Uh-oh, Ogden

by Carder

Given President Obama's talent for nominating individuals of impeccable character, we can look forward to this next gem of a nominee for Deputy Attorney General (2nd in command): David Ogden.

Consider his virtuous record:

  • Opposed parental notification for abortion of 14-year-olds

  • Co-authored an amicus brief in support of Planned Parenthood stating, "Empirical evidence does not support the contention that abortion is a significant risk factor for detrimental psychological effects."

    hufner.jpg

  • Opposed the Children's Internet Prosecution Act of 2000.

  • Challenged the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act.

  • Represented Playboy Enterprises, seeking an order forcing the Library of Congress to use taxpayer funds to print Playboy Magazine's articles in Braille against the express wishes of Congress.

  • Has defended notable client PHE, Inc., the nation's largest distributor of hard-core porn videos and other sex-related products...

    ...and much more.

    Raise your hand if you think Ogden's aggressive ACLUesque legacy will deter his Senate confirmation by liberals in charge. No, on the contrary.


  • Comments:

    Okay, call me silly but there is something funny about Playboy in braille....

    Back to the point. Taking this list at face value even the most liberal would be dismayed. But I suspect there were good and valid reasons to oppose these items. Here would be one such example:

    "If you believe the right wing, Ogden opposed the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in the case United States v. American Library Association because he wants to expose kids to online porn. But if you look at his actual arguments, the issue was that installing content filters would have prevented access to legal material by a wide range of Americans, not just children, and federal funds would have been denied to institutions that didn’t comply, which would have had a deleterious affect, especially in disadvantaged communities".


    Posted by: asitis at February 10, 2009 6:53 AM


    well this is what they want - a rottweiler who will pursue their liberal agenda in the legal arena.

    I don't think the problem is with Obama's possible inability to pick nominees of impeccable character. I think the problem is that the Democratic party (that is, his bag of choices)is overflowing with these types of people - those who have no moral virtue and will do anything and everything to promote their secular humanistic lifestyle - free sex, unlimited abortion, abuse of minors, pornography etc

    If you have a cesspool to draw from, all you are going to bring out of it is mucky water, right?

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 7:11 AM


    Yeh, and did you see he also defends the rights of "public homosexuals" ( WTF?????). Who is this monster?!

    Posted by: asitis at February 10, 2009 7:18 AM


    "# Represented Playboy Enterprises, seeking an order forcing the Library of Congress to use taxpayer funds to print Playboy Magazine's articles in Braille against the exprress wishes of Congress"


    Do they do this for other magazines? If so, I don't see what the big deal is..? I mean, Playboy does have good articles in it. I've even bought a couple issues of Playboy because they happened to have interviews I wanted to read.


    ""Empirical evidence does not support the contention that abortion is a significant risk factor for detrimental psychological effects."

    True. Some people are psychologically effected --a lot aren't..

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 7:47 AM


    Another reason morals in Washington DO NOT EXIST.


    Porn does NOT belong in the Library of congress and does NOT need to be printed in Braille!

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 7:50 AM


    Asistis, we only allow "WTF" if you're talking "What the FOCA?!", which I expect you were not... :)

    And it's absolutely untrue that school/library Internet filters also filter good stuff. False false false. I live in IL, where Obama as state senator also opposed library internet filtering, and I've seen demonstrations of Internet filters. One can indeed look up "breast cancer," etc., with filters in place.

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 10, 2009 7:53 AM


    LFN,

    Another thing. Hugh Hefner can well afford to print Braille copies of Playboy for customers who so request.

    Posted by: Mary at February 10, 2009 8:50 AM


    sorry jill. I thought I'd see WTF here before elsewhere. I won't use it again. Oops I guess I just did.... Though I can't think of a better response to the terminology "public homosexuality"

    Posted by: asitis at February 10, 2009 10:32 AM


    If this guy is confirmed, then it truly is a sunny new day in America, with no more kowtowing to the perennial outrage of the far right.

    Posted by: Ray at February 10, 2009 11:26 AM


    (SIGH)...We already KNEW this was going to happen the moment Obama won, remember?

    I guess it's the audacity of his daily decisions that still shock me...

    Posted by: RSD at February 10, 2009 12:00 PM


    Our leader seems to have no internal moral compass. He will appoint and affillitate with any and all trash. The nastier the better. rezco, Blago, Wright (pastor??) etc. His compass is the reaction of the liberal newspapers. If Ayers offends the papers, then he tosses them under the bus. He will defend any and all vile characters until they become unpopular.

    Posted by: xppc at February 10, 2009 12:02 PM


    "He will defend any and all vile characters until they become unpopular. "

    Yup...and this is the 'Change we can believe in'.

    Posted by: RSD at February 10, 2009 12:25 PM


    so protecting children from pornography and obscene material is WRONG, Ray?

    Its not a Sunny day in America. It hasn't been one for a VERY long time.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 1:05 PM


    That's not the Sun, Ray...it's FLAMES...like the flames of Hell getting higher and higher...

    Posted by: RSD at February 10, 2009 1:18 PM


    I would be almost willing to bet this wont be covered in the main stream media.

    When I think of how badly many of Bush's nominees for cabinet posts were treated, not to mention the Supreme Court, and in most cases they were guilty simply of being against abortion.

    But with O it seems the sleazier the better. I also heard Michael Schaivo's lawyer got a top post at the Dept of Justice.

    Posted by: Joanne at February 10, 2009 1:28 PM


    Put me in the Pro-Ogden camp. I sounds fine to me. (but you guys already knew that, didn't you)

    Posted by: Hal at February 10, 2009 1:30 PM


    Hal,

    So like Ray, you oppose protecting children from pornography and support hard core pornographers?

    Also, don't you think the thousands Hugh Hefner pays his bimbos to portray him as some kind of sexual superman could be better spent donating braille Playboy magazines to libraries?

    Posted by: Mary at February 10, 2009 2:01 PM


    I take it then, Hal, that you see nothing wrong with children being exposed to obscene material or used for child pornography?

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 2:42 PM


    I think pornographers have rights to publish. I think parents, not the government are responsible for protecting children from being exposed to things the parents don't want them exposed to.

    I absolutely believe that children should not be used for child pornography. (Does Ogden think they should? I must have missed that)

    Posted by: Hal at February 10, 2009 4:07 PM


    so you think women should be used and exploited for their bodies so dirty old men can oogle at them? Sex addiction (which includes dirty magazines like Playboy) is a very serious thing. Its not a good thing. Pornography is NOT freedom of speech, its pure filth and does not belong in print form or on the internet.

    And unfortunately, some parents see nothing wrong with their sons subscribing to Playboy or accessing porn sites.


    Ogden worked for the ACLU and they DEFEND Child Pornography.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 4:22 PM


    I think pornographers have rights to publish. I think parents, not the government are responsible for protecting children from being exposed to things the parents don't want them exposed to.

    so obviously you support the right of people to abuse and use others for their own pleasure.
    Obviously you believe it's okay for men and women to degrade each other as long as it's consenting.

    Obviously you believe it's okay for people to be inadvertently exposed to this through the media.

    Obviously you believe it's okay to create addictions to porn through the viewing of this material - addictions that are real and harder than any drug addiction to overcome.

    This is just sick. I don't think there is ANY way you can justify your belief in this one Hal.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 4:25 PM


    "I think the problem is that the Democratic party (that is, his bag of choices) is overflowing with these types of people"
    There are bad eggs in every group, you see. Now forgive me for not remembering the names (I'm at work and can't research, shouldn't even be on this blog), but the examples are quite popular and should be easily remembered. What was his name, the Republican senator from Idaho I believe who was trying to engage in sex acts with another man in a public bathroom? Larry something?
    What about the Republican politician from Florida (?) who talked dirty to his male pages and sent them sexual notes and emails? And he's no politician, but Ted Haggart, a church leader, who confessed to sleeping with a male prostitute?
    My point is: some Democrats are bad, some good. Some Republicans are bad, some good. Bad people are to be found everywhere, although I really don't think we can use "bad" as such a blanket statement.

