Replies: NO Sex/ NO Marriage/ NO MARRIAGE SAVERS?/NO cohab - 4/20/03

[Smartmarriages ®]

subject: Replies: NO Sex/ NO Marriage/ NO MARRIAGE SAVERS?/NO cohab - 4/03

from: Smart Marriages®

- WHY NO MENTION OF MARRIAGE SAVERS/COMMUNITY MARRIAGE POLICIES??
- REPLY TO 'THE JOY OF NO SEX'
- REPLY TO COHABITATION 'WISHFUL THINKING':
- REPLY TO GALLAGHER'S 'THE NEW ATTACK ON MARRIAGE'
- ON DIVORCE FILINGS & COMPLETIONS
#######################

- WHY NO MENTION OF MARRIAGE SAVERS/COMMUNITY MARRIAGE POLICIES??

Diane, 
You sent a column by Mr. McManus "Does Your Town Have a Healthy Marriage
Initiative" to the list on 4/17/03.  You then listed the sessions at your
Smart Marriages conference that would help people develop such an
initiative.  I'm puzzled about why you didn't mention the Marriage Savers
Training that Mr. McManus, himself, will be presenting.  Wouldn't this
institute be among the most important for those interested in creating such
a community initiative? Or, am I making a mistake?  Is this institute one
you recommend for community building purposes?
Connie Ward


You're so right.  That was my mistake. An oversight.  The McManus Marriage
Savers Institute is the cornerstone - the foundational piece - for building
a community marriage initiative.  Mike and Harriet will also present a Sat
morning workshop.  Descriptions, below.  - diane

> 108 Two Day Training Institute - Wednesday & Thursday, June 25 & 26
> Creating Marriage-Saver Congregations
> Mike & Harriet McManus
> Learn how to reduce the divorce rate to near zero in your congregation by
> training Mentor Couples who can put a "safety net" under every marriage. Learn
> how to prepare couples for life-long marriage, enrich existing marriages, save
> 90% of the troubled ones, help the separated to reconcile, and stepfamilies to
> be successful.

> 412
> Community Marriage Policies (CMPs) - Sat, June 28
> Mike & Harriet McManus
> Learn how you can organize a CMP with the clergy in your area and how to
> recruit & train Mentor Couples who can cut divorce rates in any congregation
> to near zero.

##################################
- REPLY TO 'THE JOY OF NO SEX'

Diane, 
I sent this to the editor at Salon.com re their: "The Joy of No Sex"
article.  You might want to share it with the list.
Michele 

> I am writing in response to a recent article, "The Joy of No Sex."
> 
> If a sexless marriage is so joyful, why then, by the end of the article are
> Sam and Sharon thinking about getting it on again?  It's not that couples
> can't live without intercourse, they can and often do, it's just that going
> off into the sunset together basking in platonic bliss generally isn't what
> happens with couples experiencing mismatched sexual desire. Almost always, the
> spouse with more sexual energy begins to feel cheated.
> 
> Now, the fact that Sam was able to turn his bought with celibacy into an
> opportunity for personal growth makes me like him enormously.  Rather than go
> into cave, act out vengefully or get sex on the side, he made Herculean
> efforts to accept his lot in life, enjoy and appreciate his wife in other
> ways, focus on the good in his life and sublimate his sexual energy in very
> positive, family-enriching ways.  I say, "Go Sam."
> 
> But ultimately, Sam and Sharon discovered what so many couples with mismatched
> desire do; that physical intimacy is a very real and powerful force in
> marriage and that "hugs only go so far"...even with the best of intentions.
> In fact, I give Sam and Sharon lots of credit because for most couples, take
> away intercourse and watch the hugs, handholding, snuggling on the couch and
> knowing glances become a thing of the past.
> 
> So, I'm not surprised that their "erotic interregnum" might be coming to an
> abrupt halt. Although I think it's a good thing, I'm not married to Sam. I
> sincerely hope that Sharon realizes that with what we now know about boosting
> desire, there is no reason anyone wanting a more robust sex life can't have
> one.  At bottom, desire is a decision.  Both spouses have to decide to do what
> it takes to take their sexual relationship off the back burner and give it the
> attention it deserves.   And who knows, in the same way that Sam discovered
> "one of the dirty little secrets of celibacy" that "the longer you go without
> intercourse, the less you care," the opposite is also true- paying more
> attention to your sexual relationship often leads to increased sexual desire
> and passion.  
> 
> Michele Weiner-Davis, MSW
> Author of The Sex-Starved Marriage: A Couples Guide to Boosting their Marriage
> Libido

#######################

- REPLY TO COHABITATION 'WISHFUL THINKING':

The post "SHE WROTE THE BOOK ON 'LIVING IN SIN' included this passage:

> "We found the statistics are a little misleading and based on outdated
> data," Whitman says. "The kinds of people who tend to live together are more
> prone to be divorced: less religious, less traditional, often less
> financially secure. It's not necessarily living together that puts you at
> higher risk; it's who you are to begin with and what your beliefs are. The
> statistics scared me to death. I didn't hear about them until six months
> after we moved in."


This is no doubt a comforting thought for her, but it's just not true.  The
statistics on the associated risk are not outdated, and if anything, the
data gets stronger, not weaker, on this regard over time. All the most
current data show the same trends boding poorly in general for cohabitation
prior to marriage, even though it's become truly commonplace to live
together prior to marriage.

