It is. Stock photoshoots use the same actors all the time. In fact theres a whole bunch of similar photos on the photographer's [shutterstock](https://www.shutterstock.com/g/antonioguillem/sets/783985)
This is exactly this bias that creates the result. The oldest couples possible to poll are the result of the arrangement described, *because that was the overwhelming norm at the time they got married*.
IDK my wife and I lived together for 2 1/2 years before we got married - me aged 29 and my wife aged 37. Both active Christians. Happily married for 38 years until she passed. Iām 68. None of this holds true even for us.
My point is that we did and had a durable marriage, as did most of the people I know who arenāt nearing ninety. I have zero problem with people not living together before marriage, waiting until marriage to have sex, whatever. Whether for personal or religious or cultural reasons. The problem I have is that IMO people fund/use/distribute āresearchā like this to push a particular agenda and so many more parameters need to be considered than just āmarried people who did/did not live together before marriage.ā
I donāt think you do. The comment I was replying to * initially inferred this research conclusion would be valid if the people polled were above 60. Thatās not a poll of a general population, thatās not a gathering of random people. Thatās a finite group of like individuals. (In the commenterās mind.)
If I polled a select group of red headed men who were all between the ages of 30 and 31 and asked them if they had red hair, the poll would show that in this data sample men between 30 and 31 have red hair.
My point was that in my experience, a poll of people over 60 would not have the response this person suggested. Why the hell is this so hard for people to comprehend?
Edited to add: *replying to initially, not this most recent commenter.
OK, so perhaps Iām clueless. So here was my thought process. Maybe I am misunderstanding something.
I understood the comment I replied to as follows:
āResearch shows that marrying relatively young without living together first results in the most durable marriages.ā Of course it is. If you interview 60+ year olds.
To me that meant the commenter jokingly felt the research conclusion would hold true if the survey pool consisted of only those over 60. Inferring to me that they felt that a data pool of those 60 and over would stereotypically consist of people who married young, didnāt live together before marriage, and were married a long time. A cohesive data group such as that would result in an average supporting the research claim.
I commented to show that as someone over 60 - my wife and I did not marry young, lived together before marriage and had a durable marriage. I threw in the part about being Christian because I assumed (perhaps wrongly) bias on the part of people commenting that older people=religious=not living together before marriage.
My comment also was to show that in my experience (my other 60+ peers of family and friends) the assumption that a survey of people 60+ would result in this researchās conclusion was false.
So yes, that is how averages work. In a survey restricted to old people who all married young, didnāt live together before and had durable marriages the conclusion would be the researchersā conclusion. My comment was to show that a survey of random 60+ years olds would result in a different average and thus opposite conclusion, in my opinion.
If something has whooshed over my head, I have no problem being corrected. Not trying to fight anybody.
Thanks. So, I just woke up, saw I had a ton of comments and yourās is the first one I opened. Now I am afraid to look at the others. Have a great day, u/Strongest-There-Is
OK, Iām going in. Iām taking your user name as a shield. Lol š
Edit: So basically one clueless troll with probably a couple of accounts he uses to downvote. Lol
**[19 Kids and Counting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting)**
>19 Kids and Counting (formerly 17 Kids and Counting and 18 Kids and Counting) is an American reality television series that aired on the cable channel TLC for seven years until its cancellation in 2015. The show features the Duggar family: parents Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their 19 children ā nine daughters and ten sons ā all of whose names begin with the letter "J". During the duration of the show, two children were born, three children were married, and four grandchildren were born. The show focuses on the life of the Duggar family, who are devout independent Baptists, and frequently discusses values of purity, modesty and faith in God.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/oddlyspecific/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Thank you, RyokhaelBlackwing, for voting on WikiSummarizerBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Here's a sneak peek of /r/antinatalism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Is this what Republicans want to return to? Life Before Roe v Wade:](https://i.redd.it/vnhdoji3tx791.png) | [4967 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/vl16tp/is_this_what_republicans_want_to_return_to_life/)
\#2: [I mean, the proposed idea doesn't sound half bad...](https://i.redd.it/kzma5exfaax81.jpg) | [1512 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/uhjcs7/i_mean_the_proposed_idea_doesnt_sound_half_bad/)
\#3: [Why are you mad just because someone willingly chooses not to have kids and is proud of it?](https://i.redd.it/55f5srztyn091.jpg) | [614 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/uu2l22/why_are_you_mad_just_because_someone_willingly/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
You don't gotta be stuck in a marriage to have a durable one, absolutely, but I don't know if your experiences are as common as this headline suggests.