    Posted by: AM at February 10, 2009 4:48 PM


    That is a good point to keep in mind, AM. Indeed, every group or organization will always have some bad apples.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 10, 2009 4:54 PM


    Hal :"I think pornographers have rights to publish. I think parents, not the government are responsible for protecting children from being exposed to things the parents don't want them exposed to."


    Once again, Hal completely glosses over the reality of the situation. I believe that pornographers should have the right to publish, and I dont believe that parents, or anyone, has the right to prevent pronography, or violence, from appearing in various media forms. Heck, Im not even that fond of movie ratings being strictly enforced. The issue here has little to nothing to do with those points however.

    Ogden fought to force TAX PAYER FUNDED libraries to support and thereby promote and condone pornography. This is where the problem arises. I am pretty left when it comes to a lot of social issues. Im pro-gay marriage, pro-prostitution, pro-marajuana, etc etc. However, I am against the government interference on these issues. Libraries are designed to serve the community who pays for them, not to make social or political stances. If the community wants porn to be translated, have at it. What I cant stand is the idea that the leftist special interest groups have some sort of entitlement to be accepted and funded by the community. Should we ban gay marriage? I dont see why, honestly. Should we fund gay history courses in our schools? Depends on what the American PEOPLE think.

    The biggest problem with the rank and file leftists, who accept almost any agenda proposed by their leftist leaders, is that they behave like the "superman." They think they can determine for the people what the people need and want, without actually paying attention to what the people actually need and/or want. Let the individual communities decide on these issues.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 10, 2009 6:15 PM


    Hold on, hold on, hold on...

    Has anyone ever watched The Girls Next Door? Seen the girls who desperately want to be Playmates? Does anyone see how great these girls are treated during their shoots? Are you kidding? No one is abusing these girls. They know exactly what they're doing and guess what-- they make a lot of money for it and they love to do it. That's why a lot of them do it more than once! I don't think I'm being exploited because other women want to pose with their clothes off. Sheesh.

    I was watching Hugh Hefner's True Hollywood Story the other day. They interviewed girlfriends and playmates from when the magazine was just getting on it's feet. Even though they're MUCH older now, they were all still happy with their relationship with Playboy and had nothing bad to say about Hef! Certaintly none of them were complaining about "I was young and dumb and I feel so ashamed and exploited." (Which probably would've made it more interesting for E!)


    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 6:29 PM


    I not surpized by this nomination, Obama is nominating people that share his values.

    Pornography should be illegal. All it has done is ruin marriges and ruin lives, corrupted people, etc.

    Posted by: Jasper at February 10, 2009 6:29 PM


    Oliver,

    You made my previously stated point well. I say if Hefner is so concerned about blind people being able to access his magazine, then by all means, donate braille copies to libraries that want them or send them to blind customers who request them.
    Hefner can well afford to. Like I said, since he can afford to pay these bimbos thousands to keep them around and gush on his sexual prowess, certainly he can afford to donate Braille magazines.

    Posted by: Mary at February 10, 2009 6:37 PM


    "But with O it seems the sleazier the better. I also heard Michael Schaivo's lawyer got a top post at the Dept of Justice."

    Yuck. It's like Obama nominates the exact opposite of what is good.

    well, thats America folks, its changed, we elected him. This is what we get.

    Posted by: Jasper at February 10, 2009 6:46 PM


    If we can print bibles in Braille then why not playboy? Seriously, have you read the Song of Solomon? Just because you don't think blind people should have access to literature doesn't mean that they shouldn't.

    Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 10, 2009 6:46 PM


    YLT,

    Who says blind people shouldn't have access to Playboy? Hefner is plenty wealthy enough to provide his blind customers with copies if they so request. He can send Braille issues to libraries that want them. It probably wouldn't cost as much as paying his bimboes does.

    Posted by: Mary at February 10, 2009 7:11 PM


    are you saying that PLAYBOY, a filthy adult magazine, is LITERATURE?

    Why would a blind man want to read Playboy? I think I'd rather read Tolstoy or Dickens or Mark Twain.


    You're comparing the BIBLE to PLAYBOY?


    By the way, you're taking Song of Solomon out of context. In no way is it PORN.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 7:13 PM


    Liz,
    I'm a female. I've already stated there were a couple times that I bought issues (well, actually I had my bf do it..) because I heard there was an interesting interview. Of course it's literature...

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 7:27 PM


    Its not literature. I remember in high school when I had to do book reports and certain books weren't allowed to be used for the book report. So instead of reading a star wars book or something similar, I read a REAL book (in one case "The Mysterious Island" by Jules Verne.) That was literature, not a silly article in a porn magazine.


    And those girls that pose nude are exploited and used as sex objects.


    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 7:36 PM


    Liz, are you saying Star Wars books aren't literature? I mean, do you know what that word means? Are they GREAT literature? Nope. Doesn't mean it's not literature.

    My parents get some Catholic Times magazine. Is that literature?

    "And those girls that pose nude are exploited and used as sex objects."

    This is ironic to me. Women should have absolutely no control over their own bodies. Is that what you think? That YOU know what's best for women everywhere? Oh geeze, that's ridiculous.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 7:46 PM


    Has anyone ever watched The Girls Next Door? Seen the girls who desperately want to be Playmates? Does anyone see how great these girls are treated during their shoots? Are you kidding? No one is abusing these girls. They know exactly what they're doing and guess what-- they make a lot of money for it and they love to do it. That's why a lot of them do it more than once! I don't think I'm being exploited because other women want to pose with their clothes off. Sheesh.

    I was watching Hugh Hefner's True Hollywood Story the other day. They interviewed girlfriends and playmates from when the magazine was just getting on it's feet. Even though they're MUCH older now, they were all still happy with their relationship with Playboy and had nothing bad to say about Hef! Certaintly none of them were complaining about "I was young and dumb and I feel so ashamed and exploited." (Which probably would've made it more interesting for E!)

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 6:29 PM

    again, just because the girls were willing to let themselves be used as sex objects and for the gratification of men doesn't mean we ought to let them go ahead and do this.

    of course, I'm sure you've heard of the "playboy centerfold curse"
    but likely that's just my overactive, zealous, religiously bigoted imagination working overtime

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 7:59 PM


    *sigh* You don't get it.......


    Women are constantly exploited by men in the sex industry. They are treated as OBJECTS, not as human beings.

    Just as the tiny human being in the mother's womb is called a "blob of tissue" or "clump of cells" to dehumanize, women who pose for adult magazines are used for their bodies and for dirty minded men to look at and get fantasies.

    Jasper pointed out that pornography has led to the break up of marriages.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 8:00 PM


    How do you do a centerfold in braille, I wonder?

    Posted by: asitis at February 10, 2009 8:05 PM


    Do you read braille with one hand? c);)

    Posted by: asitis at February 10, 2009 8:06 PM


    Hmm.. interesting, Liz.

    Mainly because last summer I went to Chippendale's in Vegas for a bachlorette party.. I've gotten bunches of birthday cards with half naked men on them, I know there's a Playgirl magazine..

    You're making women sound like victims... get over it!

    By the way- LOTS of things have broken up marriages. Shopping has broken up marriages. Anything wrong with shopping now?

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 8:11 PM


    *rolling eyes*

    You mean overspending shopaholics? That's called a money issue.

    And yes, men are exploited, too, but I don't think its as much as WOMEN are.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 8:13 PM


    This is ironic to me. Women should have absolutely no control over their own bodies.

    yes, this IS control over your body? Really that's pretty sad if this is the kind of control you want.
    Sorry, Josephine, but we don't see eye to eye on this one at all.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 8:17 PM


    I've argued with my roomie over spending too much on groceries. I said nothing about "over spending shopaholics" mk?

    I don't know what you're talking about, Liz. Men are in the exact same boat as women. Funny no one is defending them, huh?

    Women apparently don't know how to handle themselves, they're hurting themselves, they're victims, blah blah blah. It's good money! They like it. They know darn well what they're doing, and they're not asking YOU to look at them. You don't know what's best for everyone...

