Ideal Age/Love Connection/ Newsweek Still Off Mark/Romance/Dance/Play - 7/06/06

Thu Jul 6 13:17:52 EDT 2006

- IDEAL AGE FOR MARRIAGE: GALLOP
- MAKING A LOVE CONNECTION
- WE NEED TO READ MORE STORIES ABOUT JOYS, BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE
- ARE AMERICANS LOSING THEIR CAPACITY FOR ROMANCE?
- CAN WE DANCE? LEARNING THE STEPS FOR A FULFILLING RELATIONSHIP
- REDBOOK BLOG ON THE POWER OF PLAY

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

- IDEAL AGE FOR MARRIAGE: GALLOP

June 22, 2006
Ideal Age for Marriage: 25 for Women and 27 for Men
Average ideal age for both genders has increased in last 60 years
by Jeffrey M. Jones

A new Gallup Poll shows that the average American believes 25 is the best
age for a woman to marry and 27 is the best age for a man. Relatively few
Americans believe that women should be married by age 21, a dramatic shift
from a 1946 Gallup Poll. The median ideal age for women to marry has
increased from 21 in 1946 to 25 today, while the ideal age for men has shown
a smaller increase.

##########################
- MAKING A LOVE CONNECTION

> Diane-- 
> How can I get a copy of the report Barbara Dafoe Whitehead referenced in her
> keynote plenary? 
> Ron Deal
>  
Here is the pdf for Making a Love Connection: Teen Relationships, Pregnancy
and Marriage (or, as I like to call it "the secret power of sequencing")
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/reading/pdf/Love_Connection.pdf

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

Would be nice if Newsweek would feature the Barbara Dafoe Whitehead/Marline
Pearson report on the importance of sequencing.  - diane

- WE NEED TO READ MORE STORIES ABOUT JOYS, BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE
Home News Tribune 
June 18, 2006 
ALAN SINGER 

When a renowned periodical like Newsweek puts the words "Why We Were Wrong"
in red, bold-faced type on its cover, it is bound to attract attention. The
"wrong" is referring to a 1986 Newsweek article on getting married. The
honesty and humility is inspiring, except that I believe they are still
getting one significant aspect of the marriage story wrong. Let me explain.

In a June 2, 1986, cover story titled "The Marriage Crunch," Newsweek cited
a research study that described the decreasing odds of women ever getting
married as their age increases; victims of what demographers referred to as
the "marriage squeeze." The main message of the study was "delaying marriage
may ultimately mean forgoing it." And this was perceived as a "slap in the
face" to the smartest women of this generation. But the phraseology that
caused the most controversy was the statement, "40-year-olds are more likely
to be killed by a terrorist: they have a minuscule 2.6 percent probability
of tying the knot."

Recently, Newsweek's June 5, 2006, cover story admits that the situation
looks far better 20 years later. The 1986 statistic "turned out to be too
pessimistic: today it appears that about 90 percent of baby-boomer men and
women either have married or will marry." This month's article cites 1996
census data, which indicates that "a single woman at 40 had a 40.8 percent
chance of eventually marrying." And co-author of the 1986 article, Pamela
Abramson, who penned the terrorist jibe admits, "It's true, I am responsible
for the single most irresponsible line in the history of journalism, all
meant in jest." The authors of the 2006 article added, "Most readers missed
the joke." 

I remember reading the 1986 article and still have the same question as I
had 20 years ago. Why does Newsweek think that this is an article on
marriage? Isn't an article that describes the odds of getting married and a
trend such as the increasing median age at first marriage more about
"mating" than about marriage? And if you decide to write about marriage, why
not be upbeat and quote a significant finding that has, to date, not been
revised or refuted? The most supportive household for a child is one with
two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage
(http://marriage.rutgers.edu). I don't remember seeing any cover stories
that mention this research finding, but I wish we did. Here's why:

Whether a 40-year-old woman has a 2.6 percent or a 40.8 percent chance of
getting married, it is a direct consequence of her decision to pursue career
goals before family and/or to be absolutely sure of her choice of a husband
in order not to "settle." I don't believe that if a woman reads one (more)
article on her "ticking biological clock" that it will cause her to abruptly
change course from career-track to mother-track.

Call me naive, but I do believe that if a husband or wife with marital
problems reads one cover story that describes the most supportive household
for a child, it could make a difference in their marriage. The reason is
that the vast majority of us married folks have problems (I made up this
statistic). Not serious problems like abuse, which should end a marriage,
but less serious problems like in-laws or finances that should not end a
marriage. Dr. John Gottman's research has shown, "Most of the time couples
don't solve their problems and they have perpetual problems."