She is right that there are factors that are associated with both
cohabitation and divorce (more liberal views of divorce, for example) that
explain part of the findings.  But it's just not the whole story.  Galena
Kline, I, and Howard Markman have been studying the whole matter of timing
with regard to cohabitation.  As would be predicted by inertia theory, those
who are particularly at risk from premarital cohabitation are most likely
those who have not already decided, for sure, this is who they want to marry
before they cohabit.  I've been saying this for a few years now in talks at
Smart Marriage.  Inertia theory, in particular, suggests (and much data are
consistent with this notion) a nasty little detail that too many young
couples (and especially young women) are not attending to: even though
cohabiting couples have high break up rates, it's harder to break up with
someone you are living with compared to someone you are dating.  So, people
make it more likely they will eventually marry someone they may not be sure
they want to marry--even though they are, at present, in love.  Since data
show that most younger people buy the theory that living together is a great
way to test the relationship, they are often moving in together to test
something about the relationship while failing to recognize that they have
made it harder to break up--or if you will, harder to fail the test
constructively.  Inertia takes over for too many couples, and overrides
what, for some portion of these couples, would have been their better
judgement to break up and move on had they not made that harder to do by
moving in together.

As I said in my plenary last year, this idea of living together prior to
marriage to test the relationship is a strategy selected for risk with
nothing in place to lower it (the risk) except the ³hope² of breaking-up
should the fit be ill-fitting.  While, scientifically, not all couples are
at greater risk for cohabiting prior to marriage, it's surely a very great
and unwise risk for those who are not sure they found who they want to
marry, and who are truly acting on the theory that this is a great way to
test the relationship.  It might be some kind of test for some couples, but
some are also finding that, even though they are failing the test, it's not
so easy to drop the class---so to speak.

Scott M. Stanley, Ph.D.
University of Denver
#################################

- REPLY TO GALLAGHER'S 'THE NEW ATTACK ON MARRIAGE'

Hi Diane,

Maggie Gallagher (The New Attack on Marriage - 4/15/03
http://listarchives.his.com/smartmarriages/smartmarriages.0304/msg00017.html
describes the lawsuit Jeanette DiLone is bringing against
Kenny Anderson as an example of how the American Law Institute's
Principles of Family Dissolution would change family law.  Yet the ALI's
recommendations speficically say they would *not* apply in a situation like
this.

In order to be considered eligible for any compensatory payments at the end
of a relationship based on the ALI's recommendations, a couple must have
"shared a primary residence."  The recommendations say (p. 919):

"The residence must be the primary abode of both parties.  The purpose [of
this requirement] is to exclude casual and occasional relationships, as
well as extramarital relationships conducted by married persons who
continue to reside with a spouse."

The ALI authors go on to give this hypothetical example (p. 920), which is
remarkably similar to the one Maggie describes:

"Ronald, a successful artist, is married to Minnie, with whome he has three
grown children.  Ten years ago, Ronald began an intimate relationship with
Carlotta, for whom he purchased an apartment that she occupies as her
primary residence.  Ronald resides with Minnie, and visits Carlotta several
times a week.  Carlotta and Ronald are not domestic partners [and therefore
not eligible for consideration using the guidelines of the Principles of
Family Dissolution] because they do not share a primary residence."

In order to be a considered de facto parent according to the ALI, someone
must (p. 108):

"(A) regularly perform a majority of the caretaking functions for the child,
or
(B) regularly perform a share of caretaking functions at least as great as
that of the parent with whom the child primarily lived."

According to the ALI's recommendations, in the scenario Maggie describes in
her column, Kenny would neither have financial obligations toward Jeanette
nor be considered a de facto parent to her child.

Dorian Solot
Executive Director, Alternatives to Marriage Project

########################

- ON DIVORCE FILINGS & COMPLETIONS

Diane,
If I read the statement from Mr. Schramm correctly, the fact that it may
take many couples more than 12 months to have the divorce completed does not
effect the conclusions being hypothized about couples not following through
with their divorce.  Mr. Schramm indicates their were 9,714 actual divorces
and 12,574 filings.  The way he stated it would indicate the 9,714 included
couples carried over from the previous 12 months. He did not indicate the
9,714 were a subset of the 12,574.
Duane Johnson
 
>Diane, just responding to the "25% that file don't go through with it
>(divorce)" statistic. I called the Utah offices back in 2001 as part of my
>divorce research and received similar numbers. Specifically, there were 12,574
>divorce filings, but only 9,714 actual divorces in 2000. Thus, 23% of those
>that filed did not divorce, at least not immediately after filing. I would be
>interested if this is similar in other states. This has big implications for
>saving the marriages that are ready to "go out the back door". -Dave Schramm

> Diane:
> In most states, very few divorces, especially the difficult ones, are
> completed within the year they are filed. Sometimes it takes several years
> to complete the process. It would be necessary to track each specific
> divorce filing, from the date of filing to the date of final disposition
> (either actual divorce or withdrawal of the petition), in order to obtain an
> accurate statistic about how many people who file actually follow through
> with the divorce.  Wendy Wiles Kase, JD, MS
##################

**************************
Copyright © 2002 CMFCE. All rights reserved.

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE, or Change your subscription address,
use the form on our website (http://www.smartmarriages.com). Do not reply to
this email. On the website, click Newsletter.

Please respect our copyright. If you wish to use any of our content send an
email and request permission.

This newslist shares information on marriage, divorce and  educational
approaches.  Opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by members of the
Coalition.

Newsletter archive - to read ALL posts to the newsletter:
http://archives.his.com/smartmarriages/index.html#start

7th annual Smart Marriages conference/RENO, Nevada
June 26-29, 2003  http://www.smartmarriages.com/conferencedetails.html

Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, LLC (CMFCE)
Diane Sollee, Director
5310 Belt Rd NW,   Washington, DC 20015-1961
www.smartmarriages.com
202-362-3332 FAX 202-362-0973
cmfce at smartmarriages.com