day. This is what we were taught in my sphere. Worked out great! /sarc
This is the Curchian Beta Plan.
I still see many of these in my circle, true obedient believers. Many fewer than when I was young. The church girls ignore them.
I teach my sons what the Bible teaches. This includes the fallen nature of man, and to be gentle as doves and wise as serpents as regards choosing a mate.
Jean,
I think there are some men who have those goals. The financial and career stability may not be important to all. In other words, some might be open to marriage sooner if they found a good mate.
In my case (decades ago), I wanted to find a good wife but I don’t remember any conscious decision about financial or career situation.
A much more current example is DeepStrength (his blog is on Dalrock’s blogroll as “Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere”. He has recently married but he has written extensively there about his journey.
Other approximations are Wintery Knight (also on the blogroll) who is single but I believe is now past 30. He has a commenter known as “Wintery’s friend” who is now married and likely fit into that category. Perhaps commenter Earl (I don’t know his age though).
As to the “late 20s-early 30s)” range, that might have been their goal but it may well have been passed without finding a woman who was qualified and interested. Better to remain single than settle for marriage to a woman who will not be a good wife. Perhaps your daughter might find some men who are a little older to be good choices even though they are not her preferred age.
In short, I believe such men exist. Finding them is more difficult. The vetting (which Deep Strength writes about extensively from the man’s perspective) is vitally important.
The thing with slurring together marriage and cohab is that they have different stability rates. If you blend them together, you get a blended split rate, which is very misleading for both — cohab split rates are much higher than divorce rates are, pretty much everywhere.
I do think that a lot of people are cohabing and not marrying, so it would be interesting to see both sets of stats to get a handle on just how much singleness there is going on, but smushing them together would really obscure the data on split rates.
Truth or myth: There are quality Christian men who want to get married eventually (say late 20s-early 30s) but are choosing to wait while they get off the ground financially and develop a career that will support a family. Oh, and also they are not hooking up with women during this time.
The educated set in general — secular or Christian — follows this plan generally. The “no hooking up part” is likely true only for the ones who are either (1) very committed Christians (these exist obviously) or (2) unable to pull it off (plenty in this category as well). For very good looking, upwardly mobile, educated men with bright futures who are socially astute and charming …. the non-hook-up rate is low. They still exist, though — I mean look at Tim Tebow, right? I suppose one strategy for Christian women is to look into holding out for Tim Tebow types I guess.
Well you’re wrong Gary.
Cohab is having a roommate…marriage is having a wife. There’s no way on God’s green earth you will ever call some woman you aren’t married to your wife.
Eearl, you are unfortunately in error now. Unless you want to claim that no marriage happens now. Both are almost as easy to end, for example. It may cost a bit more for ones with the marriage label, but the difference is basically irrelevant since we don’t treat marriage seriously, insde or outside churches.
Nothing in the Scriptures indicates exactly what makes a marriage. Living together is all I see, though perhaps I am not thinking of some OT stuff. Isaac married Rebekah by sleeping with her, so not much support there. No ceremony or civil involvement.
We need to realize we have completely neutered marriage before we can shift the window. Staying focused on “playing house” takes the focus off the more important picture.
What’s the difference between a divorce and a roommate moving out of the house? The error is not how little marriage is thought of because of easy separation…the error is equating cohabitation with marriage.
How about…
‘What God has joined together let no man separate.’
Might want to read the backstory on that one because there was more to that besides Issac just sleeping with her. The Lord for example was involved.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+24&version=NASB
It makes more sense to me that more people are more prone to cohabitating instead of marrying because they can have a roommate to split costs and easier access to fornication without the downside of the possibility of divorce and all the destruction that brings. Nonetheless it’s not marriage. To me cohab rates going up is another sign marriage rates are falling.
Let me present another scenario I’ve seen lately…does a woman who has a dog or cat make her a mother?
I’ve seen plenty of women who make that assertion.
Maybe we wouldn’t, but I know that younger people refer to themselves as “not single” when they are cohabiting. When I challenge them on that I get a lot of grief and insults telling me to “keep your values to yourself”
Of course, they don’t refer to each other as husband or wife, but rather as “partner”. When I hear that I am sorely tempted to ask if they are an accounting firm. Of course, we all know it’s far easier to unilaterally dissolve a marriage than a legal business partnership.
As long as you don’t have any legally joined property (say you bought a house or car together) or have kids together, there is no need to get lawyers or judges involved if you’re shacking up. You just rent a U-Haul and move out,
I do not understand people who live together before getting married. They don’t know what they are missing, jumping in with both feet, totally committed and figuring it all out. Together.
We did it the old fashioned way. Got married. Went on a week long honeymoon to an island, came back. Brought her to my house instead of hers. Went and got all her stuff the next day.
I count those first 10 days or so as among the happiest of my life.
Well you just challenged them with the truth…hence they get all in a huff.
They could call her his partner, roommate, girlfriend, the gal that lives in my house I sleep with, etc…they’ll never call her a wife.
I strongly suspect that many serial cohabbers are the children of divorce. They remember how awful it was when mom kicked dad out of the house and replaced him with a stream of serial lovers. They simply expect their romantic relationships to fail, and that’s the thing, they see romance as the cornerstone of marriage. It’s what they’ve been taught.
Just take the wife out to a fancy dinner and when the doe eyed waitress asks if you’re celebrating something, tell her you’ve been married for over thirty years, and watch her mind boggle. Some will even verbalize it: “Wow, my parents have been married and divorced three times … how do you do it?”
Novaseeker
The thing with slurring together marriage and cohab is that they have different stability rates. If you blend them together, you get a blended split rate, which is very misleading for both —
Exactly. Surveys might not even pick up splits. I have known in my distant social circle a few babymommas – women who drew resources from WIC / EBT, from Section 8, and from the latest man. Multiple children, each one from a different sperm donor. Often careful to not allow a man to stay too long, and tending to change to a new man every 2 years or so. Survey Suzie Slutmomma at some times and she’s a “single mother”, survey her other times and she has a “live-in partner’. Since she’s never married, her rotation of men never will show up in any divorce records. Some will be on birth certificates as “Parent B” or some such, but those records are generally not surveyed.
There’s not much cost in cohabs splitting up, no legal trail, and therefore no easy way to keep track of “family formation”. We will continue to see the longer term effects on any offspring, though, both in the K – 12 system and other systems such as juvie lockup.
Frank K says:
“Wow, my parents have been married and divorced three times … how do you do it?”
*************************************
LOL it’s EASY. It really is. All this “marriage is hard work” is crap.
You both DECIDE to. Then you commit to each other during a wedding. And you don’t look back.
Same with love. You decide to. Period. And you don’t look back.