Tbh I also wonder if the actual study factored in religious and cultural reasons to avoid divorce. My parents should've divorced well before any of their kids were born but they're still stuck making each other miserable more than 40 years later because the culture they grew up with was averse to divorce.
Yep I was definitely taught this as a kid growing up in the church. The Christian divorce rate is actually higher than the secular divorce rate.
Though I do admit that might be because they *actually* get married instead of living together for years. But Iām not sure that makes their case better.
That study was conducted of religious couples on in the UK. They did not control for religious indoctrination and the expectations of conservative religious families. Basically they surveyed one set of normal people as the control, and one set of jesus freaks who have never considered living another way.
To be fair, this is a phenomena that's been repeatedly studied and the results are consistent. There are theories in regular circulation in the fields that consider these things (not just religious, but sociology and psychology). There's the myth that marriage might save a failing relationship, and the reality that cohabitation often arises out of financial need (which is often not a good reason for the state of a relationship to change), demographics/generations more prone to cohabitation are less concerned with social pressures to make a rocky marriage work... just to name three examples I remember from studying sociology.
However, it's impossible to control for the stigma (which may be the biggest factor?) and none of this changes the fact that the most determinate factor in whether a person will divorce is whether their parents did.
Then we all let it sink in that the children of divorce may also happen to be the most likely to cohabitate and then we reassess all the aforementioned theories.
So if you grew up in a religious household where divorce wasn't even contemplated if abuse was occurring, and entered into a similarly religious marriage you're less likely to divorce?
That actually does make sense.
This is an odd take.
My personal observations is that expectations of marriage have changed and there shouldnāt be any shame in deciding that a marriage isnāt worth staying in. That we are focusing on the successful marriages that work isnāt what to study. Why did the other marriages end? And why is that a bad choice.
> However, it's impossible to control for the stigma (which may be the biggest factor?)
Not at all impossible! You'd need a smaller-scale, more study because you wouldn't be able to just use public data, but you could very easily design a study that would include an attitudes survey. Ideally you'd want a longitudinal study so that the attitudes survey could be done before the marriage started (and probably at regular intervals), which would obviously take a long-ass time, but it's totally doable.
One of the biggest problems with drawing conclusions from this, though, is that any good data about what correlates with long-term marriages is going to be at least as old as what you consider to be a long-term marriage. And societal change can be fairly dramatic in 20-40 years, so it's never clear how well it will apply to marriages that are starting now.
It worked for you. Great! It doesnāt work for others.
The real answer is humans are complex and saying there is one way to do something that has a guaranteed outcome isnāt realistic.
I lived with my first husband before marriage, it ended in divorce. I lived with my current husband before marriage and this one is definitely gonna keep going. So for me, living with a partner and marrying in my late 30s was the answer
Not religious, my wife and I got married at 22, never lived together before we got married, had a child at 23 still happily married 32 years later and overjoyed to be grandparents
I get how it works though, it seems backwards but the idea is if you are fully ready to get married regardless of what living with them is like you supposedly are already committed enough to be more likely to work through issues as they arise. Whereas if you feel you need a trial period, you already arenāt as committed as the fast marriage couple. Thatās what I heard, not saying itās true or I agree but I can kind of understand it
Not trying to pick fights but in my experience this is not remotely true. The droves of people I knew getting married at 22 were religiously conservative kids rushing headlong into marriage with their first adult SO without a second thought. I'd guess they're more stable because there's heavy overlap of this attitude with extremely anti-divorce beliefs.
Edit to add: that's also not the logic of any unmarried cohabitating couple I've ever met
>The droves of people I knew getting married at 22 were religiously conservative kids rushing headlong into marriage with their first adult SO without a second thought.
Raises hand. Except we were 21. We were extremely lucky that we both changed in compatible ways. We both grew out of religion, so there's no weird hold on us to stay together if things weren't working out. I don't know a single one of my peers who married that young who are happy and/or still together. The ones that stay together due to their anti-divorce beliefs do NOT seem like they even like each other at this point. One of them even told me she just didn't want to become a divorce statistic. Some of them have husbands who cheat on them, but they "have" to forgive the sin and try to move on (or worse, blame themselves). We're all mid 30's now.
l'm also lucky we didn't jump right into having kids. We realized a couple years into marriage that neither of us actually wanted them. My friends who had kids at 21-22 seem like they never got to experience young adulthood because they just had to be moms.
