Ramanisblog

Tag: Intimate relationship

  • ‘Living Together’ Messes Up Life Study

    The case for Living together is basically one of embarking in a Relationship with out Commitment.

     

    Put it bluntly it is taken as a licence and a short route to Debauchery and sexual gratification a la animals with out a sense of responsibility.

     

    (some studies show Gorillas have a strong  sense of marital Commitment!)

     

    Some of the Reasons provided.Reason#1 – It’s financially responsible.

     

    Where I live, an apartment can run you somewhere between $700 and $1400.  Dropping an extra $1000/month seems like throwing your money down the drain.  If you’re a particularly “committed co-habitor” (yep, I like the term too :) ), you might even be building up equity in a home you’ve bought together.”

     

    You can do that even by Marrying.

     

    You spend all your time together anyways.  Like wasting money with rent, wasting time is equally frustrating.  You drive to each other’s places many times during the week.  You help each other with cooking and cleaning and laundry and bills.  Traveling back and forth, virtually living in two places, is kind of like the inconvenience of living out of a bag on a business trip.  It’s annoying.  If you want to be together, why all the running around?

    Reason #3 – It seems like a good next step in the relationship.  Consumers that we are in America, everything exists with a try it before you buy it clause.  Every infomercial promises that you can try it and return it in 30 days for a full refund.  And the bigger the purchase, the more you want to make sure it’s just right.  What kind of fool would buy a car before thorough inspection and testing?  Thankfully, marriage in our society today does, to a degree, maintain some semblance of “a big deal”.  Couples don’t want to rush into that.  Well, what about a “____ day money-back” transition period to see if this relationship truly feels right?  These test periods make sense in every other aspect of our lives, why not our relationships?

    Reason #4 – It’s so common.  By definition, nothing will make something seem like “not a big deal” faster than commonality.  I guarantee you know couples that are living together outside of marriage.  In fact, many of you, especially if you tend towards the younger generations, might know more couples that are living together than not.  It’s the age old, after-school-special argument of “How can it be that bad if everybody’s doing it?”  It was not, at least statistically speaking, common 40 years ago though.  Imagine that, after the sexually open-minded 60s, co-habitation was still considered fairly taboo.  People that lived together outside of marriage (particularly women – a strange double standard in our society that’s more appropriate for another article) developed reputations.  People don’t like bad reputations.  Regardless of ethnicity or religion, there is one word out there that young women don’t want to be called more than any other word.  Young people don’t call young girls promiscuous or even “skanky” anymore.  They call them this word – a word that will make a girl feel more worthless than any other – a destructive word that I guarantee is used at your child’s school.  40 years ago, living together with a man would earn a woman a label like this.  Not anymore.  In fact, if she’s only sexually active with one man, marriage or not, she’s virtually safe from labels today.  It’s just so common that it won’t warrant a subjective label like that.

    Reason #5 – We love each other.  Love is a funny word.  It’s a fascinating biblical word.  When a young couple chooses to live together because they love one another.

    Can one see any valid argument here?

    If ‘ we love each other’ why not marry?

    http://pastorjameshein.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/5-great-reasons-to-live-together-before-marriage-1-better-one-not-to/

     

    “Reasons for Living together:

    • Economic or practical reasons.
    • Concerns about a long-term commitment.
    • Fear of divorce.
    • Convenience.
    • To give the relationship a trial run before marriage.
    • Lack of faith in marriage as an institution.
    • Escape from family home.
    • Compromise with partner who doesn’t want to be married.
    • Companionship.

     

    Sillier reasons , you can not find!

     

    What are the statistics on Living Together?

     

    ”

    Married or living together, 1981–2006
    Married or living together, 1981–2006

    Readily Available Cohabitation Facts

    • Living together is considered to be more stressful than being married.

     

    • Just over 50% of first cohabiting couples ever get married.

     

     

    • In the United States and in the UK, couples who live together are at a greater risk for divorce than non-cohabiting couples.

     

     

    • Couples who lived together before marriage tend to divorce early in their marriage. If their marriage last seven years, then their risk for divorce is the same as couples who didn’t cohabit before marriage.

     

    Cohabitation Facts Rarely Mentioned

    • In France and Germany cohabiting couples have a slightly lower risk of divorce.

     

    • If cohabitation is limited to a person’s future spouse, there is no elevated risk of divorce.

     

     

    • In the U.S., cohabiting couples taking premarital education courses or counseling are not at a higher risk for divorce.

    http://marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm

     

    Some more facts.