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 8:27 PM


    Culture of Death, toostunned, culture of death. Its what's become acceptable in this country.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 8:30 PM


    And yes, men are exploited, too, but I don't think its as much as WOMEN are.
    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 8:13 PM

    Liz, I think Josephine has a point: The women who pose for Playboy are not being exploited. They have chosen to pose and are cashing in on their ASSets (so to speak).

    Posted by: asitis at February 10, 2009 8:30 PM


    Culture of Death, toostunned, culture of death. Its what's become acceptable in this country.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 8:30 PM

    rolling eyes ..............

    Posted by: asitis at February 10, 2009 8:32 PM


    Mainly because last summer I went to Chippendale's in Vegas for a bachlorette party.. I've gotten bunches of birthday cards with half naked men on them, I know there's a Playgirl magazine..

    then you've exploited men Josephine and that's nothing to brag about...:-(


    agreed LizFromNebraska

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 8:38 PM


    TSTL,

    You really don't seem to have understood anything I just said. Interesting.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 8:43 PM


    "then you've exploited men Josephine and that's nothing to brag about."

    Or could it be that those men exploited our sweet Josephine? I mean afterall, they took her money. They willingly used her for their own personal gain.


    Posted by: asitis at February 10, 2009 8:46 PM


    No Josephine and you don't understand that everytime you pick up a Playboy magazine, or a Playgirl or go to Chippendales you may possibly be hurting someone, promoting pornography and the lifestyle of those involved whether they seek it by choice or are led into it.
    We are answerable for ALL our actions Josephine. When you put money into Playboy mag's and strip clubs you just feed the seedy side of America. You contribute to the porn addiction of many by supporting the industry which now makes billions.
    To label it as choice just doesn't surprise me at all. Sorta like abortion too, ya know. It's just a choice....

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 8:49 PM


    Thank-you TSTL

    Posted by: Jasper at February 10, 2009 8:51 PM


    Doubly agree, TSTL!

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 8:54 PM


    Hmmm, comparing a woman posing in Playboy to abortion.. wow. You almost remind me of Elizabeth Hasslebeck. Apparently, ANYTHING you guys don't like you can just compare to abortion. It's pretty hilarious.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:02 PM


    It's true Asitis-- that bachlorette party corrupted me. I'm now a porn addict, and I can't maintain a relationship because I'm addicted to sex-- all because of going to Chippendales. Gosh darn!

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:04 PM


    I used to pose for life drawing classes for $8 an hour. Usually it was 3 hour sessions.

    Oh noes, have I been exploited???

    Posted by: Erin at February 10, 2009 9:07 PM


    Hmmm, comparing a woman posing in Playboy to abortion.. wow

    glad you realize that in both situations another human being is treated as an object to be used or disposed of at will or "choice"!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 9:11 PM


    I used to pose for life drawing classes for $8 an hour. Usually it was 3 hour sessions.

    Oh noes, have I been exploited???

    Posted by: Erin at February 10, 2009 9:07 PM

    you are confusing art with porn. simply not the same - the intent here is quite different.

    or perhaps you are saying that Hefner's girls pose to show the beauty of the body - I think NOT! But nice try!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 9:16 PM



    There's a difference between porn and art, Erin.


    TSTL@ 9:11 PM: GOOD POINT!

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 9:19 PM


    If I recall correctly, actual 'porn' involves intercourse of some type. Nude and/or suggestive poses are not porn- and really, from what I've seen of playboy, some of the shoots are really quite nice.

    Posted by: Erin at February 10, 2009 9:19 PM


    Actually, TSTL, it would be the same situation if the baby chose to be aborted.

    THAT'S kinda the same, I guess??

    Erin is clearly going to hell, TSTL, we don't have to sugarcoat it.. :P

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:20 PM


    Actually, TSTL, it would be the same situation if the baby chose to be aborted.

    THAT'S kinda the same, I guess??

    Erin is clearly going to hell, TSTL, we don't have to sugarcoat it.. :P

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:20 PM

    thanks for being disingenuous once again! :-D

    I prefer NOT to judge other people Josephine but rather to pull the plank from my own eye first. I have no idea whether Erin is headed for hell but I certainly hope not. Indeed, I wish her only the best and hope for heaven!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 9:24 PM


    You prefer not to judge others. Except those that look at porn? And the women that pose for it?

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:27 PM


    Porn addiction is a VERY real thing, Josephine. Its up there with drug abuse and alcoholism.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 9:30 PM


    Erin: "I used to pose for life drawing classes for $8 an hour. Usually it was 3 hour sessions.

    Oh noes, have I been exploited???"

    Your point?

    Intercourse is not a requirement for porn by the way. Porn is anything primarily designed to produce arousal, technically, and practically it is inappropriate content designed to produce arousal. You may be thinking of "hardcore porn," which is porn that openly and explicitly depicts sexual act.

    Lets be honest, most people who purchase playboy do it to arouse themselves, whether or not they follow through with the act.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 10, 2009 9:33 PM


    You prefer not to judge others. Except those that look at porn? And the women that pose for it?

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:27 PM

    there is NOTHING wrong with judging the act of looking at porn
    We can judge acts.
    I do not judge these people except to say that if you look at porn or buy porn then you are abetting in harming another person who may not have made the "choice" to become involved. That is a consequence of your action of purchasing porn or looking at porn on the internet.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 9:33 PM


    Yeah, and looking at porn is down there with social drinking.

    Not everyone that drinks is an alcoholic.
    Not everyone that looks at porn has an "addiction". Goodness!

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:33 PM


    Josephine- Oh, I'm most definitely going to hell. I had an abortion and don't regret it in the least.

    Hi everyone, btw. Hope life is treating you well!

    Posted by: Erin at February 10, 2009 9:34 PM


    Yeah, and looking at porn is down there with social drinking.

    Not everyone that drinks is an alcoholic.
    Not everyone that looks at porn has an "addiction". Goodness!

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:33 PM

    we are not dealing with the addiction part
    the point is that in abortion the baby is an object to be disposed
    in porn, the woman is the object to be used and disposed of ( in various ways).

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 10, 2009 9:40 PM


    so, Josephine, you're saying that the men that look at Playboy or other such material are gentlemen that respect women? I seriously doubt it.

    You can't do a search on google or yahoo for some innocent topic and (usually) not come upon a search result link that doesn't have some sort of adult material in it.


    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 10, 2009 9:41 PM


    Hi Erin!!
    Has it been a year since your abortion?

    You do remember that women that have abortions typically do not feel regret until 7-9 years after their abortion. They turn to antidepressants, alcohol and drugs to numb the pain of having their own child killed.

    Posted by: Carla at February 10, 2009 9:44 PM


    Yeah, a lot of them respect women and a lot of them don't, Liz.

    I've never had proof, but I'm assuming since my bf is a 21 year old dude, he's probably looked at his share of porn. If he were home, I'd ask.. however, he respects me very, very much and I wouldn't care one bit!


    What does google searching have to do with anything. Sure, there are people that are creepos. Not the majority though. Definitely not the majority.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:46 PM


    "Josephine- Oh, I'm most definitely going to hell. I had an abortion and don't regret it in the least."

    Of course, you admitedly have issues processing emotional input, which may also explain, in part, your willingness to pose nude in front of (presumed) horny college students for just above minimum wage.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 10, 2009 9:54 PM


    Oliver, I've never had an abortion in my life... please double check your quotes.

    Neither of those are from me.


    Most students who do art in college aren't just "horny college students"... college art is too hard for someone to do because they want to see hot girls naked.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:56 PM


    Almost two now, Carla. Two years sometime in March I think. I don't really remember :P

    Oliver, just because I have Aspergers doesn't mean that my experience isn't valid. And how else do you think artists learn to capture realistic human form if not from actual real humans?

    Posted by: Erin at February 10, 2009 9:58 PM


    "If he were home, I'd ask.. however, he respects me very, very much and I wouldn't care one bit!"

    Be careful what you assume about your boyfriend's respect. Remember that he has a vested interest to placate you, especially if there is the prospect of easy access to a sexual relationship. Not to say that he isnt respectful, just that he may not really respect you.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 10, 2009 9:58 PM


    Hm, perhaps I should double check my quotes, not you. I didn't realize that one had been addressed to me.