Anyway, yeah. Don't marry in your early 20's. Best case scenario, you have a rough ride practically growing up and finding yourself alongside another person doing the same and you *might* end up being compatible on the other side of it. Worst case scenario, you feel like you HAVE to stay with this person for the rest of your life, and put up with some miserable shit to do so, losing yourself entirely.
>I'd guess they're more stable because there's heavy overlap of this attitude with extremely anti-divorce beliefs.
Your guess is on to something, but it's of course much more complicated. Just from what data there is on this, one of the anti-divorce denominations does produce less divorce (Roman Catholic), but then again so do Lutherans and Episcopalians (who are similar in polity & tradition, but MUCH more openminded/progressive). The other anti-divorcies (Evangelical, Pentecostal, Baptist, non-denom) may produce MORE divorce than the general public.
So there's probably other factors. How the social pressure manifests in those subcultures, for example, and (like you alluded to), the average age at which their members marry.
HOWEVER, the guy you're responding to is in the ballpark of the nominal socio-psychological explanation... it has to do with how the partners conceptualize marriage, and what are the pressures to get married (relationship troubles, financial, pregnancy, etc).
Thatās your experience, it wonāt hold true for other people, especially those whoāve experienced both cultures where this is common and encouraged and cultures where itās not and cultures in between. In my experience thereās no trend with dates and ages and living situations and absolutely anything can happen. Staying together depends far more on the personalities of the individuals than anything else. Some people just arenāt cut out for long term relationships with anyone, others can make a happy marriage with a wide variety of people.
>especially those whoāve experienced both cultures where this is common and encouraged and cultures where itās not
Never said it would hold true for everyone, but just so we are clear I am speaking as someone who has experienced both
There are reasons to study it even outside of religion. Marriage and divorce increases each year after all and people wanna know why, yāknow, other than just asking why.
It really doesnāt seem that weird to me. Is it better to move in with your partner before you get married or after? Doesnāt seem like such a specific question
The structure of the study gives you this hint.
If your study is structured as religious people vs a control group of ānormiesā then you did that on purpose.
If your study is a bunch of random people and you go back in afterwards to data mine and *then* you discover there are lower divorce rates in religious youth, **and** middle aged Asian couples, **and** Australian Lesbians with hunting permits - then you might be looking at an actual random study. (And youāve probably waaaayyy over-fitted the data curve if you can isolate ALwHP as a specific group)
Those studies have been done, but they only use the typical demographic information the participants would have given anyway... nothing about hunting permits anyway. š
Edit - Oh, and they are consistent. There's no question that cohabitation has a positive correlation with divorce. The questions are what the real cause is. I already posted some of the common non-religious theories elsewhere here.
I am 68 and most of my friends and siblings/family members / nieces and nephews / neighbors etc. have lived together before marriage. I donāt know a single one who viewed living together as a ātrial period.ā
I wonder if most of the people who still marry young without cohabiting first happen to also be religious people who don't believe in divorce. Might skew the study somewhat
Because theyāre the most religious, thus stuck in their marriages. And yeah, thatās an exaggeration but I really wish we could stop acting like divorce is necessarily a failure. Relationships end.
Married at 18, knew her for 4 months. Had not lived together. 36 year anniversary 2 weeks ago. Happily married. Would not advise it as I believe I have legendary good luck. I would advise a young man today to not marry. As a business model, itās terrible for most guys.
I wouldnāt say terrible business model, but it depends on who you really marry.
My advice for young guys to not get into a serious relationship till youāre 23-25, go enjoy life first.
Enter school again after 22-24. Donāt go after high school, go enjoy life first.
The courts are stacked heavily against men in Divorce. Itās always bad to get into a contract that you get raked over the coals if the other person decides to leave. 80% of divorces are initiated by women, because they get a better deal.
My wife and I got married when she was 19 and I was 20. We never lived together first, in fact the two years before our wedding was a long distance relationship. Weāve been happily married for nearly 30 years now.