But couples today may not be familiar with Gottman's research, nor do they
necessarily consider the long-term consequences of short-term decisions.
With a spouse who does not realize that marriage means, "It's no longer all
about me," or states, "I am not getting enough out of this marriage," then
today's legal system makes it easier than ever before to throw in the towel
and get a divorce. Professor Bill Doherty compares divorce to an amputation.
Sometimes it is necessary, but, "It should be avoided if at all possible,
because it brings about a permanent disability."

I suggest that the media spotlight the research findings on healthy family
life because the divorce rate (close to 50 percent) affects millions of
children in the United States; children who did not and would not make that
decision. If couples know that two biological parents in a low-conflict
marriage is better for their child than any divorce scenario, maybe they
would get help in keeping the (normal) conflict in their marriage on the
"low" setting. While it is true that more couples than ever before are
participating in pre-marital education and married couples' classes and
therapy, it is still common to hear, "I don't buy that
"stick-it-out-for-the-kids' line because I deserve to be happy." As Dr.
Frank Pittman is fond of saying, "Marriage is not supposed to make you
happy; it's supposed to make you married."

But guess what researchers have found? Staying in a marriage is not only
good for the kids; married couples are better off financially, emotionally
and healthwise. The best source for this information is Linda Waite and
Maggie Gallagher's book, "The Case For Marriage." In these past 20 years,
the message has changed to, stick-it-out-for-the-kids and especially you,
too. 

That's why I believe Newsweek was wrong about what they were wrong about.
And while they're at it, maybe they can work on the article titles;
"Marriage Crunch," "Marriage Squeeze," you'd think it was a discussion of
Sumo-wrestling or breakfast foods.

Dr. Alan M. Singer is a marriage and family therapist in Highland Park.
#######################
- ARE AMERICANS LOSING THEIR CAPACITY FOR ROMANCE?
By DAVID YOUNT
Scripps Howard News Service
26-JUN-06

Although June is the odds-on favorite month to wed in America, there will be
fewer men and women vowing "till death do us part" this year. The National
Marriage Project reports that couples taking the plunge have declined by
nearly 50 percent since 1970 _ and not just in June, but year-round.
Meanwhile, Catholic sources report a sharp decline in church-sanctioned
marriages.

Are American men and women losing their capacity for romance? Probably not,
but the institution of marriage is met with more skepticism than ever,
especially among potential spouses who are the children of divorced parents.
If Mom and Dad couldn't make it work, they fear, what are their own chances?

For some years now, the odds for a lasting marriage have been only 50-50,
and even worse for second marriages. Indeed, those couples who divorce tend
to do so within the first five years of wedlock. If wedlock were a consumer
product, it would be a hard sell, even for Madison Avenue. There are plenty
of potential runaway brides _ and grooms _ in America.

Don't conclude that the mutual attraction of the sexes is any weaker. It
just doesn't necessarily translate into lifelong wedlock. The sharp
reduction in marriages has been more than made up by couples living together
without benefit of clergy or civil sanction. When the sexual revolution of
the 1960s was establishing itself, cohabitation was conceived by couples as
a sensible experiment to test compatibility. It has long since become just
an easy way to secure sex and allay loneliness without making a commitment.

If cohabitation were a worthy test of compatibility, it would lead to sound
marriages. In fact, the divorce rate among cohabiting couples who decide to
tie the knot is higher than among couples who postpone a life together until
they pronounce their vows.

By some estimates, about 2.3 million couples will buck the trends and get
married this year, spending an average $22,360 on the ceremony, reception
and honeymoon alone before setting up housekeeping. Cynics call the spouses'
optimism the triumph of hope over experience. The couples themselves will
answer that marriage is what love demands.

Joint church attendance is less an indicator of marital happiness than
praying together and agreeing on religious values. Some 90 percent of
married couples of all ages who pray together report "very great" sexual
satisfaction. Nearly half of newlyweds regard their partner as "Godlike,"
that is, worthy of worship and adoration, complementing their religious
faith. Marriage still holds out the promise of mutual caring in place of
lonely isolation.

In the future, many Americans may delay marriage, postpone it indefinitely
or shy forever from the risk of its failure. But for courageous couples,
wedlock will be a safe harbor in a tempestuous and unpredictable world,
offering an intimacy that exists nowhere else, and the promise of living
happily ever after.

(David Yount's latest book is "Celebrating the Rest of Your Life: A Baby
Boomer's Guide to Spirituality" (Augsburg). He answers readers at P.O. Box
2758, Woodbridge, VA 22195 and dyount(at)erols.com.)