    Sorry, Oliver. My apologies.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 9:59 PM


    "Be careful what you assume about your boyfriend's respect."


    We've been together five years. I'm not assuming anything.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 10:00 PM


    Erin: "Oliver, just because I have Aspergers doesn't mean that my experience isn't valid. And how else do you think artists learn to capture realistic human form if not from actual real humans?"

    No but having Aspergers, and from what I remember post-traumatic stress disorder, does exclude your experience from classification as a "typical" reaction. Unfortunately, what you go through cannot be fully related to the general public, even if it IS a typical experience.

    Artists can paint the human form without full disclosure; wear a speedo and some pasties. Of course, thats assuming that you were studied by artists in the first place and not some college kids taking an easy elective.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 10, 2009 10:03 PM


    Josephine: "We've been together five years. I'm not assuming anything. "

    How naive you must really be. Of course you are. Do you think that 5 years is enough to sufficiently know someone? I still learn things about my wife every day and weve been together 5 years. My brother's wife claimed that she never loved him about 7 years into their marriage and up and left him. My other brother married his live in girlfriend of 6 years, only to have her leave him completely at random 6 months into the marriage.
    You have a lot to learn about life if you think youve conquered it already.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 10, 2009 10:07 PM


    Did I say I conquered life? Did I say I knew everything about my boyfriend?

    Nope. I know his CHARACTER though. I may not know all the facts, but I know his character.

    How sad that your brothers picked crappy girls. Fortunately for me, I didn't pick a crappy boy. You can't really love someone if you constantly think they're going to leave you or do something to hurt you.

    If you think your wife doesn't respect you, then you really shouldn't be with her, huh? If you think she does-- then you have no reason to tell me I shouldn't assume anything.

    Especially since we've been with our partners the same length of time.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 10:58 PM


    There is a difference between "thinking" that someone respects you, and "knowing" that someone respects you. I would only claim the former, but you already claimed the latter.

    I find it interesting too that you claim that my brothers picked crappy "girls" but that you didnt pick a crappy "boy." Dont you think they thought that they had not chosen "crappy girls?"

    Yet again, you show your inability, or general refusal, to consider all points of view on an issue. Surely you must know that neither my brothers nor I "constantly think" that our respective wives would cheat or leave us. They felt the same way as you do now, yet they were proven wrong. I dont fear my wife abusing our relationship, yet I would not even begin to be as arrogant, or childish, to claim with certainty that she would not. Hell, I dont think I can claim many things with any degree of certainty. It amazes me that as an adult you havent learned that bit of reason yet.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 10, 2009 11:38 PM


    I did not say "I think" you said that I assume. I said: "however, he respects me very, very much and I wouldn't care one bit!"

    You're supposed to have every bit of security. It isn't childish to say I know he won't leave: isn't that why people get married? Why are you married if you don't know she won't leave? That doesn't make sense, really.

    I trust him with absolutely everything. He is reassuring to me. Why would I have any shred of doubt? If either of us did, then we wouldn't be in a relationship.

    You think as an adult I should think in the back of my head that the person I plan on being with forever will leave me, even though we've already promised eachother millions of times this is it? Hmm, seems like you're the one that should do some growing up and realize what it means to make a complete commitment to someone.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 10, 2009 11:48 PM


    You do remember that women that have abortions typically do not feel regret until 7-9 years after their abortion. They turn to antidepressants, alcohol and drugs to numb the pain of having their own child killed.

    Posted by: Carla at February 10, 2009 9:44 PM

    Erin, careful with that: I'm sure Carla doesn't mean "Typically women feel feel regret 7-9 years after abortions and turn to drugs and alcohol".

    More like "There are cases where women feel regret after an abortion. But this typicall doesn't happen until 7-9 years after an abortion. In some cases they may turn to alcohol or drugs. This may be due to their regret for the abortion or other factors."

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 5:41 AM


    Asitis,

    The devil is speaking through you, tell him to go away.

    Posted by: Jasper at February 11, 2009 6:12 AM


    Be careful what you assume about your boyfriend's respect. Remember that he has a vested interest to placate you, especially if there is the prospect of easy access to a sexual relationship. Not to say that he isnt respectful, just that he may not really respect you.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 10, 2009 9:58 PM

    an interesting perspective from a man's point of view!
    I hope you reread this paragraph Josephine.
    You have no idea what your boyfriend really thinks of you because your relationship is colored by sexual involvement.
    Oliver's family experience and his POV are borne out by stats. Cohabitating relationships such as yours do not last as long as married relationships and they do not have the level of satifaction achieved in stable marriages. Married couples are wealthier and healthier and the division of household chores is more equitably shared. And BTW, according to research, married women apparently have a more satisfying sex life too! Just some thoughts to consider Josephine.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 6:26 AM


    I think TSTL, you left out "generally" from the above post, (about four times)

    as for this:

    You have no idea what your boyfriend really thinks of you because your relationship is colored by sexual involvement."

    Many married people have "sexual involvement" too. I think they know what their spouse thinks of them nevertheless. If you're saying, you don't know what the future will bring, I would certainly agree. But that's true whether your married or not. I've heard some marriages don't last. If two adults want to live together, I don't have a problem with it. May work out, may not. That's how it goes. Adults make decisions and live with the consequences.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 6:31 AM


    Hal: the difference is that cohabitating couples do not commit. Despite them saying otherwise, both partners know they can leave at anytime. And apparently they often do.

    With marriage at least there have been vows taken before friends, family and often God. Vows can be broken, but with cohabitating couples there is no public expression of commitment. Someone taking a vow at least has the mindset/intent of permanency and follows it up with an action - a public expression of that intent.
    There is a ton of research now to prove every statement I made in my 6:26am post.


    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 6:51 AM


    V,
    I am perfectly capable of typing what I meant to say. Do not put your words in my mouth. I would never do that to you. Erin knows exactly what I mean because we have talked about it before.
    Why is it so important to you to protect her non regret??


    Women who have abortions typically feel regret 7-9 years after an abortion. They turn to alcohol, drugs and antidepressants to numb the pain of having their own child killed through abortion.

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 6:59 AM


    Carla is the avg 7-9 years? I would think many women would experience some sort of loss much sooner, but I don't know.
    I also thought many women experienced grief, tension and distress on the anniversary of their abortions?

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:09 AM


    TSTL, many cohabitating couples don't "commit to each other" because they don't wish to. I lived with several girlfriends in the past without getting married and without either of us wishing to. (except the one I eventually married) With the others, if we wanted to get married we would have. We wanted, instead, to live together without getting married, and we did. Every relationship in unique.

    And I wasn't disagreeing with your studies. They might be valid, I don't know. What I'm sure of, is that they were talking generally. Not every married woman has a more satisfying sex life than every non married woman, for example. Not every married couple is wealthier than every cohabitating couple, etc.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 7:15 AM


    Asitis,

    The devil is speaking through you, tell him to go away.

    Posted by: Jasper at February 11, 2009 6:12 AM

    That's funny Jasper. Thanks!

    No, just reality.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 7:20 AM


    And I wasn't disagreeing with your studies. They might be valid, I don't know. What I'm sure of, is that they were talking generally. Not every married woman has a more satisfying sex life than every non married woman, for example. Not every married couple is wealthier than every cohabitating couple, etc.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 7:15 AM

    of course not Hal. You are being disingenuous. But the studies show that married couples have these characteristics that cohabitating couples do not have. There will always be exceptions.
    However, the best bet is marriage - it produces happier couples and better functioning children.
    Interestingly, men in cohabitating relationships do not view the relationship as leading to marriage but women do. It would appear the intent differs between the sexes.
    So where couples understand that the relationship isn't permanent that might be fine. But to my mind, the man has one intent and the woman another, and that's where the problem lies.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:26 AM


    Asitis,

    You have to understand, they believe in a literal "devil."

    An actual being responsible for the evil in the world, locked in permanent combat with their god. (until the Resurrection, I guess.)