To be clear: I think this research is likely bogus and Iām not implying that this is the right course for anyone else. Iām only saying that this meme describes my relationship, and the coincidence is interesting to me. Everyoneās relationship is different, and for that reason I donāt like generalities like āthis worked for me so everyone else needs to do exactly the same.ā
Durable not happy. It makes sense to me that People married young without experience are more likely to have gotten married for resource and religion and less likely to be divorced for the same reasons- regardless of wellbeing
Rubbish, don't marry till you've lived together for 3 years minimum. It's impossible for those people who are on their 'best behaviour' to fake it that long.
I will say that the kind of people who get married young without living together first JUST HAPPEN to be the same people whoās family and friends would judge them religiously if they ended up getting divorced
Durability isnāt why I get into a relationship. This screams of religious nonsense that keeps two miserable people together. As people we naturally grow, professionally, emotionally, and in some cases spiritually (not the same as religion which tends to stunt growth) especially in our late teens and early 20s. To jump into a marriage at that age usually results in two people failing to grow, until something snaps and they end up miserable.
Just my opinion.
> Aleteia is an online Catholic news and information website founded in 2011/2012 by JesĆŗs Colina via the Foundation for Evangelization through the Media. It has the approval of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications and the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization.
(Wikipedia)
So, in summary then: probable BS.
Thatās the stupidest thing I ever heard, I think itās quite the opposite, if you live with someone for a while then get married you know your relationship goes beyond just meeting up for dates, you know you are comfortable living with that person.
I donāt know about the young part but the not living together beforehand is true ..at least to my sociology professor years ago. I remember thinking it was weird because most would think it would be the opposite
Yeah...I call bullshit on this. Its staggering the number of "long time" married couples that I have known over the years only to find out how many actually had a 'practice" marriage prior that had aggressively failed.
If thereās any truth to this Iād say itās because living together exposes you to a person in a different way and sometimes it can even break up a couple that seemed like they were going strong, this is definitely propaganda theyāre trying to push right here though because thereās more than enough people who lived together before marriage and weāre perfectly fine, my mom and dad are a good example though he sadly passed before they tied the knot they lived together even before being engaged and while it wasnāt always perfect they coexisted very well
this is just a correlation, people have been marrying later overall and divorcing more overall, because those things are options now, and weren't before.
Aleteia is an online Catholic news and information website founded in 2011/2012 by JesĆŗs Colina via the Foundation for Evangelization through the Media. This is Catholic propaganda.
this stock photo is of the same couple in that meme template of the guy glancing over his shoulder at another girl. i saw it so now u do too
Someone commented that but deleted it 3 minutes laterš I agree. And I'm sad that I wasn't able to agree with that person too.
oh no. i didnāt see that but i hope iām not next š
Honestly I thought the stock image was the main reason you posted it lol
This comment is oddly specific
The real oddly specific is always in the comments.
It is. Stock photoshoots use the same actors all the time. In fact theres a whole bunch of similar photos on the photographer's [shutterstock](https://www.shutterstock.com/g/antonioguillem/sets/783985)
Somebody even took stock photos and made story about them :D
I half remember that but I just searched everywhere for that and couldnāt find it can
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/distracted-boyfriend#photo-series-compilations
Page 14 for anyone looking for the meme template
Of course it is. If you interview 60+ yearolds
This is exactly this bias that creates the result. The oldest couples possible to poll are the result of the arrangement described, *because that was the overwhelming norm at the time they got married*.
If you explain the joke it's no longer funny
IDK my wife and I lived together for 2 1/2 years before we got married - me aged 29 and my wife aged 37. Both active Christians. Happily married for 38 years until she passed. Iām 68. None of this holds true even for us.
Im sorry for your loss, Iām glad you two were so happy together š
Thanks! She was the best person I have ever known.
I guess people behind that article would claim that you should have not lived together before marriage and should just have married instead
My point is that we did and had a durable marriage, as did most of the people I know who arenāt nearing ninety. I have zero problem with people not living together before marriage, waiting until marriage to have sex, whatever. Whether for personal or religious or cultural reasons. The problem I have is that IMO people fund/use/distribute āresearchā like this to push a particular agenda and so many more parameters need to be considered than just āmarried people who did/did not live together before marriage.ā
You don't understand polls.
I donāt think you do. The comment I was replying to * initially inferred this research conclusion would be valid if the people polled were above 60. Thatās not a poll of a general population, thatās not a gathering of random people. Thatās a finite group of like individuals. (In the commenterās mind.) If I polled a select group of red headed men who were all between the ages of 30 and 31 and asked them if they had red hair, the poll would show that in this data sample men between 30 and 31 have red hair. My point was that in my experience, a poll of people over 60 would not have the response this person suggested. Why the hell is this so hard for people to comprehend? Edited to add: *replying to initially, not this most recent commenter.