    • The number of unmarried couples living together soared 12-fold from 430,000 in 1960 to 5.4 million in 2005.
    • More than eight out of ten couples who live together will break up either before the wedding or afterwards in divorce.
    • About 45 percent of those who begin cohabiting, do not marry. Another 5-10 percent continue living together and do not marry.
    • Couples who do marry after living together are 50% more likely to divorce than those who did not.
    • Only 12 percent of couples who have begun their relationship with cohabitation end up with a marriage lasting 10 years or more.
    • A Penn State study reports that even a month’s cohabitation decreases the quality of the couple’s relationship.
    • (rayfowler.org.)

     

    Read this.

    Of the 45 percent or so who do marry after living together, they are 50 percent more likely to divorce than those who remained separate before the wedding.So instead of 22 of the 45 couples divorcing (the 50 percent divorce rate) about 33 will divorce. That leaves just 12 couples who have begun their relationship with cohabitation who end up with a marriage lasting 10 years.

     

    LOPEZ: Isn’t it practical sometimes?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224058/no-way-live/interview

     

  • Marriage for a Fixed Period’ New Law?

    Marriage is being confused with Sex here.

    English: image of marriage license
    English: image of marriage license (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    The argument that problems arise need not be a reason for negating the marriage.

    If the logic of uneasiness in facing or solving problems is the issue then living  itself is a problem.

    People tend to enter  the bond  of Marriage with the mind-set ‘what  can I get’, with out realising that Marriage, as in other things in Life is a two-way traffic.

    One has to bear in mind the partner also has expectations and as no one is perfect, disappointments are bound to be there.

    If Divorce or ‘Fixed time Marriage’ is the solution, what next?

    Do you propose to remain Single?

    If not, what is the guarantee that the same incompatibility would not creep in again?

    After your first Relationship did not last because of inability to compromise.

    There can be no Relationship without Commitment and reciprocity.

    In Life unless one learns to compromise, there is no Happiness.

    Our Survival itself is because of Compromises .

    Story:

    ”

    When you live in a place with a 50 percent divorce rate, is “till death do you part” even a realistic concept? In a radical rethinking of matrimony, Mexico City’s assembly is mulling a proposed civil code reform that would enable the city to issue marriage licenses with time limits.

    The idea, explains assemblyman Leonel Luna, is to help couples avoid “the tortuous process of divorce.” Instead, couples could opt for a renewable contract for a minimum two-year term, complete with provisions for the division of assets and custody of children. “If the relationship is not stable or harmonious,” Luna says, “the contract simply ends.” Luna says there could be a vote on the new marriage contracts by the end of the year.

    Unsurprisingly, the Catholic Church, still fired up over Mexico City legalizing same-sex unions in 2009, is none too pleased with the move. Mexican archdiocese spokesman Hugo Valdemar told Reuters this week that “This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage. It’s another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral.” Because anything other than a lifetime binding contract between a man and woman is hooey!

    There’s something irresistible about the notion of a love that can last forever. But matrimony has always existed as both a business relationship as well as a romantic one. Sure, plenty of arranged marriages have led to deep and lasting love, but they’ve also been built on practical social alliances between families. The blending of fortunes, the rearing of children — they all factor into the culture of marriage. Just ask Patti Stanger. It’s not just about eternal ardor. So why not make it easier for couples to openly acknowledge another practical aspect of marriage – that it doesn’t always last until one person gets the privilege of burying the other one?

    Love, even under the best of circumstances, is not a static condition. Even if you’re with the same person, the relationship you’re in at 24 isn’t the one you’re going to be in at 64. And though it may sound harsh to subject it to periodic review, there is in fact both a pleasantly incentivizing reason to do so and a luxuriously liberating one as well. Think of any couple you’ve ever known — or possibly participated in — in which domesticity was taken as Let Yourself Go pass. Partnered life doesn’t have the urgent frisson of early dating, but it’s not an excuse to stop putting in the work, either. How different might the experience of marriage be if both participants in it were subject to periodic, mutual review? The chance to say, here’s what’s working, here’s what’s changed, here’s what needs improvement? The opportunity, even, to say, maybe it’s time to move on? Why not acknowledge that a great five-year run could be more satisfying than a 30-year sentence? After all, we leave jobs and houses and quietly distance ourselves from old friends all the time, and it’s rarely considered failure. Instead it’s understood to be part of growth and the nature of life. So why is permanence so highly prized? Why is endurance equated with commitment?

    http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/why_marry_forever/