    Their god either can't, or doesn't want to, defeat this SOB. It's some kind of test for us mere mortals, and if we pass, we get to go to Heaven. If we fail, we have no one to blame but ourselves, and this aforementioned Devil (but mostly ourselves)

    It's an epic battle, been going on for awhile. Someone should turn it into a movie.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 7:26 AM


    I am perfectly capable of typing what I meant to say. Do not put your words in my mouth. I would never do that to you.

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 6:59 AM

    Carla I was very careful to NOT put words in your mouth:

    "Erin, careful with that: I'm sure Carla doesn't mean "Typically women feel feel regret 7-9 years after abortions and turn to drugs and alcohol"."

    I was simply advising Erin (and others) not to misinterpret what you wrote, because it could be taken incorrectly the way it was written.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 7:26 AM


    I think disingenuous is tostunned's favorite new buzzword. let's count!

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 7:27 AM


    So where couples understand that the relationship isn't permanent that might be fine. But to my mind, the man has one intent and the woman another, and that's where the problem lies.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:26 AM

    btw, lest some think I meant something different here - I do not endorse cohabitation under ANY circumstances even if couples agree on it's permanency or lack thereof!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:29 AM


    You have to understand, they believe in a literal "devil."

    Boy are YOU in for a BIG surprise someday!! rotfl!! ;-D

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:32 AM


    But to my mind, the man has one intent and the woman another, and that's where the problem lies.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:26 AM

    These women aren't idiots. They know the difference between marriage and living together. If they choose to live together without marriage, it's their decision. No one is forcing them. If it doesn't work out the way they wanted, it's their problem.

    What you "endorse" is irrelevant. No one is seeking your endorsement.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 7:34 AM


    Ha ha! Or perhaps YOU are the one in for a big surprise someday toostunned!! And who will be the last one left rolling on the florr laughing then!! c);)

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 7:36 AM


    These women aren't idiots. They know the difference between marriage and living together. If they choose to live together without marriage, it's their decision. No one is forcing them. If it doesn't work out the way they wanted, it's their problem.

    What you "endorse" is irrelevant. No one is seeking your endorsement.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 7:34 AM

    oh, methinks thou dost protest too much!

    The women are living with the men because they feel they have no other option and it will lead to marriage. Get real here, Hal.
    And, obviously you don't know much about human nature if you think people will always be honest about their motives for living together.
    you know the saying, "why by the cow when you can get the milk for free!"

    Have a nice day Hal!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:39 AM


    Hal, you're quite right: women (and men) who choose cohabitation are not necessarily idiots. And even if their endpoint is to be marrried, living together beforehand can be a very SMART move. I fully endorse that.... for what it's worth, of course :)

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 7:40 AM


    I'm not saying people are always honest with each other or themselves. That's part of living and learning. I'm saying we should let people take responsibility for their own decisions.


    You have a nice day too.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 7:42 AM


    The women are living with the men because they feel they have no other option and it will lead to marriage. Get real here, Hal.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:39 AM

    toostunned, you really don't know how many women feel. You live in a bubble, methinks.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 7:45 AM


    a bubble from 1955 I suspect.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 7:46 AM


    The cesspool test. Since grannie lives with The One, is she ok with the little youngsters doing juvenile porn shots and having abortions without telling the One before they are 14? Sureley if one of the little Obama girls gets the curse of pregancy, it would be wrong for grannie to tattle with daddy.

    Posted by: xppc at February 11, 2009 8:33 AM


    V,
    Why do you feel the need to "advise" Erin and others about what I wrote?

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 8:42 AM


    I absolutely mean what I write.
    Same as you.

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 8:43 AM


    Studies have shown that people who live together prior to marriage have a higher rate of divorce than those who do not.

    Posted by: lauren at February 11, 2009 8:45 AM


    Lauren, but that doesn't prove anything. Those same people, if they got married without living together might have the exact same (or higher) divorce rate.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 8:58 AM


    Hal, it either says something about the state of cohabitation or the type of people who cohabitate. Either way, it's not a positive.

    Posted by: lauren at February 11, 2009 9:23 AM


    V,
    Why do you feel the need to "advise" Erin and others about what I wrote?

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 8:42 AM

    Because I think people should not be misinformed. What you wrote could be interpreted a number of ways.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:27 AM


    Well, what are you going to do?

    life is messy.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 9:28 AM


    Studies have shown that people who live together prior to marriage have a higher rate of divorce than those who do not.

    Posted by: lauren at February 11, 2009 8:45 AM

    Sure, and probably people who drink have a higher rate who smoke than those who do not. It doesn't mean drinking causes smoking.

    Just like probably women who have had an abortion have a higher rate of substance abuse than those who haven't. It doesn't mean that abortion causes substance abuse.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:36 AM


    That's a nice picture of Hef and his granddaughters BTW.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:38 AM


    asitis, I've already said that the study might just as well prove that the type of person who cohabitates is more likely to get divorced. That's hardly a positive endorsement for cohabitation.

    Posted by: lauren at February 11, 2009 9:49 AM


    V,
    Why am I misinforming others and you are not?

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 9:59 AM


    asitis, I've already said that the study might just as well prove that the type of person who cohabitates is more likely to get divorced. That's hardly a positive endorsement for cohabitation.

    Posted by: lauren at February 11, 2009 9:49 AM

    Lauren, first off, there is not a particular type of person that cohabitates. We are all very different. And seconly, saying people who cohabitate prior to marriage are more likely to divorce doesn't necessarily say anything, positive or negative, about cohabitation.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:00 AM


    V,
    Why am I misinforming others and you are not?

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 9:59 AM

    Carla, I did not say that you are necessarily misinforming others. I simply said that if what you wrote was interpreted a certain way it was misinformation.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:01 AM


    Hal, there's a lot that can be done. Teaching our children to value marriage is one big step to improve the future. Life is messy, but there are moral guidelines to help us make the hard decisions. Of course, when we cast morality aside, it is a bit harder to discern the right path.

    Posted by: lauren at February 11, 2009 10:03 AM


    Asitis, the fact that cohabitation prior to marriage leads to higher divorce rates either says something about cohabitation itself or the type of person who cohabitates.

    If you maintain that there is no common theme common to cohabitaters, then we must infer that it is cohabitation itself that leads to a higher divorce rate.

    Posted by: lauren at February 11, 2009 10:05 AM


    Lauren, lauren, lauren..... Here it is: There may be people who does not survive longterm relationships and those people may be more likely to cohabitate prior to marriage and hence skew the divorce stats. This does not mean that everyone who cohabitates is like this.

    So no, you must not infer that cohabitation itself leads to a higher divorce rate.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:15 AM


    V,
    Please leave my statements to be interpreted by others as they see fit. We are all adults here that can ask direct questions of each other. If someone misinterprets what I write I would expect they would ask me what I meant.

    Abortion kills a growing child in the womb of its mother. It affects the mother to have her child killed by abortion. It can take 7-9 years for a woman to begin to feel the weight of her "choice" to kill her own child.


    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 10:17 AM


    TSTL, *sigh*

    "However, the best bet is marriage - it produces happier couples and better functioning children.
    Interestingly, men in cohabitating relationships do not view the relationship as leading to marriage but women do. It would appear the intent differs between the sexes."

    Well, we don't want kids. Got that out of the way. We both can't stand them. I don't think I've been happier in my whole life, and he is sitting on the couch agreeing with me on that. As for getting married, he will marry me in a second. Right now, if I said, "okay, I'll do it" we'd go get married. *I* at least want to wait until we're back in Chicago.

    "then we must infer that it is cohabitation itself that leads to a higher divorce rate. "

    Where? Show me a statistic? I'd think the higher divorce rate would come from couples who don't know eachothers habits well enough. I know every annoying thing my bf does, and he knows every annoying thing I do. (Like being on the computer while "we're" watching movies.)

    I think you mean " Teaching our children ^THAT ARE CHRISTIAN^ to value marriage is one big step to improve the future."
    If you're not from a religious family, getting married is just a tax break. :)

    Also, the "type" of person that lives with their boyfriend? I've been with my boyfriend since I was fourteen years old and he was fifteen. By "type" do you mean extremely loyal and monogamous?? No break ups ever, no cheating. :) SO please explain this "type" of people you're talking about..