Worked for 30+ years for us.
Go with feelings and you’re screwed.
@Joe
Sure, it’s just like choosing a virgin bride. Just DECIDE to, right?
Congratulations on your 30 years of marriage. Try not to sprain your arm patting your own back.
My wife used to work at the local public library. She told me that having women with multiple kids, each with a different last name, show up to sign up for library cards was hardly uncommon. And this is in an allegedly conservative city of about 70,000.
A lot of these people are transient, often in the hunt for a section 8 voucher. Since there is a long waiting list (as in years long) for those in our neck of the woods, they move on, at least judging by the very large number of inactive library cards. Many strike out and move on. From what I have heard these people couch surf with a friend or relative before moving on. Have also read that about 25% of the kids enrolled in our local public schools are technically “homeless”, meaning they are couch surfing or not living with a parent.
Perhaps Joe missed the point, which is about not whether marriage is hard or easy or something in between. It is that for the younger generations, especially the less affluent ones, divorces and break ups are considered normal and expected. They expect their relationships to fail. When it does they move in with friends until the next short term candidate shows up.
And to be honest, it’s not just the young ones. The number of married couples I encounter who are not in their first marriages is staggering. They don’t all fit the stereotype of being uneducated lower class people. Many have good jobs, live in well manicured neighborhoods, drive expensive cars and look polished. Blended families are VERY common now.
Blended families are VERY common now.
I think that’s the premise of the hit sitcom, Modern Family (which I have never seen), which debuted in 2009, and is still going strong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Family
Modern Family revolves around three different types of families (nuclear, step- and same-sex) living in the Los Angeles area, who are interrelated through Jay Pritchett and his children, Claire Dunphy and Mitchell Pritchett.
Patriarchal Jay is remarried to a much younger woman, Gloria Delgado Pritchett, a passionate Colombian with whom he has a young son, Fulgencio Joseph “Joe” Pritchett, and a son from Gloria’s previous marriage, Manny Delgado.
Jay’s daughter Claire was a homemaker, but has returned to the business world. She is now the chief executive of her father’s previous business, Pritchett’s Closets and Blinds. She is married to Phil Dunphy, a realtor and a self-professed “cool dad”. They have three children: Haley Dunphy, a stereotypical ditzy teenage girl; Alex Dunphy, a nerdy, smart middle child; and Luke Dunphy, the off-beat only son.
Jay’s lawyer son Mitchell and his husband Cameron Tucker have one adopted daughter, Lily Tucker-Pritchett.
As the name suggests, this family represents a modern-day family, and episodes are comically based on situations which many families encounter in real life.
It does seem like cohabitation and blended families are almost the norm these days. I’ve heard many parents say matter-of-factly that a child moved in with the person he or she is dating. Often it’s played off as a perfectly understandable economic decision. Since living as a young person is so expensive, you need a roommate to share expenses. And why shouldn’t that roommate be the person you’re dating? So practical, right? And yes, often these parents and kids have experienced divorce, so I guess they aren’t on board with the idea of permanent commitments.
We have two children in their early 20s and a 12-year-old God surprised us with when I was 42. It’s been amusing to see and hear the assumptions people make about our family. Many contemporaries of our older two are surprised to learn that all three kids have the same parents—they are used to parents remarrying and having more kids with someone new. Some people assume we are grandparents raising a 12-year-old. (Of course, the older two have often taken their little brother places and have been presumed to be his parents.). Sometimes it seems an intact family is the last thing people think of.
But I guess these interesting new family structures are the diversity they tell us is good for us, right?
AR is right Joe. Watch for that armstrain. It is so easy to stay married that I am not sngle after almost 30 years through no fault of my own.
Oh yeah, I am single. Good AMOG job Joe!
The message that has been shoved down our collective throats for the past 50 years is that divorce, remarriage along with half and step siblings are normal. The more recent message is that it’s “unnatural” to have a life long “partner” (the word “spouse” is so last century) and that to even consider it is unrealistic, and people marvel when they find out that you’ve stayed together, like you’re some kind of hero with super powers.
Read just about any comic strip these days that has a story arc. It’s almost guaranteed that one of the main characters is divorced or married a single mother.
I don’t think we are looking at the data correctly. I don’t think the average age of the first marriage is going up and up so much as the percentage of people (people = women AND men) who don’t marry AT is going up and up. And because there is an ever larger percentage of this country where the institution of marriage is increasingly absent, that indirectly drives up the overall average age of the first marriage.
Jean
Truth or myth: There are quality Christian men who want to get married eventually (say late 20s-early 30s) but are choosing to wait while they get off the ground financially and develop a career that will support a family. Oh, and also they are not hooking up with women during this time.
I don’t know. I do know some mid-20’s to late-20’s churchgoing men who want to get married, but who find churchgoing women in their age bracket who also want to get married who are attractive to be scarce. Similarly I know some women in that age bracket who find men etc. who are attractive to be scarce. I’m thinking of specific individuals in my social circle.
We’ve been over this before, I believe. A lot of young men have been ground down by various parts of the feminist blob, a lot of young women have terrible habits that make them less than suitable companions. All of these things can be remedied by people who want results badly enough, all other things being equal.
“All of these things can be remedied by people who want results badly enough, all other things being equal.”
The thing is, Annonymous Reader, that women and feminists and the State don’t want results badly enough, not to the point of reversing their destroying policies…
Do these stats include gay marriages?
Marriage ‘as instituted by God’ no longer exists today. It’s not an option. You can’t have it. A piece of paper from the state certainly won’t get it for you. Attempts to achieve it will be prosecuted if caught.
All we have left are poor facsimiles; of which co-hab is no worse than the others; and in some ways (legally) a good sight better.
What is the difference between cohab and ‘marriage’? A ceremony? Not biblically required. A piece of paper from the state? Not only not biblical, but a modern invention. A “wife”? I don’t care what you call the woman, its the structure that matters. The word ‘wife’ is only a couple hundred years old; Ancient Greek and Hebrew only had a word for ‘woman/female’.
That covers cohab just as well as modern state ‘marriage’.
So is marriage; except when the ‘wifely’ roommate leaves she get’s half you stuff. Where in the Bible does the wife get to leave and take half your stuff?
Did you pay a dowry for your woman? Do you have an enforceable marital contract drafted with the father? Is your woman prohibited from divorcing you? Can you cancel her contracts? Was she a virgin until your wedding night (shotgun weddings excepted)?
If not, you’re not “married”; because those were the features (amoung others) of marriage in the Bible. None of us are Bliblically ‘married’ today. But some of us want to strike self-righteous poses about how others are “living in sin”.
