Cohabitation Comments/ Conference Complaint - 8/1/08

Fri Aug 1 19:53:35 EDT 2008

- SCOTT STANLEY: PATTERN OF SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED RISK
- MCMANUS: COHABITATION RISKY?
- A BONE TO PICK ABOUT THE CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

####################
- SCOTT STANLEY: PATTERN OF SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED RISK

> Diane, Regarding the Cohabitation article: In general, I can tell you that we
> are continuing to get the pattern of significantly increased risk for
> cohabiters who began cohabiting either prior to engagement or marriage.  In
> other words, people appear to be at increased risk when they cohabit prior to
> BOTH partners being very clear about future plans to marry (whether that is
> because they waited all the way until marriage or were at least engaged).  We
> are finding this pattern to hold up (more or less) in very recent samples,
> including for those who only cohabited with their eventual mate, and for first
> or second marriages, etc.  As you know, I and Galena Rhoades and Howard
> Markman (and colleagues) are conducting what may be the largest study ever
> specifically designed to answer complex questions about cohabitation.  We have
> developed a sample now of 1200 people that we are following over time at this
> critical stage of relationship development.  We are just beginning to have the
> data from this new sample in this ongoing study available for analysis, and we
> and colleagues will have many important findings and results to share in the
> future. 
> Scott Stanley

####################
- MCMANUS: COHABITATION RISKY?

McManus - Ethics & Religion
July 30, 2008
Column # 1,405
Is Soaring Cohabitation Risky?
By Mike McManus

Census estimates that the number of unmarried heterosexual couples who are
cohabiting has reached a startling 6.4 million couples in 2007.  That figure
is for a given month. Over a year's time perhaps 10 million couples live
together while only 2.2 million marry.

According to a USATODAY/Gallup Poll, 49 percent of America said living
together makes divorce less likely, 13 percent said it made no difference,
while only 31 asserted divorce was more likely.

These are widely shared opinions, which is why two-thirds of those who marry
today are living together, as my wife and I reported in our new book,
"Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers."  However, our review of studies
on the issue revealed cohabiting couples DO increase their odds of divorce
compared to those who remained apart.

We quote Dr. Pamela Smock of the University of Michigan, who reviewed all of
the studies published up to 2000, and came to this conclusion: "Common sense
suggests that premarital cohabitation should provide an opportunity for
couples to learn about each other, strengthen their bonds, and increase
their chances for a successful marriage....The evidence, however, suggests
just the opposite. Premarital cohabitation tends to be associated with lower
marital quality and to increase the risk of divorce...The degree of
consensus about this central finding is impressive." In a 2007 interview,
she confirmed her conclusion.

Yet when USA TODAY interviewed her, she said,  "The evidence is a lot more
mixed."

USA TODAY quotes Dr. Jay Teachman of Western Washington University in
Bellingham, who found that a woman who has lived only with her future spouse
has no greater risk of divorce, while those who lived with more than one
partner have a greater divorce risk.

However, Prof. Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia, countered, "The
problem is there is no way to know that the person you are cohabiting with
is your lifelong spouse until you have gotten married. The only way to
guarantee that your cohabiting partner is your first spouse is to wait until
you are married."  

He quotes Daniel Lichter, another expert cited by USA TODAY, who wrote in
2006, that a majority of cohabitants will end up in a breakup rather than a
marriage. 

True.  Look at the numbers above. Some 6.4 million couples were cohabiting
at any moment in 2007, but only 2.2 million married, 700,000 of whom were
not cohabiting. Cohabitors had a 23% chance of marriage. Grim odds.

We quote an insightful study by Dr. Catherine Cohen and Stacy Kleinbaum who
compared the marriages of those who had cohabited first, with those who had
not. The couples were put into a living room setting with video cameras and
were asked to seek to solve any problem in their marriage. "Those people who
lived together were more negative and less positive when resolving a marital
problem," said Cohen.

Even those who cohabited for just one month before marriage actually
displayed poorer communication and problem-solving skills than those who did
not live together. The Family Violence Research Program of the University of
New Hampshire reports that cohabitors are five times more likely to
experience "severe" violence compared to married couples. And women who
break up with a cohabitor are 18 times more likely to be assaulted by that
male, than they would be by a spouse.

Many couples who cohabit say they are in a "trial marriage."  That is a
myth. More than eight in ten will break up either before or after the
wedding, as illustrated above.