    Posted by: Josephine at February 11, 2009 10:23 AM


    Now that's more benign than what you originally said Carla.

    And if something is ambiguous, I generally will point that out. I think too often in this world people are unclear, intentionally or not, and that leads to misinterpretation, misunderstanding and misinformation. I see it all the time. Not a good way to communicate.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:24 AM


    "And, obviously you don't know much about human nature if you think people will always be honest about their motives for living together.
    you know the saying, "why by the cow when you can get the milk for free!""

    Yeah, because you can't have sex if you don't live together!

    TSTL, a lot of couples live together for convenience. I know other couples that live together because of school. That's why I live with him. I didn't want to give up going to my school, and I sure as heck didn't want to live three hours away from home without him.

    YOU apparently think about sex too much. Sheesh.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 11, 2009 10:25 AM


    Oh and Carla, if someone misinterprets what you wrote you would expect them to ask you waht you meant? How would you necessarily know they misinterpreted what you wrote? Why not just be clear in the first place?

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:26 AM


    V,
    Sheesh. Lighten up Francis. I can and will type what I would like. Thank you very much.
    The only one that seems to have a problem with it is you.

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 10:30 AM


    "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free!"

    I have to add that is such an outdated, sexist comment. Men only want to get married for the sex? Men aren't interested in marriage for the same reasons women might be? Women who choose to live with a man are selling themselves short?

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:33 AM


    Of course you can type whatever you want Carla! And so can I!

    Miscommunication, intentional or not, is a pet peeve of mine.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:35 AM


    Asitis, the two are obviously correlated. You can not say that cohabitation itself leads to higher divorce rates unless you asert that there is no common thread to those who choose to cohabitate. If this is established, as you claimed it to be, then the practice itself must be implicated.

    Of course, you then changed your claim to imply that there *is* a common thread to those couples who choose to cohabitate, which negates your original assertion.


    Posted by: lauren at February 11, 2009 10:41 AM


    You do remember that women that have abortions typically do not feel regret until 7-9 years after their abortion. They turn to antidepressants, alcohol and drugs to numb the pain of having their own child killed.

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 10:42 AM


    There are cases where women feel regret after an abortion. But this typicall doesn't happen until 7-9 years after an abortion. In some cases they may turn to alcohol or drugs. This may be due to their regret for the abortion or other factors.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:45 AM


    lauren, I never disagreed that there is a corelation between cohabitation and divorce. But this does not mean that cohabitation itself leads to divorce. Nor does it mean that in general people who cohabitate are the type of people that will divorce. Some are, but not all.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:49 AM


    Brunettes tend to have higher ACT scores than blondes. That doesn't mean that they're ACT scores are higher BECAUSE they're brunette, Lauren.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 11, 2009 10:50 AM


    As a natural blonde, I'm gonna have to verify your facts Josephine!

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:53 AM


    V,
    Why add OR OTHER FACTORS?
    Your words. Not mine.

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 10:54 AM


    Well Carla, because the substance abuse could be due to other factors..............

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 10:57 AM


    Josephine: "I did not say "I think" you said that I assume. I said: "however, he respects me very, very much and I wouldn't care one bit!""

    I didnt say that "you think" Josephine. Do you know what the words "former" and "latter" mean? I said that you claim to "know" that your boyfriend respects you.

    Josephine: "You're supposed to have every bit of security. It isn't childish to say I know he won't leave: isn't that why people get married? Why are you married if you don't know she won't leave? That doesn't make sense, really."

    It is childish to believe you truly and deeply understand someone after a mere 5 years of a relationship. Besides, isnt your boyfriend 21, which would mean that a large portion of your relationship occured as teenagers. How much of your relationship happened in highschool? People change Josephine, and if you believe you fully understand anyone, you really dont know. The purpose of marriage is not to have perfect certainty. You really dont get it.

    Jospehine: "I trust him with absolutely everything. He is reassuring to me. Why would I have any shred of doubt? If either of us did, then we wouldn't be in a relationship."

    There is a difference between doubt and not having perfect knowledge. I dont actively doubt my wife's commitment, but at the same time I would never claim to know everything about her inner thoughts and personality. I cant claim with certainty that she fully respects me. I believe she does, but here is the difference between a healthy relationship and the one you have with your boyfriend. Our relationship isnt based on impossible requirments. Hopefully when you realize that your boyfriend isnt a perfect mate to you, and that you will never REALLY know him, even after 100 years, hopefully you wont cut and run.

    Josephine: "You think as an adult I should think in the back of my head that the person I plan on being with forever will leave me, even though we've already promised eachother millions of times this is it?"

    (Wow! Millions of times! It must be true love! Nobody has ever broken a promise that they made a million times! This changes everything....did you guys pinky swear and do the whole blood brothers thing too?)

    Millions of promises aside, you miss the point entirely. I guess in your mind things cannot hit that complicated shade of gray, so it has to be one way or the other. I did not say that I openly think my wife will leave me, and I do not think that you should openly believe your wife to leave you either. However, you should at the same time claim perfect knowledge or any certainty that your boyfriend WONT leave you. It doesnt have to be doubt or blind acceptance. You can meet a middle ground of pragmatism. Life isnt a John Cusack movie.

    Josephine: "Hmm, seems like you're the one that should do some growing up and realize what it means to make a complete commitment to someone."

    Right, because complete commitment means to blindly ignore reality and to accept "millions of promises" as unbreakable.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 10:59 AM


    Josephine, you might be right about the ACT scores being higher for brunettes... and that this doesn't mean it's BECAUSE they are brunette.

    But a study has shown that blondes make men dumber:

    "While blondes may have more fun, a new study suggests that fair-haired ladies may be making those around them dumber.

    Researchers found that men's scores on general knowledge tests drop when they are shown photos of blonde women, the Sunday Times of London reported.

    Upon further inspection, it was found that the test subjects were not distracted by the light hair, but driven by social stereotypes to "think blonde.""

    Josephine, when do you leave for Iraq?

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 11:00 AM


    V,
    I am talking about abortion regret. The affects of abortion on women.


    But you know that. You are only here to stir things up, rile up commenters, derail the threads. You will go the way of so many that have gone before you. My one regret today is that I danced this tango with you.
    I will allow someone else to dance this dance.

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 11:06 AM


    Asitis :"lauren, I never disagreed that there is a corelation between cohabitation and divorce. But this does not mean that cohabitation itself leads to divorce. Nor does it mean that in general people who cohabitate are the type of people that will divorce. Some are, but not all."

    Its simple Asitis. If there is indeed a strong correlation, there are essentially three explanations. One, people who tend to divorce then to cohabitate. Two, people who cohabitate become people who tend to divorce. Three, there is a third factor, such as depression, lack of morality or commitement, selfishness, etc, that leads to BOTH divorce and cohabitation. Its a simple as that. If you think you understand correlations differently, feel free to propose a hypothetical explanation to why there is a correlation that stands outside of the three relationships I just presented.

    Josephine: "Brunettes tend to have higher ACT scores than blondes. That doesn't mean that they're ACT scores are higher BECAUSE they're brunette, Lauren."

    No it doesnt, but there must be SOME explanation. Again, there are three possible relationships. Either brunette people are generally better on the ACT, the ACT is skewed in some way to better support brunette people, or else there is a third factor such as social obligation for blondes to not study or blondes are more attractive and therefore do not NEED to be smart to survive or whatever. How else would you explain it Josephine? If there is indeed a correlation, there is some explanation. Its simple.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 11:07 AM


    For the record, I am almost certainly the blondest person you know outside of true albinos.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 11:10 AM


    How am I doing so far Carla? ;)

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 11:14 AM


    What Id like to see in the study is whether or not they studied "natural" blondes, or people who are brunettes who alter their hair to be blonde.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 11:17 AM


    Oliver (lauren?), I would say the higher divorce rate among people who cohabitate is (as I have been saying) due in part to a portion of these people being prone to failing at longterm relationships for what ever reason. Again, it does not mean that cohabitation itself leads to divorce nor that, in general, people who cohabitate are prone to divorce.