Which is exactly why you won’t get a true picture of the state of family formation without taking cohab into account. Many people cohabbing are essentially married in all but name and view themselves as such. Many of the ‘non-marrieds’ are actually cohabbing. They still have a woman and children; just not a piece of paper. You see different rates because UMC folks tend to go through the formalities the lower classes don’t; and they have different stability rates owing to class differences.
But under today’s legal regime, anyone getting the piece of paper is asking for trouble; it only has downsides. But lacking that paper doesn’t mean you’re suddenly more likely to break up.k
Earl: It makes more sense to me that more people are more prone to cohabitating instead of marrying because they can have a roommate to split costs and easier access to fornication without the downside of the possibility of divorce and all the destruction that brings.
Cohabitating won’t protect the man from a palimony suit (if there are no children), or from child support obligations (if there are children), or from marital rape or domestic abuse charges (however unfounded).
MGTOW is still the safest path to go. Not the happiest path, but the safest.
Frank K: they don’t refer to each other as husband or wife, but rather as “partner”.
Ironically, that word (its usage in that context) originates from the gay community.
It was in the 1990s (maybe even the 1980s) when I began hearing gays refer to their “significant others” (remember that term?) as their “partner.”
I think it was in response to the state’s growing recognition of “civil unions” for gays. Gays suddenly found a need to come up with some term for their lovers. So they used “partner.”
Later, in the 2000s, gays just stole the terms “husband” and “wife,” to make their “marriages” seem more normal.
Ironic that gay relationships now use the terms “husband” and “wife,” and young straight couples call each other “partner.”
@
““If you must marry, marry without concerns about fertility” Insane.”
Well, not according to Scripture. The core of marriage is:
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. ”
Children are not even mentioned, and are not a CONDITION for marriage, but MIGHT arise out of a marriage. Infertile couples are still fully married.
“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”
@constrainedlocus
The chart is wack. Although internet started developing in the 60s, it did NOT impact corporations until much later. After the Electrification should come Automation due to the introduction of the computer. After that came (local) networking technology, even way before the “internet” became big with the invention of the World Wide Web in the 90’s. The digital age started with the introduction of the computer (Turing machine), and is not a separate age started recently (although some management nitwits are fond of labeling the current age ‘digital’). One of the biggest inventions driving all this is the transistor, used in digital circuits, later combined in dazzling numbers in integrated circuits (‘chips’).
@earl,BillyS
I agree that marriage is ontologically different from cohabitation, but biblical marriage is also ontologically different from civil marriage. I also agree that biblically speaking it is hard to define what makes a marriage, it is indeed a mystery. And although we know that when God joins two people into one flesh, it can be called marriage, there are ‘marriages’ (after divorce) that are counted as adulterous relations, and there are non-marital sexual encounters that are labeled as resulting in ‘one-flesh’. And in the OT we have concubines, we have slave girls, both who could have sexual relations with a man, but were different from his wife. Nowhere any vows are mentioned, nor any signing of a contract, but still marriage is described as a covenant.
Looking at Christ and His Church teaches us best: an intimate, exclusive, and life-long covenant between a man and a woman.
@innocentbystanderboston
The chart is about median, not average age, but more importantly, it is talking about median age of first marriage, i.e. what age are people when they marry for the first time. This excludes non-married people already. It does include people who previously were cohabitating or had serial sexual relationships.
@Paul
”Children are not even mentioned, and are not a CONDITION for marriage, but MIGHT arise out of a marriage. Infertile couples are still fully married.”
Not to mention there is always an option to pray for the opening of the womb if infertility exists.
@Gary Eden
I agree with most of your observations, except you’re using ‘biblical marriage’ to cover marriages before, during, and after the Sinaitic covenant, although these are different. Even these marriages had (time-dependent) cultural aspects to them (who of modern day parents are keeping a cloth with blood produced during the wedding night as proof against false accusations of fornication against their daughters?).
I dislike the use of the term partner (other than as in business partner) but found when reading John Adams that he used it when referring to Abigail – so these things come in and go out of fashion.
This is for the folks here who talk about marriage ‘as just a piece of paper’ without referring to the one thing that transforms it into a sacrament, namely the public Vow before witnesses and God! Remember that? You know, an act of such gravity and importance that really stupid and dangerous people shrink from?
The vow itself renders marriage into something so totally different from co-habitation that it’s almost shocking to see the crass and insulting reduction that is so often made.
Ever heard of metaphysics? Ever heard of Truth? Beauty? Goodness? These are abstract concepts but, like Aristotle and Plato, and all the Christian thinkers – amazing, incredibly intelligent people who devoted their lives to understanding the true nature of reality – abstract ideas are the ultimate reality. More real than what you see, hear, touch and taste. This is expressed as the Logos, a thing the Greeks identified and the most important governing principle for understanding the Universe, and which St. John identified, with breathtaking clarity, as Christ Himself, at the beginning of his gospel.
The Logos, or ‘reason’, ‘speech’, ‘the plan’…it’s so deep a concept it has the power in itself to make conversions. It’s ‘the thing’, the structure, the meaning and purpose behind everything and the order people need to obtain true happiness.
When someone makes a vow, they are basically agreeing there is an ultimate reason and purpose to life which is good, beautiful and true and they devote their whole life to that vow come what may.
A couple of people cohabiting do not this – do you not think this alone makes comparisons odious?
There are all sorts of Vow – vows to be a priest, a nun, vows to devote your life to some task or vocation, to be consecrated to God, etc, but for most people, it is the vow they exchange when they get married that is the essence of their lives and governs every action from that moment on. It has nothing to do with a ‘piece of paper’!
The concept of taking a vow, although maybe not articulated to or by most people who haven’t been introduced to it’s grammar (because of the dumbing down of society) is still, though, WIDELY UNDERSTOOD, by the whole of humanity – as per the prophets, Greeks, saints, and even the people of other religions and systems of thought – it is written on the heart of every human being!
So when someone makes a wedding vow they know this, they respect it and they can even fear it, which is why some don’t want to do it. It is not just lack of money, instability of work, lack of ‘real love’, or disdain for ‘a piece of paper’ etc that causes people not to get married but that they choose to lazily and exploitatively (mutual exploitation) ‘co-habit’ as a way of avoiding this vow, this commitment, this act of profound belief in the moral and real order of the Universe. Some can be so proud of avoiding the vow that they know they are shoving two fingers up to God and the civilization built by Christianity. More than that, they won’t express it but the facts are out about abuse and the poor outcomes for children born to people who choose to ‘cohabit’. Cohabitation without the real intent to marry is lazy, exploitative, masturbatory, and child-abuse-in-waiting – it is a rejection of morality, reality and God, and in a true sense, it is not a ‘family’ but more like a small ‘cult’ of the worship of uncontrolled and false desires, the play acting of people who simply refuse to think about their actions with the light of truth, and whose blindness by using a beautiful instrument to foul usage, reduces their situation to temporary material exploitation – temporary because they KNOW that they can leave when a better opportunity arises. It is the end of civilization and the children are real life-long victims of this horror. Cohabitation makes a mockery of marriage and has played its part in destroying the lives of millions.