In fact, tens of millions have been diverted from marriage by cohabitation.
In 1970 there were only 21 million never-married adults.  By 2006, the
figure TRIPLED to 60 million. The population only grew 48 percent.

No wonder marriage rates plunged by 50 percent since 1970!  Two-thirds of
adults used to be married.  Today it is only 49%.

Sadly, if cohabitants had a traditional courtship, living separately - most
would be married today, usually to the first person they lived with.

Why doesn't cohabitation work?

My wife and I have mentored cohabiting couples to prepare them for marriage.
We found that most erupted into such frequent arguments, we wondered why
they were getting married. However, those who we persuaded to move apart, or
to stop having sex - stopped arguing, became joyful and built solid
marriages. 

Why? We write, "People who cohabit seem to lose respect for themselves and
for their partner, while those who form a household only after marriage have
inherently higher self-respect and respect for their spouse."

######################
- A BONE TO PICK ABOUT THE CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

Diane, 
I have a bone to pick about your schedule strategies for Smart Marriages.  I
didn't attend the banquet on Tuesday night by Hendrix and Hunt because I
didn't feel I could afford an additional $39 although I was at the hotel for
the preconference two-day seminar.  I also didn't attend the John Gray event
on Saturday night because I needed to leave to be home by Sunday.  Since
then I've listened to the recordings and decided that these were probably
the best sessions of the entire conference and I'm very annoyed to have
missed seeing these in person.  I'm assuming this schedule was your attempt
to force people to arrive early and stay late. This might be good for your
bottom line but it is very inconsiderate of the attendees and is no way to
"build a coalition" which you keep saying is your goal. I also think it is
manipulative to try to force us spend an additional amount to see the better
events, like $39 for the banquet Hendrix/Hunt banquet. You clearly knew that
the Hendrix/Hunt banquet was going to be a major highlight. If there is any
doubt all anyone has to do is listen to your introduction of this banquet.
You clearly KNEW. Some of us who are not therapists did not know who these
speakers were and so we had no way to know that this was a key event. This
also applies to John Gray. In your introduction you say that he is always
the highest rated presenter at the conference and yet you scheduled him for
Saturday night when you knew many would have to miss him due to travel
plans. All along I had planned to purchase the CD of John Gray to listen to
on the drive home. I' glad I did, I learned a lot but now I'm full of
resentment that I didn't get to see him in person which wasn't my fault. I
paid for the entire conference but had to miss him due directly to your
schedule decision.  I purchased the CD of the Hendrix/Hunt banquet totally
by chance because a woman I happened to meet on Saturday morning over
breakfast said she thought it was the best thing she'd attended.  After I
listened to the CD I was very much intrigued and want to see the slides of
their compass model and the clips of their program so I've also ordered the
DVD. I know that it means I spent more on these recordings (which, by the
way, I think are way too expensive and another way you gouge us). So, I
spent more on the CD and DVD than I would have spent on attending the
banquet, plus I did NOT get the meal or have the fun of being part of the
evening. They were very funny and I would have liked to have experienced all
that laughter in person and the fun of being part of an evening that ended
in a standing ovation.  Plus I didn't realize that their film was in the
film festival until I talked to this woman at breakfast and by that time it
was too late. I'd missed the showing which you announced at the banquet, but
you get my point. If not let me spell it out, my big issue and big complaint
is that these two events should have been scheduled during the mainstream of
the conference and should not have been scheduled on the tail ends and
should not have required extra payment. I am quite upset by what is your
strategy. I also was upset by the overheating in so many of the session
rooms (I had to leave a session because I couldn't breathe) and also with
the sound that came through the walls in more than one session.  It was very
distracting and with a conference as expensive as this one is I think you
should pay for a better facility.
- anonymous 

I'm going to share this with the list (except for your final complaint about
a specific presenter) but I won't reveal your name or state. Because, I'm
sure others share your reactions.  First, however, I am going to console
myself with the fact that you think that there were at least two GREAT
sessions and that the recording were clear enough for you to experience them
"at a distance". I do hope you'll write and tell me about what you think of
the DVD of the banquet after you watch it.  I'll admit I've not watched it
yet, so I sincerely hope the video is clear and that you can see the clips
and slides.  I have listened to the audio recording and, I was there, and I
agree it was an over-the-top brilliant, scholarly, funny, thought-provoking
session.  I've been lifting quotes out of it for the Marriage Quotes page.
Also. you & I weren't the only ones impressed. I hear that the Calif
Coalition folks are also interested in this new "teach out of the box"
program.  