    I lived with my boyfriend for 3 years prior to marriage. He is now my husband of almost 20 years.

    Another thing about this cohabitation and divorce rate corelation: There are couples who come from religions, societies and times where cohabitation and divorce are/were both strictly taboo. They will have an impact on the divorce rate for non-cohabitating couples. Doesn't say anything about the health and happiness of their marriage though.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 11:27 AM


    What Id like to see in the study is whether or not they studied "natural" blondes, or people who are brunettes who alter their hair to be blonde.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 11:17 AM

    I don't think those "dumb men" would know the difference!

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 11:28 AM


    Asitis: "Oliver (lauren?), I would say the higher divorce rate among people who cohabitate is (as I have been saying) due in part to a portion of these people being prone to failing at longterm relationships for what ever reason. Again, it does not mean that cohabitation itself leads to divorce nor that, in general, people who cohabitate are prone to divorce."

    Let me break your point down into two points.

    1)the higher divorce rate among people who cohabitate is...due in part to a portion of these people being prone to failing at longterm relationships...

    2)does not mean that...in general people who cohabitate are prone to divorce.

    In statement one you asserted that the reason cohabitators divorce is due to the fact that they are PRONE to failure at long term relationship. You then in statement two stated that it does not mean that people who choabitate are prone to divorce. Surely you see how those two sentences run in direct conflict with each other right?

    If there is a characteristic, in your case failure to sustain long term relationships, that unites cohabitators as people who tend to divorce, then you can see that people who tend to cohabitate, tend to divorce.

    A -> B
    A -> C

    Therefore B and C have a correlation which connects to tendencies as well as the function of a third cause. Does it mean that "failure at long term relationships" is the only cause? Of course not, but by nature of the large numbers, it does indicate that there is a connection at the very least that shows simply that cohabitators are more likely to be the type of person to ditch a relationship, even if it is marriage.

    The results? Well first it goes to show that if you are interested in cohabitating, it is more likely that you will end your relationship than if you showed no interest in cohabitating. It also allows us to infer that if we can encourage our children to understand that cohabitation is likely the symptom of another, greater problem, such as in your suggestion, the inability to maintain healthy relationships, we can help our children to seek counsoling. Finally, as a single person, you can view potential partners as "high-risk" if they have an interest in cohabitating.

    Of course, Id like to argue that cohabitating causes divorce, but I can accept it as another symptom of a greater problem, as you suggest Asitis.

    (By the way, I wasnt talking about your study. I looked that up, and its complete hogwash. Id like to see how they can prove the drop in scores was due to "acting blonde" and not due to other factors.)


    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 11:45 AM


    In statement one you asserted that the reason cohabitators divorce is due to the fact that they are PRONE to failure at long term relationship. You then in statement two stated that it does not mean that people who choabitate are prone to divorce. Surely you see how those two sentences run in direct conflict with each other right?
    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 11:45 AM

    Oliver are you purposely missing my point????? You have left two key things out when you rewrote my statements.

    I said that A PORTION are prone to failure. And I said that it does not mean that, IN GENERAL, people who cohabitate are prone to divorce."


    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 11:52 AM


    As for the blonde "study" Oliver, I didn't take that too seriously either. It was meant in good fun!

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 11:54 AM


    Asitis: "Oliver are you purposely missing my point????? You have left two key things out when you rewrote my statements.

    I said that A PORTION are prone to failure. And I said that it does not mean that, IN GENERAL, people who cohabitate are prone to divorce.""

    I assumed that when you said "portion" that you meant a "higher portion," considering that is what the study said. A portion of every group is prone to divorce, what the hell would the point of saying that? A portion of parrots are prone to divorce, who cares? The point of the study was to point out that a LARGER portion of cohabitators are MORE prone to divorce than non-cohabitators. Therefore, people who are cohabitators are MORE likely to divorce than non-cohabitators, pointing to an obvious problem with cohabitating.

    I didnt rewrite your sentences either. I cut out the irrelevent parts with "..." I didnt change a word or even cut your words to mean anything different, and in fact I quoted you in entirity before I trimed down your statements to make your point more obviously contradictory.

    I gave you too much credit to assume that when you mentioned "portion" you were refering to the actual thing we are discussing - the significantly higher portion. Excuse me for assuming that you wanted to debate on topic. Regardless, how can you explain the higher correlation Asitis?

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 12:11 PM


    Regardless, how can you explain the higher correlation Asitis?
    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 12:11 PM

    I blame George Bush.


    Seriously, though, the correlations could be a lot of things, including ambivalent feelings about being married in the first place. It could be that less religious stigma about living together might equal less stigma about divorce and therefore more of a willingness to leave an unhappy marriage.

    whatever the cause of the correlation, it doesn't follow that if these same people got married without living together first they'd be more successful or happier.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 12:51 PM


    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 11:45 AM
    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 12:11 PM

    points noted. nicely done Oliver.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 1:01 PM



    whatever the cause of the correlation, it doesn't follow that if these same people got married without living together first they'd be more successful or happier.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 12:51 PM

    yes it does. You are assuming that there are no factors that contribute to the demise of a cohabitating relationship, but in fact there are.
    These relationships do not develop in a healthy manner since they are centered on sex (which I know you will dispute, but research has also proven this aspect as well).
    A relationship centered on sex does not develop in a healthy manner.
    The partners tend to view one another as objects which satisfy a need rather than approaching the relationship as one of service to each other.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 1:25 PM


    Oliver, Oliver, Oliver.......


    You said:"I assumed that when you said "portion" that you meant a "higher portion," considering that is what the study said. A portion of every group is prone to divorce, what the hell would the point of saying that?"

    Oliver, I did not say a portion was prone to divorce... I said a portion was prone to failure at relationships.

    You said: "I cut out the irrelevent parts with "..." I didnt change a word or even cut your words to mean anything different, and in fact I quoted you in entirity before I trimed down your statements to make your point more obviously contradictory."

    Oliver the parts you cut out WERE relevant. Furthermore, once they are added back in there is nothing nothing contradictory about what i was saying. As I have already shown......


    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 1:28 PM


    Hal: "whatever the cause of the correlation, it doesn't follow that if these same people got married without living together first they'd be more successful or happier."


    No, you couldnt say that it would necessarily happen, but it could be said to be a possibility, until the other explanations are ruled out. In other words, there needs to be more work done to narrow down the range of possibilities. However, it still stands that someone who wants to cohabitate it more likely to divorce, so regardless of the decision, it would be worth it to be more suspicious of partners who want to cohabitate, and to be at least a little concerned psychologically if you find yourself interested in cohabitation. At least if you find it important to develop long term relationships.

    Personally, I like your "lessen stigma" suggestion. People who cohabitate have lower standards when it comes to comitment and are more likely to "leave" an unhappy marriage, as you put it, as opposed to working through the marriage.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 1:29 PM


    whatever the cause of the correlation, it doesn't follow that if these same people got married without living together first they'd be more successful or happier.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 12:51 PM

    yes it does. You are assuming that there are no factors that contribute to the demise of a cohabitating relationship, but in fact there are.
    These relationships do not develop in a healthy manner since they are centered on sex (which I know you will dispute, but research has also proven this aspect as well).
    A relationship centered on sex does not develop in a healthy manner.
    The partners tend to view one another as objects which satisfy a need rather than approaching the relationship as one of service to each other.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 1:25 PM

    toostunned, once again, these suppositions are based on your own beliefs and how you want to view people who live and believ differently than you do. You have NO idea what you are talking about. Hey, but what do I know, having experienced both and knowing others who have as well?

    Hal, you could also say that it doesn't follow that a happily married couple would be any less happily married or successful if they had lived together first.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 1:34 PM


    However, it still stands that someone who wants to cohabitate it more likely to divorce

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 1:29 PM

    Again, you are generalizing Oliver.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 1:37 PM


    Asitis: "Oliver, Oliver, Oliver.......


    Oliver, I did not say a portion was prone to divorce... I said a portion was prone to failure at relationships. "

    ...which is what you said explains the divorce. Or as you said...

    "I would say the higher divorce rate among people who cohabitate is (as I have been saying) due in part to a portion of these people being prone to failing at longterm relationships for what ever reason."