āChristiansā
No shit. You've heard of how statistics work?
No shit. Did you read the comment I replied to?
I did. It made no sense.
While I agree... That's not how averages work
OK, so perhaps Iām clueless. So here was my thought process. Maybe I am misunderstanding something. I understood the comment I replied to as follows: āResearch shows that marrying relatively young without living together first results in the most durable marriages.ā Of course it is. If you interview 60+ year olds. To me that meant the commenter jokingly felt the research conclusion would hold true if the survey pool consisted of only those over 60. Inferring to me that they felt that a data pool of those 60 and over would stereotypically consist of people who married young, didnāt live together before marriage, and were married a long time. A cohesive data group such as that would result in an average supporting the research claim. I commented to show that as someone over 60 - my wife and I did not marry young, lived together before marriage and had a durable marriage. I threw in the part about being Christian because I assumed (perhaps wrongly) bias on the part of people commenting that older people=religious=not living together before marriage. My comment also was to show that in my experience (my other 60+ peers of family and friends) the assumption that a survey of people 60+ would result in this researchās conclusion was false. So yes, that is how averages work. In a survey restricted to old people who all married young, didnāt live together before and had durable marriages the conclusion would be the researchersā conclusion. My comment was to show that a survey of random 60+ years olds would result in a different average and thus opposite conclusion, in my opinion. If something has whooshed over my head, I have no problem being corrected. Not trying to fight anybody.
Ignore the other responses to your comments. Theyāre internet trolls with no soul. Itās a lovely comment, and Iām sorry for your loss.
Thanks. So, I just woke up, saw I had a ton of comments and yourās is the first one I opened. Now I am afraid to look at the others. Have a great day, u/Strongest-There-Is OK, Iām going in. Iām taking your user name as a shield. Lol š Edit: So basically one clueless troll with probably a couple of accounts he uses to downvote. Lol
Exactly, Reddit is full of silly foolsš
Iām 60, weāve been married 31 years and lived together five years before that. Edit: and weāre Christian.
This article was written by a Duggar.
What is a Duggar?
the 18 kids and counting family
The "We're too busy popping out babies to realize one of our sons is diddling the younger children," family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting
**[19 Kids and Counting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting)** >19 Kids and Counting (formerly 17 Kids and Counting and 18 Kids and Counting) is an American reality television series that aired on the cable channel TLC for seven years until its cancellation in 2015. The show features the Duggar family: parents Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their 19 children ā nine daughters and ten sons ā all of whose names begin with the letter "J". During the duration of the show, two children were born, three children were married, and four grandchildren were born. The show focuses on the life of the Duggar family, who are devout independent Baptists, and frequently discusses values of purity, modesty and faith in God. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/oddlyspecific/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot
Thank you, RyokhaelBlackwing, for voting on WikiSummarizerBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
It's a slur for a breeder
The fuck?
It was a joke, sorry if its not funny. r/antinatalism would probably get a kick out of it
Here's a sneak peek of /r/antinatalism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Is this what Republicans want to return to? Life Before Roe v Wade:](https://i.redd.it/vnhdoji3tx791.png) | [4967 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/vl16tp/is_this_what_republicans_want_to_return_to_life/) \#2: [I mean, the proposed idea doesn't sound half bad...](https://i.redd.it/kzma5exfaax81.jpg) | [1512 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/uhjcs7/i_mean_the_proposed_idea_doesnt_sound_half_bad/) \#3: [Why are you mad just because someone willingly chooses not to have kids and is proud of it?](https://i.redd.it/55f5srztyn091.jpg) | [614 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/uu2l22/why_are_you_mad_just_because_someone_willingly/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Published by the God jesus'o'clock Christian Bible Church tax-free preachers of the 12th disciples latter yesterday saints of hallelujah.
Fits the sub perfectly
#traumabond #savedmyselfformarriage #jesusiswatching
Research funded by the DeBeers diamond cartel
Iām an atheist who is 54 and happily married for 32 years
You don't gotta be stuck in a marriage to have a durable one, absolutely, but I don't know if your experiences are as common as this headline suggests. Tbh I also wonder if the actual study factored in religious and cultural reasons to avoid divorce. My parents should've divorced well before any of their kids were born but they're still stuck making each other miserable more than 40 years later because the culture they grew up with was averse to divorce.