And, I THANK YOU for the feedback. I looked you up and see that this was
your first conference and I'm sad that you weren't happy about the
experience.  Maybe it would help to explain that Harville Hendrix and Helen
LaKelly Hunt have presented two previous keynotes at Smart Marriages both of
which were scheduled in mainstream times (didn't require people to pay for a
banquet ticket or stay late). John Gray has presented six keynotes for us -
one banquet and five that were scheduled "during mainstream" times.  John
offered to present on Saturday Night in SF. We rotate major keynote speakers
in the banquet slots and in the end slots. They realize they won't get as
large a crowd, so it's another way that the presenters "volunteer" to help
the coalition. The banquets provide the opportunity for us to sit down
together - break bread - and socialize.  We charge nothing more than the
hotel charges for the meal (it's a pass through) so, in effect, you get the
keynote and the chance to socialize with new friends as a bonus - "for
free".  In San Francisco, the $39 fee included the keynotes, a salad, bread,
coffee, entrée, desert, tax, tip, AND a glass of wine.  (I wasn't able to do
that for Orlando for next year. I had to give up the glass of wine to keep
the banquet price under $40.)  Also, we scheduled the Hendrix/ Hunt banquet
on Tuesday because their Couplehood as A Spiritual Path (CASP) program was
cosponsored by NACFLM (Catholic Family Life Ministers) and by Marriage
Savers.  Last year we featured The Marriage Course at the Tues banquet for
the same reason, both are programs that are ideally suited for use in
congregations.  

As for the facility, I heard the same thing from the student volunteers/door
monitors. I still haven't written the presenters to apologize - I'm sure the
heat and sound bleeds were distracting for them.  It is an older hotel and I
guess that factored into why we were able to get the rates we got.  We not
only have to get discounts on hotel sleeping rooms but also on banquets and
AV equipment and labor and etc in order to keep the prices in a range where
most attendees can afford the conference.  Some can only afford to come
every other year, or every three years, but we do work hard to keep things
in reach. But honestly I was not aware in advance that we'd have these
problems.  SF Hilton is a four-star conference property with very high
ratings.  I thought we got the rate because of the holiday....

I also want to agree with you that these were two really great keynotes,
though I'm like the mother and love all the sessions. I truly think they
were all GREAT.  I did, though, have dinner with a women recently who was at
the John Gray session and she said she had written PARADE and SPURS and
EMERGENCY MAN on a sticky note in her kitchen and her daughter had asked her
what in the world that was about.  She says she tried, but ordered the DVD
for her daughter because she didn't feel she could explain it as well as
John.  I'm sure any of us who were there can identify, and like this woman
and I, wonder which words the men have written on their mirrors?

I hope this helps.  I know that it's often not what was intended, but what
was experienced that matters. However, I promise there was no manipulative
strategy behind the schedule or in picking a hotel with heat and sound
problems.   I'm not that smart.

Diane   

########################
Please do not reply to this email. This mailbox is not monitored and you
will not receive a response.

Send submissions and comments for the listserv or for list moderator, Diane
Sollee, to: diane at smartmarriages.com  (In other words, do NOT simply hit
"reply". If you hit reply your email will disappear into cyberspace.)

This is a moderated list. Submissions and comments are read by Diane Sollee.
Please indicate if your comment is NOT to be shared with the list.  PLEASE
include your email address and/or url as part of your signature.

With thousands of subscribers, not all comments can be shared. Also realize
that opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by members of the
Coalition.

To SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, or Change your subscription address,
visit: http://www.smartmarriages.com/app/Newsletter.Subscribe

To read past posts to the listserv, visit the Archive at:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/

13th Annual Smart Marriages® Conference, Shingle Creek Resort,
Orlando, Florida, July 6-12, 2009 (General Conference July 8-11)
Pre-Conference Training Institutes July 6-8
Post-Conference Training Institutes July 12

Shingle Creek Resort: http://www.rosenshinglecreek.com/

Conference schedule, registration, & exhibit information will be posted as
it becomes available at:
http://www.smartmarriages.com/conferencedetails.html

List your program and resources on the Directory of Classes at
http://www.smartmarriages.com/directory_browse.html

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

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: 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.