########################
- CAN WE DANCE? LEARNING THE STEPS FOR A FULFILLING RELATIONSHIP
Susanne Alexander with John Miller
A transformation in the way singles approach preparing for, seeking, and
being in a relationship. No more guessing about a partner's character!
Includes activities, worksheets, stories, cartoons, and more to empower
singles to make significant new choices in creating a, realistic, lasting,
friendship-based relationship.  $18.95 at marriagetransformation.com

#######################
- REDBOOK BLOG ON THE POWER OF PLAY

Jeannie Kim, of Redbook Magazine, attended the Atlanta Smart Marriages
Conference. 

Here are the first round of her impressions from the Redbook Blog focused on
Elaine and Hal Braff's very highly rated session, The Power of Play.

The power of play

Last weekend, I attended the tenth annual Smart Marriages conference in
Atlanta, which is devoted to helping professionals and regular people learn
about marriage, family, and couples education. While I was there, I got to
hang out with three of our genius Redbook Love Network experts, Scott
Haltzman, Harville Hendrix, and Michele Weiner-Davis, and we cooked up all
sorts of ideas for helping you guys benefit from their amazing relationship
wisdom (stay tuned!). I also attended several great conference sessions,
where I learned lots of fun info about keeping sex and love going strong,
some of which will be showing up in the magazine, and some of which I'll be
blogging about here in the next week or two.

I started out at "The Power of Play in Relationships," led by NJ-based
marriage educators Elaine and Hal Braff. It was all about the totally
simple, but so hard to make happen, concept that we need to have more FUN in
relationships. As Hal Braff put it, "People fall in love because they have
fun together, then as soon as they make a commitment, something happens."
There are a million different reasons we don't have fun--too busy, feel like
you're wasting time, don't have fun doing the same things as your partners,
don't think it's "grown-up" to have fun--but the point the Braffs made was
that "playing" is not only good for your mental and physical health, it's
part of the glue that holds you and your partner together. "People who laugh
together are connected," said Elaine Braff. "It's the greatest bonding
experience."

But there was more.

To emphasize the point, the Braffs led the room in a series of silly,
"getting-to-know-you" exercises of the kind that usually make me
cringe--passing a silly noise from one end of the room to another, or
playing "People Bingo," for example. But I found myself letting go of my
usual crotchety mood and actually laughing and having fun, much to my
surprise. I also bonded with the person sitting next to me, a very nice
woman named Katie who runs marriage education programs in Kentucky. So,
point taken--laughing and having fun brings people together. Touché, Braffs.

What's the takeaway message from all this? Fun and play keep couples happy
and together. Couples don't have enough fun. And because it's too easy to
let play fall by the wayside, we all need to "commit to having fun together,
schedule it, and follow through." So yes, date nights count, but also giving
lots of hugs and "I love you"s, kissing goodbye in the morning, joking
around before dinner, and all the little things that make us smile
throughout the day. The Braffs also made the point that laughter, humor, and
pleasure can keep conflict from escalating, as well as simply being a way to
fill up your "emotional bank account."

Sounds so simple and obvious, but really, when was the last time we really
made a commitment to having fun, whether by ourselves or with a partner? I
left the session determined to spend a lot more time laughing with my
husband, and to keep exploring new ways to have fun together.

Here are a few of the questions the Braffs encouraged us to consider:
-What did you do for play as a child?
-What do you do for play now?
-What new things would you like to do for fun now?
-What things are preventing you from having more fun?
-What can you do to overcome those blocks?

Enjoy your holiday weekend, everyone, and HAVE FUN!

You can order this session on CD or MP3 at 800-241-7785

>> 756-305
>> The Power of Play
>> Elaine Braff, MPS, Hal Braff, JD
>> Play is the secret ingredient to marital satisfaction. Learn exercises and
>> tools to add to any marriage program to help couples make play an everyday
>> part of their marriage.

**************************
Send replies to this newslist to: diane at smartmarriages.com  Do not hit
"reply" - that goes to a filter.  This is a moderated list. Replies are read
by Diane Sollee, editor. Please indicate if your response is NOT to be
shared with the list.  PLEASE include your email address with your
signature. 

To SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, or Change your subscription address,
use the form at: http://www.smartmarriages.com. Click Newslist - in the
column under the puzzle piece.

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

To read ALL past posts to the newsletter, visit the Archive at:
http://archives.his.com/smartmarriages/

10th Annual Smart Marriages Conference, Atlanta Marriott Marquis Hotel,
June 22-25, 2006
Download the brochure and registration form at
http://www.smartmarriages.com/Brochure.06.pdf

List your program in the Directory of Classes at
http://www.smartmarriages.com
Order conference audio & video CD/DVD/MP3s: 800-241-7785 or
http://www.iPlaybackSmartMarriages.com

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

FAIR USE NOTICE: This e-newsletter/site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We make such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of marriage, family, couples, divorce, legislation, family
breakdown, etc. We understand this constitutes a 'fair use' of such material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.