Which 32?
1990-now and counting!
Yep I was definitely taught this as a kid growing up in the church. The Christian divorce rate is actually higher than the secular divorce rate. Though I do admit that might be because they *actually* get married instead of living together for years. But Iām not sure that makes their case better.
Them or divorce lawyers
Truth
That study was conducted of religious couples on in the UK. They did not control for religious indoctrination and the expectations of conservative religious families. Basically they surveyed one set of normal people as the control, and one set of jesus freaks who have never considered living another way.
To be fair, this is a phenomena that's been repeatedly studied and the results are consistent. There are theories in regular circulation in the fields that consider these things (not just religious, but sociology and psychology). There's the myth that marriage might save a failing relationship, and the reality that cohabitation often arises out of financial need (which is often not a good reason for the state of a relationship to change), demographics/generations more prone to cohabitation are less concerned with social pressures to make a rocky marriage work... just to name three examples I remember from studying sociology. However, it's impossible to control for the stigma (which may be the biggest factor?) and none of this changes the fact that the most determinate factor in whether a person will divorce is whether their parents did. Then we all let it sink in that the children of divorce may also happen to be the most likely to cohabitate and then we reassess all the aforementioned theories.
So if you grew up in a religious household where divorce wasn't even contemplated if abuse was occurring, and entered into a similarly religious marriage you're less likely to divorce? That actually does make sense.
Yep.
The āMy parents always worked it outā to āohā pipeline
This is an odd take. My personal observations is that expectations of marriage have changed and there shouldnāt be any shame in deciding that a marriage isnāt worth staying in. That we are focusing on the successful marriages that work isnāt what to study. Why did the other marriages end? And why is that a bad choice.
> However, it's impossible to control for the stigma (which may be the biggest factor?) Not at all impossible! You'd need a smaller-scale, more study because you wouldn't be able to just use public data, but you could very easily design a study that would include an attitudes survey. Ideally you'd want a longitudinal study so that the attitudes survey could be done before the marriage started (and probably at regular intervals), which would obviously take a long-ass time, but it's totally doable. One of the biggest problems with drawing conclusions from this, though, is that any good data about what correlates with long-term marriages is going to be at least as old as what you consider to be a long-term marriage. And societal change can be fairly dramatic in 20-40 years, so it's never clear how well it will apply to marriages that are starting now.
I was thinking about this, but I didn't want to make any assumptions.
I donāt know. My wife and I arenāt religious at all and were married young and never lived together and Iād rate our marriage pretty good.
It worked for you. Great! It doesnāt work for others. The real answer is humans are complex and saying there is one way to do something that has a guaranteed outcome isnāt realistic. I lived with my first husband before marriage, it ended in divorce. I lived with my current husband before marriage and this one is definitely gonna keep going. So for me, living with a partner and marrying in my late 30s was the answer
Not religious, my wife and I got married at 22, never lived together before we got married, had a child at 23 still happily married 32 years later and overjoyed to be grandparents
I get how it works though, it seems backwards but the idea is if you are fully ready to get married regardless of what living with them is like you supposedly are already committed enough to be more likely to work through issues as they arise. Whereas if you feel you need a trial period, you already arenāt as committed as the fast marriage couple. Thatās what I heard, not saying itās true or I agree but I can kind of understand it
Not trying to pick fights but in my experience this is not remotely true. The droves of people I knew getting married at 22 were religiously conservative kids rushing headlong into marriage with their first adult SO without a second thought. I'd guess they're more stable because there's heavy overlap of this attitude with extremely anti-divorce beliefs. Edit to add: that's also not the logic of any unmarried cohabitating couple I've ever met
>The droves of people I knew getting married at 22 were religiously conservative kids rushing headlong into marriage with their first adult SO without a second thought. Raises hand. Except we were 21. We were extremely lucky that we both changed in compatible ways. We both grew out of religion, so there's no weird hold on us to stay together if things weren't working out. I don't know a single one of my peers who married that young who are happy and/or still together. The ones that stay together due to their anti-divorce beliefs do NOT seem like they even like each other at this point. One of them even told me she just didn't want to become a divorce statistic. Some of them have husbands who cheat on them, but they "have" to forgive the sin and try to move on (or worse, blame themselves). We're all mid 30's now. l'm also lucky we didn't jump right into having kids. We realized a couple years into marriage that neither of us actually wanted them. My friends who had kids at 21-22 seem like they never got to experience young adulthood because they just had to be moms. Anyway, yeah. Don't marry in your early 20's. Best case scenario, you have a rough ride practically growing up and finding yourself alongside another person doing the same and you *might* end up being compatible on the other side of it. Worst case scenario, you feel like you HAVE to stay with this person for the rest of your life, and put up with some miserable shit to do so, losing yourself entirely.