A note here that there is a different category of people who do cohabit but really anxiously want to get married when they have enough money/stability to actually do the thing in a way that won’t bring shame or derision on them from their peers and families, before they have even started – this is very different from the hideous and ugly norm of serial cohabitation in that it is more of a bad reflection on the dread-inducing ideas of what a ‘successful’ person should be today.
Apart from this exception, to say that marriage and cohabitation are the same is a terrible and nonsensical reduction and a complete ignoring of what a vow means. A vow to a Christian is more real than what the five senses tell us about the world. It is a Truth that the couple willingly and actively agreed to follow, even if they fail. Everyone knows this. To pretend that this real and breathtaking principle is nothing at all is bad philosophy, bad theology, bad reality and plain toxic.
temporary because they KNOW that they can leave when a better opportunity arises
Your comment is true and well said sir. The discussion here exists because of your words I quoted above. The Western church treats marriage as a joke. Churchgoers divorce at the same or higher rate as the culture at large. The main reason for this is the bowing of the knee to feminism, the corrupt communist misandrist domination-fueled belief system straight from the Pit. Many pastors have become apologists for the hypergamous behavior for women looking for the Bigger Better Deal. The main strategy for this is The Beatdown (copyright commenter Ray) -denigrate men and blame wimminz’ rebellious behavior on men.
So, I’ll opine any discussion related to cultural trends here is fully justified, and is engaged in from the vantage point of belief in the sanctity of marriage from most participants.
@Chairman…
I agree with what you said about the importance of the vow and this fundamentally changes the couple. I think why many seem to think cohab and marriage are pretty much the same is how little importance the spouses (usually women) take the vow when they decide they don’t want to be married anymore. Doesn’t matter if the vow was said in church or the courtroom to get the paper.
However we must not fall into the trap into deeming something that has no vow with something where the vow importance has fallen over time as the same thing because they are not. Much like gay couples are not married and a woman owning a dog doesn’t make her a mother…two people living together and having sex doesn’t make them married.
OT but for the “we must make hookups safe for women” topic …
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-case-for-cracking-down-on-tinder-lies/2018/11/16/d3eb0b98-e2de-11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html?utm_term=.e658b37f9b29
The idea? Make men liable in court for fraud for misleading things they say on Tinder. No joke. Here we have women hooking up, deciding to have sex with someone who by definition they don’t really know at all, and wanting to be able to sue the guy if he isn’t the millionaire he said he was before she started the blow job. Incredible.
@earl @GaryEden @Chairman… re: what is marriage
I think we all agree both legal marriage and the cultural and legal support for open hypergamy make legal marriage untenable. If you are a believing Catholic, this puts you in a hard place since the Church still collaborates (unwisely IMO) with the State on marriage, and insists a Church marriage include legal marriage. Until we have some kind of repeatable private marriage that does not include legal marriage but does includes an enforceable religious vow (or some kind of enforceable vow with real penalties, financial and social, if one party reneges), we have a problem.
In my own case, I was married twice legally and, lacking frame, in each case my wife leveraged the divorce threatpoint to make the marriage miserable. Both ultimately reneged on their vows and left. Since the culture supports this (open hypergamy) and the Church and State do nothing to support the vow, my belief is at this point the vows are just between you and your wife and God. There really is nothing else there.
One other thing: by removing the legal divorce threatpoint, owning the house we live in, and keeping my money and assets separate from my wife, I am in a MUCH stronger position to maintain frame. And there is no legal divorce threatpoint. Unfortunately this also means that I have to be ready, at any time, to either see her go or remove her from my life is she falls prey to her hypergamous instincts. Not ideal for a Christian, but such are the ruthless times we live in.
Alas, I am missing Thanksgiving dinner today at my in-laws’ because I am sick. This is always a wonderful time with lots of fun, fellowship, and food. But according to the feminists, it is yet another opportunity for those Poor Oppressed Women to be Oppressed By the Patriarchy. Would you like to go to Thanksgiving dinner with these lovely ladies?
“Whenever I host large dinner parties, only the women offer to help with dishes. I appreciate this, but when I take them up on their offer, there’s a gender imbalance in the kitchen I’m uncomfortable with. I sometimes end up refusing because I hate the optics of it: The men sit around drinking, while the women wash up. I’d like the men to help more, but I don’t want to ask any friends and guests to clean up if they haven’t offered.”
…
“You’ve found—as is so often the case—that relying on an all-volunteer army usually means that the women notice you need help and offer to jump in, while the men seem to think dishes magically appear clean and tucked away in the cabinets the next day. I think the best way to correct this is to be brisk and upfront: Once the chatter has died down after the dessert course, grab a few plates and say, “Every time I host a dinner party, it’s always women who want to help me clean up afterward. Guys, I’d love it if a few of you would help me with the dishes this time. Are there any men who can help me out?” Hopefully—I’m assuming the guys you socialize with are more passively than actively sexist when it comes to kitchen cleanup—you’ll see a few chastened faces, followed by a hasty offer or two. But don’t be afraid to name a conspicuous dynamic, and don’t worry that you’re breaking some sort of hosting etiquette by pointing out the obvious and asking for a solution.”
(By the way, the advice-giver is one Daniel Ortberg, born Mallory Ortberg.)
In the comments to this delightful column, one person recounted how she attended Thanksgiving at another person’s house, then after dinner told the men they should clean up and the women should rest. She then headed into the living room and refused to clean up. After an awkward silence, the men joined her in the living room while the women helped clean up. What a feminist hero!
@earl…
Cohab rates may be going up, but there is a great deal of risk associated with cohab, especially in states which are communal property states. The woman can claim she is the wife sans marriage certificate. The man would have to keep and produce receipts showing how all costs (including rent or mortgage, grocery, heat, lights, etc.) were split which is difficult to do. Additionally, all she has to do is produce a “witness” to claim that she heard the man refer to the roommate as his “wife” and his goose is cooked big time.
Good find Novaseeker! If I understand her legal logic, tinder is a place where women exchange sexual favors for something of monetary value. For how else could a woman sue a man for fraud because she provided him with sex but he didn’t live up to his end of the transaction?
If I understand her legal logic, tinder is a place where women exchange sexual favors for something of monetary value. For how else could a woman sue a man for fraud because she provided him with sex but he didn’t live up to his end of the transaction?