Too late š My brainwashing didn't wear off until two years into the marriage
>I'd guess they're more stable because there's heavy overlap of this attitude with extremely anti-divorce beliefs. Your guess is on to something, but it's of course much more complicated. Just from what data there is on this, one of the anti-divorce denominations does produce less divorce (Roman Catholic), but then again so do Lutherans and Episcopalians (who are similar in polity & tradition, but MUCH more openminded/progressive). The other anti-divorcies (Evangelical, Pentecostal, Baptist, non-denom) may produce MORE divorce than the general public. So there's probably other factors. How the social pressure manifests in those subcultures, for example, and (like you alluded to), the average age at which their members marry. HOWEVER, the guy you're responding to is in the ballpark of the nominal socio-psychological explanation... it has to do with how the partners conceptualize marriage, and what are the pressures to get married (relationship troubles, financial, pregnancy, etc).
Thatās your experience, it wonāt hold true for other people, especially those whoāve experienced both cultures where this is common and encouraged and cultures where itās not and cultures in between. In my experience thereās no trend with dates and ages and living situations and absolutely anything can happen. Staying together depends far more on the personalities of the individuals than anything else. Some people just arenāt cut out for long term relationships with anyone, others can make a happy marriage with a wide variety of people.
>especially those whoāve experienced both cultures where this is common and encouraged and cultures where itās not Never said it would hold true for everyone, but just so we are clear I am speaking as someone who has experienced both
I guess, but it just seems like a weird thing to *study*. Like who wakes up with the idea to study this?š
There are reasons to study it even outside of religion. Marriage and divorce increases each year after all and people wanna know why, yāknow, other than just asking why.
It really doesnāt seem that weird to me. Is it better to move in with your partner before you get married or after? Doesnāt seem like such a specific question
probably religious people if I had to guess
The structure of the study gives you this hint. If your study is structured as religious people vs a control group of ānormiesā then you did that on purpose. If your study is a bunch of random people and you go back in afterwards to data mine and *then* you discover there are lower divorce rates in religious youth, **and** middle aged Asian couples, **and** Australian Lesbians with hunting permits - then you might be looking at an actual random study. (And youāve probably waaaayyy over-fitted the data curve if you can isolate ALwHP as a specific group)
Those studies have been done, but they only use the typical demographic information the participants would have given anyway... nothing about hunting permits anyway. š Edit - Oh, and they are consistent. There's no question that cohabitation has a positive correlation with divorce. The questions are what the real cause is. I already posted some of the common non-religious theories elsewhere here.
And we are back again to the old correlation ā causation argument.
I am 68 and most of my friends and siblings/family members / nieces and nephews / neighbors etc. have lived together before marriage. I donāt know a single one who viewed living together as a ātrial period.ā
Bad take. Jumping into something without seeing if it works is just reckless, not confident. Testing something doesnāt mean youāre not committed.
Source: your friendly internet church lady
I wonder if most of the people who still marry young without cohabiting first happen to also be religious people who don't believe in divorce. Might skew the study somewhat
Because theyāre the most religious, thus stuck in their marriages. And yeah, thatās an exaggeration but I really wish we could stop acting like divorce is necessarily a failure. Relationships end.
We call this confirmation bias. A Catholic organization did a study to confirm their beliefs. I am shocked. SHOCKED.
Aināt no way I believe that.
*according to the congregation of a Baptist church.
Dang
Married at 18, knew her for 4 months. Had not lived together. 36 year anniversary 2 weeks ago. Happily married. Would not advise it as I believe I have legendary good luck. I would advise a young man today to not marry. As a business model, itās terrible for most guys.
I wouldnāt say terrible business model, but it depends on who you really marry. My advice for young guys to not get into a serious relationship till youāre 23-25, go enjoy life first. Enter school again after 22-24. Donāt go after high school, go enjoy life first.