Indeed, this was pointed out to her in some of the comments — basically she’s admitting it’s sex for compensation by comparing it to advertising law, where you’re spending money to get a product. She is equating sex with currency which is given by a woman in exchange for some currency from the man in terms of his life, situation, status and so on, such that if the exchange is based on fraud there should be liability. She either doesn’t mind this idea of commoditizing female sexuality in an exchange with men, or she just missed it. Either way, she is getting fried in the comments for the most part.
Chairman Miaow,
The notion that marriage is a sacrament, or that “sacraments” even exist, is not derived from the bible. The word “sacrament” is used to denote those things which are so sacred (hence the name) that only “clergy” are allowed to preside over them.
However, when you examine the New Testament, never is there even a hint of the clergy/laity distinction. So, if clergy don’t exist (as a biblical distinction), then neither do sacraments. Therefore, marriage cannot be a sacrament.
Regarding vows, yes we have many examples in the bible of vows being taken for various purposes. But have you noticed that nowhere in the bible do we see marriage vows being exchanged, or even mentioned? Why do you think that is? If “vows” are so important, and are what really makes two people married, then why do we see no biblical examples, descriptions, or commands regarding such vows?
We have the story of Jesus and his disciples attending the wedding feast in Cana, but what do you think happened there? Did the bride and groom go to the synagogue along with their friends and family and stand up for a ceremony in front of a rabbi or priest while they exchanged vows and then the rabbi or priest declared them married? If that happened, why do we not have a description of it? Did Jesus skip the ceremony and just show up for the reception, and that’s why it is not included in the story? I think it’s not included in the story because no such ceremony ever happened.
As near as I can tell, there are only things that change a man and a woman into a husband and a wife …… intentionality and commitment. None of your mystical claptrap about vows changes that simple fact. Surprisingly, if you look at biblical examples and instructions, you primarily see that it’s only the grooms intentionality and commitment which is required. Now, of course, it’s nice if the bride shares that intentionality and commitment, but not specifically required. More commonly, it’s portrayed as the intentionality and commitment of the groom and the brides FATHER, though we have biblical examples where even that is not required.
Gary is correct above that the word “wife” is a post-biblical, European invention. The translators of the bible into English took care to distinguish between “woman” and “wife” because that was the cultural environment in which they were enmeshed, so of course they couldn’t see it any other way. But I challenge everyone to read the relevant parts of scripture, and substitute the word “woman” every time you see “wife. See if that changes your understanding of what marriage is and is not.
Oops. “only things” above should have been “only two things”.
Mountain Man,
Some people are still fighting their own prejudices. The Church has sacraments to guarantee the handing on of the Faith. The Church wrote, edited and handed on the New Testament. Jesus performed His first public miracle at the Wedding Feast of Cana, bestowing on marriage itself, and all true marriage, a Godly seal of approval.
Thanks to the Church, to the sacraments and to the miracle at Cana we have a civilization, we have the gift of life – would we individually even be alive, commenting on web-posts, without them? Even if we are from protestant communities we have been fed and nurtured at least for 1500 years, on these things. Sure, I understand the allergy of some sects to the grammar of Catholicism – but really get over it – the so-called ‘reformation’ was an act of theft, a breaking of vows and heresy on a massive scale caused by the oligarchs of the time.No-one wanted it, it was fraud, theft and deceit on a massive scale.
Thank you for your remark about my ‘claptrap’ concerning vows – I’m sure you know better than me, and I’m sure you know better than the people who gave their blood to hand on the Faith. Good for you! Go get ’em!
No, one of the denotions of a sacrament is the institution from Christ himself.
‘Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification’
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm
https://catholicwideweb.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/rcia-the-wedding-at-cana-the-sacrament-of-marriage/
It is an extremely interesting question (honesty in courting) and thus I wonder about its reverse so popular in comic opera where (usually) a Count or Prince pretends to be a poor student so as to test whether the young lady likes him or likes his money – come to think of it most Elvis movies have something of that in them too.
I clicked through the WaPo article to its origin which was {drum roll} The Guardian. A 44 year old woman (English) had exchanged thousands of messages with a lawyer (they all say that don’t they) claiming to be a businessman (Indian) I say Indian as the dim bint had failed to recognise her potential husband from his given photo as none other than Bollywood matinee idol Saif Ali Khan who as I recall is devastatingly good looking. The deception came to light before the deed was committed – a case of falling in love with a picture (just as in Mozart’s Magic Flute but with a less happy result).
Should women be barred from applying make up and dying their hair?????
I am put in mind of this:(only the rehearsal)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxF0yHykiUM
Heidi, hope you’re feeling better soon. Who’d have thought there should be gender quotas for the group that helps with the dinner dishes? Can’t these people just relax and have fun without everything being about an agenda? Weirdos.
Chairman,
Just to be clear, I wasn’t calling vows claptrap. The claptrap is your unnecessary, forced, and overly verbose mysticism about them.
You say, “Some people are still fighting their own prejudices”. Truer words have never been spoken. Hopefully, you can see that they apply as much to you as to anyone else.
I’m not sure why you are trying to bait me into a catholic vs. protestant argument. Frankly, pretty much all of protestantism is on your side. Probably 98 percent of protestants buy into the clergy/laity split and the idea of sacraments. I realize that I’m one of the oddballs who see them as unbiblical, heretical, and damaging to the church.
Novaseeker
She is equating sex with currency which is given by a woman in exchange for some currency from the man in terms of his life, situation, status and so on, such that if the exchange is based on fraud there should be liability.
In other words, just another form of “palimony”. Of course it also puts all male / female relations on the “prostitution-lite” level, but that’s likely not a problem for most Tinder users. As you point out, comments are not being kind to her, that’s something of a pleasant surprise.
Reviving “palimony” should not be a surprise to anyone. Kill marriage off and some other means by which women can obtain resources from the walking ATM’s known as “men” must take its place. It must! Because Wonderful Women have needs and wants and whims!
What good is a man as a fashion accessory if he can’t deliver on other fashion accessories?
@Chairman Miaow
“The vow itself renders marriage into something so totally different from co-habitation”
You might think so, but the bible is silent on it. Biblically speaking the closest we can come is not vow, but covenant.
A covenant bears much more weight than a vow. Typical covenants are mutual commitments to aide the other, based on conditions, and typically end with death; either natural death ends it, or death is the retaliation for breaking of the covenant.
If vows would bear any weight, and marriage vows include “till death do us part”, why does the government effectively subsidize divorce for women, and why are 70% of all divorces initiated by women. Apparently the majority of women do not understand the meaning of ‘vow’, and the state is effectively undermining such vows, making them void and useless, even dangerous, as many men here can attest to.
“with the coming of Christ, the marital covenant between baptized persons was raised to the dignity of a sacrament”
No such thing can be found on the pages of the NT.
If anything, Christ restored marriage to the status it already had at creation, making no distinction between baptized or unbaptized persons.
That particular statement came from the cathecism of the Catholic church.
You also won’t find anything in the NT about baptism specifically being refered to as a sacrament either.
I’ll repeat the definition….‘Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification’
Can one sue online SIFs for fraud?
Shacking up now more popular than marriage in the U.S.A. according to Bloomberg. Anything from them I use my b.s. detector, but this article seems make sense.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/pursuits/modern-love-cohabitation-on-rise-in-u-s-demographic-trends#gs.C4OGgV0
@earl : “I’ll repeat the definition”
It apparently escaped you my statement was about baptism bearing NO difference to the essence of marriage according to the NT. If you think otherwise, please show me the NT text.
In totally un-related news: David’s Bridal files for bankruptcy. 🙄
https://www.businessinsider.com/davids-bridal-files-for-bankruptcy-2018-11?op=1
The usualy suspects in the media say the real reason is because mIllenials are marrying later in life and because “styles are changing from Davod’s Bridal’s typical white dress weddings”.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight…. 🙄 It has nothing to do with the fact that getting married in a feminist hellhole (like the AngloSphere, Western Europe, or Brazil, for instance). Hah. Getting married is THE worst thing a man can do and men are catching up to the marry-and-divorce scam and are pulling out of the system in record numbers.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachelor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married
I seriously rather be like that guy in CO who cancelled his insurance in house and car and burned down both cars and house down as his estranged wife was about to file for divorce (she was out when he did it, of course) then go through what I have seen clients go through during a divorce. Heck, I rather punch an angry steroided out cop in the face then get married today. It is financial suicide and slavery guaranteed… that angry steroid cop would be far more merciful way to go then face the nasty and evil family court judges I have seen in my 6 years working in legal field. 😮 These judges enjoy watching men suffer and go to jail for being unemployed. Family Court judges are truly evil, power-hungry Emperors in Black Robes.
Jack Russel:
Why wouldn’t co-habitation (in in a non-common law marriage State) be a better deal then marriage today? The only worst deal than a straight-up gov’t marriage is a court-ruled Common Law Marriage (CLM), since there is no prenup and that is even worse than a straight-up marriage with a Prenup (the Prenuptial agreement is highly limited, be careful not to overly rely on that and foolishly marry based on that false sense of security!).
If you live in a common law marriage State, move or do NOT allow woman to move in and never allow her to receive any mail (like bills and/or driver”s license). Send back any letters that come to your address with her name on it by taking oit back to Post office and syaing “this person does not live here and I refuse all mail form this person). Be aware that if she tries to receive mail in your place, she is ready to make a hostile takeover!!! If she gets any “official correspondence” in your house (mail), it makes your house her “official residence”) and even a break-up will require court action if she gets fussy about it.
If the relationship ends later and you are not married living together, you can both be adults and split up, without courts being involved, unless she is angry and wants revenge and calls cops on you falsely. I have seen live-in situations end well and badly. I would say maybe 50-50 in my years observing this situation.
IMPORTANT: if you OWN the house the girlfriend moves into (or even if you rent the apt in your name only), be prepared with a legally binding “rental agreement” or “co-habitation agreement”.
Also, co-habitation can have false criminal accusation arrest risks too. Anyone living with a woman should be prepared to be falsely accused of DV (Domestic Violence) on a dime. The woman can leverage that against you to have you forced out of the your own resident to stay there free for months and months on end.
The best prevention to either situation is to:
1) Have an attorney who specializes in family law draft the “co-habitation agreement” and then have a specialized lawyer in real estate law review it and include language from a rental contract: into the “co-habitation agreement”. This should include clauses such as process of giving notice to vacate premise clause (usually 7-day notice to vacate) and remedies to evict her in court if needed. It also should have a clause that states that video and audio surveillance is set-up inside and around residence, so that when you know you want to break-up and want her out, you can set-up hidden cameras until she is gone to reduce chance of arrest based on false accusations.
2) Be as nice as possible about the break-up… or make up a story about getting a job out of State and needing to move. Invite her to move there with you with the goal of getting her stuff out of the house. Once she is gone, change the locks and unless that is her “official residence” (received mail there, has DL with your address, etc), then even changing locks still mean she can come back and can even petition courts to get her out.
BTW, I had a friends years ago that got his live-in GF out by saying he was moving to Alaska, the guy was so desperate to get her out, he listed the house with realtor, sign was outside… He moved very fast so she could not react and “Talk it over with her friends” and have them poison the girl to fight and/or make his life miserable. He even had his furniture fake shipped to Alaska (when it was in a public storage down the street), so she made plans to move to an apt and left his life for good, since she did not want to move to Alaska with him. LOL 😀 Beautifully executed.
The things men have to do to protect ourselves today. *sigh*
Christian McCool.
As someone who never was involved in a co-habitation, your post should be given to anyone who is involved in one.
Well in that case it seems like living with a woman (either in sin or marriage) is a HUGE risk for men.
But hey women wanted to be the tyrannical power over men…they just didn’t think some men didn’t want to sign up for that.
@Jack Russell
I have been involuntarily involved in a co-habitation situation (short term) with a woman since I became widowed over 2 years ago. She was trying to “sneak move” into my house by brining a ton of her stuff over and once she spent 4 days in my place continually, I realized it was a trap the moment I walked into my house after work and she was still there. I am currently in CO, a damn common law marriage State, so I immediately ended relationship saying I was “depressed and suicidal” and told her I wanted to eat rat poison one night after going out and having fun and would rather she not stay around to find me dead. 😆 She freaked out and left… one of her friends called me to “see if I am ok” and I said “huh, is this a joke”? LOL 😀
The litigious nature of America is such today, I almost hate myself for going to law school and learning about stuff like this, because it makes me more aware of the risks involved. I act friendly and never ever discuss such matters, but deep inside, I analyze and watch any woman carefully. But attending law school is the only way I can fight back efficiently. I am half Italian, fighting back is in my blood. I swear Trump needs a DNA test, would not be surprised his real dad was Italian because he talks with his hands as all Italians do and he fights back like a rabid wolf, pure Italian traits.
And NO, I do NOT recommend State-enforced “Marriage 2.0” (all current marriages in USA today) under almost any situation, and co-habitation with a woman for the purposes of unwed procreation is preferred over marriage under virtually any situation. Yes, you are still at risk for a false DV accusation and still at risk for being sued for child support later, but that co-habitation procreation eliminates the risk of woman seizing your house free-and-clear along with your freedom, dignity, future earnings (alimony), and retirement savings in a divorce rape.