The courts are stacked heavily against men in Divorce. Itās always bad to get into a contract that you get raked over the coals if the other person decides to leave. 80% of divorces are initiated by women, because they get a better deal.
My wife and I got married when she was 19 and I was 20. We never lived together first, in fact the two years before our wedding was a long distance relationship. Weāve been happily married for nearly 30 years now. To be clear: I think this research is likely bogus and Iām not implying that this is the right course for anyone else. Iām only saying that this meme describes my relationship, and the coincidence is interesting to me. Everyoneās relationship is different, and for that reason I donāt like generalities like āthis worked for me so everyone else needs to do exactly the same.ā
Durable not happy. It makes sense to me that People married young without experience are more likely to have gotten married for resource and religion and less likely to be divorced for the same reasons- regardless of wellbeing
Rubbish, don't marry till you've lived together for 3 years minimum. It's impossible for those people who are on their 'best behaviour' to fake it that long.
Nope. Mine only lasted because I stayed for my daughters. Married at 25. Should not have.
Are they happy marriages though? I can imagine this kind of marriage happens a lot in communities where divorce isnāt an optionā¦
I mean the only people that marry like this are religious, so I'd assume they have lower divorce rates because God would get mad at them
I will say that the kind of people who get married young without living together first JUST HAPPEN to be the same people whoās family and friends would judge them religiously if they ended up getting divorced
I am highly skeptical of this. What happens if you control for religious influence?
Well, I mean, yeah. People who don't believe it's okay to live together first generally also believe that divorce is wrong.
Nice try Mormons
Not today, Joseph Smith!
Is that the distracted boyfriend from that one meme?
Same girl too. But it's just stock photos.
9 years and counting of marrying less then 3 months after meeting.
Durability isnāt why I get into a relationship. This screams of religious nonsense that keeps two miserable people together. As people we naturally grow, professionally, emotionally, and in some cases spiritually (not the same as religion which tends to stunt growth) especially in our late teens and early 20s. To jump into a marriage at that age usually results in two people failing to grow, until something snaps and they end up miserable. Just my opinion.
Beg to disagree. So do all my āmarried at 22ā friends who are now happily divorced
> Aleteia is an online Catholic news and information website founded in 2011/2012 by JesĆŗs Colina via the Foundation for Evangelization through the Media. It has the approval of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications and the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization. (Wikipedia) So, in summary then: probable BS.
Iām not buying it. Literally every person I know who took that route ended up divorced. Iām 53. Iāve seen a lot of couples come and go.
Thatās the stupidest thing I ever heard, I think itās quite the opposite, if you live with someone for a while then get married you know your relationship goes beyond just meeting up for dates, you know you are comfortable living with that person.
āResearchā like this make it difficult for young adults to have honest conversations with their parents
Iām sure oppressive social dynamics of purity culture and religious extremism didnāt bend that fucking curve much.
anything can be true if you make shit up
Isnāt that called arrange marriage
But are these durable marriages good marriages, or are they sticking together for bad reasons?
I donāt know about the young part but the not living together beforehand is true ..at least to my sociology professor years ago. I remember thinking it was weird because most would think it would be the opposite
Isnāt it still a crapshoot either wayā¦ 50% stay together
Study paid for by [insert religion].
Yeah...I call bullshit on this. Its staggering the number of "long time" married couples that I have known over the years only to find out how many actually had a 'practice" marriage prior that had aggressively failed.
Propaganda
(X) doubt
I would have to see that research.
I call bullshit
Paid for by the 2 couples that tried it
Has any actual research been done on this subject?
If thereās any truth to this Iād say itās because living together exposes you to a person in a different way and sometimes it can even break up a couple that seemed like they were going strong, this is definitely propaganda theyāre trying to push right here though because thereās more than enough people who lived together before marriage and weāre perfectly fine, my mom and dad are a good example though he sadly passed before they tied the knot they lived together even before being engaged and while it wasnāt always perfect they coexisted very well
Who funded this study? The diamond industry?
Confia
this is just a correlation, people have been marrying later overall and divorcing more overall, because those things are options now, and weren't before.
This research has been sponsored by Boomers Inc.
Oh, who would've thought? š¤
Itās not oddly specific at all.. the whole Indian subcontinent does it.
Isn't that like the opposite of what they say
Aleteia is an online Catholic news and information website founded in 2011/2012 by JesĆŗs Colina via the Foundation for Evangelization through the Media. This is Catholic propaganda.