Co-habitation (with or without procreation) with a well-done contract before allowing her to move in is preferred (from a legal point of view) over marriage, unless you are in CLM State. It greatly limits a man’s legal exposure.
@Earl
Yes, even living with a woman is a risk, of course, UNLESS you have a notary-signed living agreement as described above
Movie star John Cena made his GF sign a 75-page contract before she was allowed to move in with him. https://people.com/tv/john-cena-nikki-bella-contract/
Cena has top lawyers advising him of the insane risk of having a woman move in with a man, especially for a man with any wealth. She can pull a number of legal stunts against the man, including the fake police calls of violence once she establishes “legal residence” by receiving mail in the man’s home.
Women NEVER plan ahead and that is why they act surprised when men react to their schemes. I had a client whose wife almost completely destroy his anesthesiologist’s career by making a false accusation against him. She wanted leverage in divorce by forcing him out of their joint residence using false criminal accusation. Except she did not THINK that the State’s medical Board would suspend his license indefinitely making his earning ability $0!!! *smacks forehead*
Men should be positively optimistic, and yet cautious of women at all times when it comes to money matters and revenge. As one of my friends once said to me “unless her name is ‘mom’ or ‘grandma’, do not trust any woman, anywhere” and this guy was a master player.
I find that college educated women in their 20’s in general do not want get married. The 20 somethings I’ve met like to travel around the world, add a few tattoos, change jobs in order live in a ‘fun’ city, sample new restaurants, try craft beer, and most of all watch their favorite TV shows!!! Around 32 or 33 they have had enough and start looking for beta bux. Sorry but count me out
Prenups in my jurisdiction are “taken under advisement” during divorce proceedings = “in case of toilet paper shortage break glass.” Saw two acquaintances rely on these to marry skanks, Skanks skanked and took everything. One was stupid enough to adopt her two kids (diff’t dads). The ink was still wet on the adoption papers whilst divorce papers followed. We ALL warned him, and this was back in our BP days.
JRob,
And the children also pay the price for this foolishness. So many cucks cry out “for the children” and they are harmed as well.
Disgusting.
BillyS,
Shoot me an email:
Beework at comcast.net
Bee
Up, up, and away!
And fellas, you’re spending way too much time on this cohabitation versus marriage thing. Both are not worth it in these dark times for males so don’t do either. The best solution is never to have the problem. Restrict your relationships with women to purely professional for every work situation and environment and then, after qualifying prospects, date however many you like if you have work connection whatsoever with them discarding all disordered, flawed, clingy, greedy, selfish, etc… as you go. But forget about letting ANYONE into your home. It’s your castle and it should have a wide moat around it with high walls and excellent fortifications. The life of a bachelor is a blessing in these times. If you must have progeny, hire an extremely good lawyer to contract with a surrogate.
“if you have work connection” should read “if you have NO work connection”
@Futureman
Right, and the college-educated women being the worst, since they spent 4+ years being indoctrinated with feminist ideology in college and have a higher sense of entitlement then most. Not only that, if she lived on campus, she has already been nailed by countless dudes in drunken-fueled parties all over campus.
Almost all women in any Western/feminist hellhole country have a dual-track plan: they want to get pumped by hundreds of dudes until they are near The Wall (after about age 27)…. then they want a man who has “grown-up” and will be her cash bailout when her looks begin to fade and she freaks out that (maybe) she wants a kid and she is going on 35+ or the pumps n dumps are getting harsher or she is “tired of living alone”. -_-
You see, contrary to what FemiNazism teaches, women DO get tired of being banged by random guys in drunken parties. I read article describing the horror/gasps that college women had during a class discussion by an aged feminist. The discussion was about the fact that many of these girls in that class, most between 20 and 30 reacted with shock thinking that they may have to live the rest of their lives having to get drunk to get pumped ‘n dumped forever…. the women in the class “gasped” at the thought of having to do drunken hook-ups forever. 🙄
Count me out as well. I got married at 22 (she was 22 as well). 12 year with her, would still be married to her if not become widower… but once was enough. No kids from marriage, thank God. Imagine raising a child alone and a child scarred by loss of his/her mother.
Marriage is a LOT of work… I did not mind it because my wife was a team player and truly loved me and supported me 100%. I look back and learned a lot, developed more as a man, made incredible progress in my education and finances, and now I am single again and much, much wiser. Marrying again would be the worst thing I could do. The financial, legal, and jail risks are simple too high.
Ps. I hate tattoos in women so much, I cannot even f#ck a woman with one… especially if it is the infamous Tramp Stamp on her lower back and you see it when you bend her down. Tattoos on a woman gets me thinking about the hundreds of random dicks that have already been in her mouth over the years, even if she is in her early 20s. :sick: 😦
@JRob
You are right… and even if law calls for Prenup to be enforced as written, the Judge can dismiss some or all of the Prenup for a number of arbitrary reasons, including but not limited to: Prenup was not properly executed, it is too one-sided (unconscionable, as it is called), the judge had an upset stomach the day of your hearing, the judge hates men, the judge was on her period, etc etc. The Family Court judge is a en Emperor, with god-like complexes. They ENJOY exercising absolute power and tossing out a Prenup for no reason at all would be exercising their almost limitless authority for the heck of it.
A Prenup is a false sense of security for men. I would not be surprised the modern rise of Prenups have been promoted by sneaky lawyers hoping to make some money drafting the doc and when she divorces your ass and cleans out your clock when the Prenup gets dismissed by a feminist judge (which is at least 85% of Family Court judges).
Even if the Prenup is enforced to the T by the judge it only covers assets PRIOR to marriage. Any increase in value to your 401(k) retirement savings plan, any appreciation in value to any of your pre-marital assets, all newly purchased assets, if you sell the house covered in Prenup and bought new one, in many States, the new house is 50% hers, regardless of past Prenup, any future inheritance you get, any future earnings/income…. she gets AT LEAST 50%, if not more.
Ultimately, if she wants the house in the divorce, Prenup or not, she will call cops, say you abused her/beat her… or worse…. that you sexually abused your child/her child and you are hauled off to jail and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If you are lucky and she is “merciful”, she will drop the charges later on, so you do not spend a few decades in prison. But the moment you are arrested (hopefully you will not resist and get Tazered and get another charge in the process), she will receive an automatic Restraining Order against you (the man, who is already considered guilty of something base don accusation alone) so you cannot come within 100 feet of your own house.
Once you are forced out of the home, it becomes her primary residence and that address is no longer your primary residence. That means the Family Law judge now has an excuse, as if Judge even needed an excuse, to give HER your house in the divorce, free and clear, Prenup or not. Many lawyers will advise their female clients to make the false criminal accusation BEFORE she files for divorce, so that her “opening move” will catch you off guard, and stun you before you are served with divorce papers at work or jail. That way, your lawyer cannot say she only made criminal accusations to get house in divorce. Now she can say she filed for divorce because of abuse/violence…. another point in her column to get more from you in divorce. >_<
OMG…. only someone insane or really stupid would adopt a woman's child or children from a previous marriage, especially if kids are from different men!!! *smacks forehead* That is like asking for a legal liability with zero benefits. Like co-signing a home loan and not having your name on the deed. 🙄
Things are so bad now, if you marry a woman with a child and "act as the child's father" (NO legal adoption), that can be enough for a family law judge to force you to pay child support for 18-26 years, depending on the State. Even signing her child's birthday card or taking photos with her child(ren) at Disney once can be enough "evidence" you "acted as a father" and be ordered to pay child support. The State only cares that SOMEONE pays, they do not care who pays. The courts do NOT care about your life, since they have to "seek the best interests of the child"… even if not your child!!!! 😡 In Canada that "act like a father" scam is law in whole country…. in USA, the "act as a father" is different depending on the State. Consult a local lawyer specialized in family law only before getting involved with single mom.
Marriage? Hah, only if I sign marriage papers after being involuntarily drugged (ruffies). lol Marrying a woman or God-forbid, legally adopting a child from a woman is the dumbest thing someone can do, bar none. I rather invest with Bernie Madoff then legally adopt a woman's child.
Bottom line: the only way to win at the Feminist game is NOT to play it at all. Any man thinking he can out-fox a system created by leftist lawyers and feminists and win against that is a fool. This is a system that has been carefully designed and crafted with the sole intent to punish, enslave, and destroy men.
@American
Agreed! Win her rigged game by not playing it. Also, do NOT allow a woman to even get a key to your home. If you live in a Common Law Marriage (CLM) State, all she needs is to move in and get 2 witnesses to say you introduce yourself as “husband and wife” and in CO, that is legally enough to divorce you next and make out like a bandit. Insane. Never EVER get any joint anything, like cable TV account or bank accounts. And in no circumstances, even if you have a kid with a woman, should you file an income tax return jointly… I have seen this happen before with some poor sap that wanted “some of the tax benefits of having a child” and she used the “married filing jointly” income tax return to establish a CLM and took more then 1/2 his s#it. Easy-peasy as they say! 😮
Disagree with the thought of even considering dating a woman from your work. “Do not get your honey where you get your money” is the Rule. I personally do not have FB, InstaGram, or Tweeter so I have zero social media presence. I never ever discuss any personal matters at work at all. Because I am reasonably good-looking (solid 8), clean-shaven, and well-dressed, I can use the “I am a discreet gay man” card if I am ever falsely accused of “sexual harassment” by a female co-worker. That is hwy I never EVER allow any women I work with to see me checking them out, and if they ever did, I would comment something like “her skirt/shoes/hair/etc is so darling” and leave it at that.
Read this article and memorize these 8 Rules for surviving a workplace. I have worked in legal field over 6 years and it is full of female in staff, from receptionists to legal secretaries to Paralegals to almost half of the lawyers…. females that love to litigate s#it and love to game the system by “making cases” against men for profit. This article has been a life-saver for me, and helped create an universal strategy to never get trapped by women at work.
http://www.returnofkings.com/2710/8-essential-rules-to-surviving-the-workplace
(Read the piece above and carefully follow every one of the Rules).
And have cameras inside your home and ONLY turn them on when you know you might be brining a woman over. You want every interaction with her to be recorded and preserved forever, in case you “get Kevanaugh” 30 years later. I recommend Arlo 1.0 cameras… video only, night-vision, motion-sensing, full HD images, great color images. Great for recording women inside your home and easy to turn off when they leave for total privacy… Just always make sure to lay on your back and put her on top and CLEARLY move your arms up and towards the back of your head, so camera records you “not restraining her” and her able to dismount anytime she wants, just in case she makes false accusation later on. 😉
But I agree a bachelor’s life is the only way to go. The surrogate idea might be a good one…. I was thinking of having an kid with an LTR girlfriend (if I decide to have a kid at all), but maybe surrogacy is a better idea…. great idea worth researching further! 🙂 Thanks!
You are welcome CC. Being wise as a serpent in such times means remaining free from the vast body of unfortunate governmental law designed to force the transfer of your utility to a female against your will.
I’ve volunteered in ministries for years helping less fortunate people than myself. But I’ve never allowed someone to use the government to rob me, to control me for their benefit, or their revenge. And, I never will. I don’t need a “help-mate.” I pack my own gear and like hard work. Peace.
And see my correction CC as I meant to NEVER have anything to do with a female in the workplace or belonging to any work context you are involved in whatsoever.
As for the legal field feminists: let them grow old suing betas and herding cats. Stay far far away from them.
I met a niece’s cohabbing BF over Thanksgiving (big family reunion out of state). The guy wore T-Shirts that identified him as a “conservative”. He wore a cross on a chain around his neck. Yet he lives and sleeps with his girlfriend.
There were a few other young people at the reunion, and they all brought their cohabbing “partners”. One who couldn’t make it had just had an illegitimate child with his gf (who has children from other men). His parents were literally thrilled that he was finally a dad (his previous wife cheated on him and they divorced childless). I didn’t have the heart to tell them the chances she will eventually kick him out and replace him are very high, and when that happens the they will probably never get to see their grandchild again. Unlike in the current Heineken commercial, in real life broken families don’t get together and break bread over the holidays.
Pingback: Yes, Evangelical ‘Abstinence Culture’ Is A Bust, But The Answer Isn’t A Sexual Free-For-All - InternetticA
Pingback: ‘Abstinence Culture’ Is A Bust, But The Answer Isn’t A Sexual Free-For-All
Pingback: Yes, Evangelical ‘Abstinence Culture’ Is A Bust, But The Answer Isn’t A Sexual Free-For-All • Just Conservative Views
Pingback: Yes, Evangelical ‘Abstinence Culture’ Is A Bust, But The Answer Isn’t A Sexual Free-For-All
Pingback: John Zmirak is mostly right. | Dalrock
Pingback: Tucker Carlson says unmentionable things about marriage - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: Most People Are Called To Marriage; It’s Not Idolatrous To Act Accordingly – DailyTruthReport
Pingback: Most People Are Called To Marriage; It’s Not Idolatrous To Act Accordingly – Eurosceptic News
Pingback: Most People Are Called To Marriage; It’s Not Idolatrous To Act Accordingly
Pingback: Most People Are Called To Marriage; It’s Not Idolatrous To Act Accordingly – Hoax And Change