    Heres the flow of logic.

    Cohabitator -> prone to failure at longterm relationship

    prone to failure at longterm relationship -> higher divorce rate

    A -> B -> C

    Therefore, you can claim that A -> C.

    So you did say that cohabitators are prone to divorce, by saying that they are prone to difficulty with long term relationships, which you then claimed influences the higher divorce rate.

    If youd like to recant your opinion, go for it, and then offer up another explanation as to why cohabitators have a higher correlation with divorce than non-cohabitators.


    Asitis: "Oliver the parts you cut out WERE relevant. Furthermore, once they are added back in there is nothing nothing contradictory about what i was saying. As I have already shown......"

    First of all, the lines of text that you used to point out that you were not making contradictory statements were INCLUDED in the truncated quote. Second of all, here is the truncated quote, with the irrelevant statements in parenthesis to point out why they are irrelevent.

    [Oliver (lauren?), I would say]the higher divorce rate among people who cohabitate is [(as I have been saying)] due in part to a portion of these people being prone to failing at longterm relationships [for what ever reason. Again,] it does not mean that [cohabitation itself leads to divorce nor that,] in general, people who cohabitate are prone to divorce."


    So care to explain to me how....

    "Oliver (lauren?), I would say"
    "[(as I have been saying)"
    "for what ever reason. Again"
    "cohabitation itself leads to divorce nor that"

    ...is relevant to what we are talking about? Please stop hiding behind smoke and mirrors. Im not distorting your statements and you know that.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 1:43 PM


    Oliver you might as well face the facts on this thread:
    any study that doesn't support a certain ideology is "generalizing"! lol **
    have a nice day: I'm letting the trolls have it their way! (it makes them happy!)

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 1:45 PM


    Asitis: "Again, you are generalizing Oliver."

    Yes, and properly so. There is a higher divorce rate for people who cohabitate, therefore it is a logical statement to say that people who cohabitate are more likely to divorce. Period.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 1:46 PM


    I think it is less that Asitis is defiantely defending a position in spite of logic, and more that she does not really understand what she is defending or how to do so. She probably really believes what she is saying makes logical sense. There are worse people out there than Asitis. Ill take ignorance over chicanery any day.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 1:51 PM


    Last post aimed at you, TSTL by the way.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 1:51 PM


    "So you did say that cohabitators are prone to divorce, by saying that they are prone to difficulty with long term relationships, which you then claimed influences the higher divorce rate.

    If youd like to recant your opinion, go for it, and then offer up another explanation as to why cohabitators have a higher correlation with divorce than non-cohabitators."

    Oliver, oliver...... One more time: I said that SOME cohabitors are prone to failure at long term relationships and thuse if they get married they are prone to divorce. It is not the cohabitating that makes their marriages fail. They would probably fail at marriage even if they hadn't lived together first. Why can you not see this?

    So why the corelation? Well, you have the cohabitors I just discussed bringing the divorce rate up. And you people who come from societies, religions or times that discourage living together and divorce bring the divorce rate of the non-cohabitors down.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 1:59 PM


    Sorry Oliver I disagree :-) (again, *sigh*)
    I think sophistry is at work here to be honest.
    Nevertheless, whatever it is, it's tiresome AND boring.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 2:00 PM


    These relationships do not develop in a healthy manner since they are centered on sex (which I know you will dispute, but research has also proven this aspect as well).
    A relationship centered on sex does not develop in a healthy manner.
    The partners tend to view one another as objects which satisfy a need rather than approaching the relationship as one of service to each other.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 1:25 PM

    I'm quite sure some people get married because they enjoy having sex (or wish to have sex) with their future spouse.

    Having been through both, I can't say I was more interested in sex with the people I cohabitated with than the people I married. In fact, I never even had sex with one girlfriend I lived with.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 2:04 PM


    First of all, the lines of text that you used to point out that you were not making contradictory statements were INCLUDED in the truncated quote. Second of all, here is the truncated quote, with the irrelevant statements in parenthesis to point out why they are irrelevent.

    [Oliver (lauren?), I would say]the higher divorce rate among people who cohabitate is [(as I have been saying)] due in part to a portion of these people being prone to failing at longterm relationships [for what ever reason. Again,] it does not mean that [cohabitation itself leads to divorce nor that,] in general, people who cohabitate are prone to divorce."

    Im not distorting your statements and you know that.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 1:43 PM

    Are you dense Oliver? Or do you think I am? Come on...... I have already pointed put to you that you excluded "a portion of" and "in general". Those were the key words, not what you have put in parentheses above.

    Here it is .... one more time.....

    In statement one you asserted that the reason cohabitators divorce is due to the fact that they are PRONE to failure at long term relationship. You then in statement two stated that it does not mean that people who choabitate are prone to divorce. Surely you see how those two sentences run in direct conflict with each other right?
    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 11:45 AM

    Oliver are you purposely missing my point????? You have left two key things out when you rewrote my statements.

    I said that A PORTION are prone to failure. And I said that it does not mean that, IN GENERAL, people who cohabitate are prone to divorce."


    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 11:52 AM

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 2:05 PM


    I think it is less that Asitis is defiantely defending a position in spite of logic, and more that she does not really understand what she is defending or how to do so. She probably really believes what she is saying makes logical sense. There are worse people out there than Asitis. Ill take ignorance over chicanery any day.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 1:51 PM

    Actually Oliver, what I am saying is logical. And not only do I believe what I am saying, I have lived it and seen others live it. I think it's just hard for you and toostunned to accept that people are living happy, successful, good lives that go against your religious beliefs. And that there is always a possibilty that in the end they will not go straight to hell for such a sin. Let it go.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 2:10 PM


    I'm quite sure some people get married because they enjoy having sex (or wish to have sex) with their future spouse.

    Having been through both, I can't say I was more interested in sex with the people I cohabitated with than the people I married. In fact, I never even had sex with one girlfriend I lived with.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 2:04 PM

    That's what I mean Hal. Toostunned is exactly that. Doesn't really know what she is talking about on this one.

    And I think your first point is an interesting one. For people told that sex before marriage is wrong, you can sure bet sex is a BIG part of their decision to get married!

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 2:15 PM


    Asitis: "Oliver, oliver...... One more time: I said that SOME cohabitors are prone to failure at long term relationships and thuse if they get married they are prone to divorce. It is not the cohabitating that makes their marriages fail. They would probably fail at marriage even if they hadn't lived together first. Why can you not see this?"

    The issue isnt SOME verus MOST. Im disapointed that you dont realize this. The issue is MORE versus LESS. MORE cohabitators divorce, period. Your explanation for the correlation is that they do so because MORE cohabitators have unhealthy relationships. This leads to the conclusion that if someone is a cohabitator that they are MORE LIKELY to have unhealthy relationships and MORE LIKELY to divorce.

    Asitis: "So why the corelation? Well, you have the cohabitors I just discussed bringing the divorce rate up. And you people who come from societies, religions or times that discourage living together and divorce bring the divorce rate of the non-cohabitors down."

    In other words, people who tend not to cohabitate are more likely to respect marriage than those who do cohabitate, and are, according to you, more likely to have healthier long term relationships, regardless of the cause.

    I did not cut out a "portion," I actually posted it two times. The problem is that you used a portion as a bullshit platitude to mean "some." Of course some, there are some Christians who are gay and some Christians who divorce 5 times. Some is useless and not a part of this argument. What is a part of this argument and what I mistakenly assumed you meant by portion, was that the portion is LARGER. I didnt realize that you like to talk about tangental issues. However, I never tried to obscure what you said as I quoted you accurately twice in the post. I misunderstood you based on the context of the discussion.

    Regardless it still stands that cohabitators divorce more often, so it is more likely for someone who cohabitates to divorce than for those who do not. Your explanation is that those who cohabitate have more trouble with relationships, which is a fine possible explanation.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:19 PM


    Actually Oliver, what I am saying is logical. Asitis: "And not only do I believe what I am saying, I have lived it and seen others live it. I think it's just hard for you and toostunned to accept that people are living happy, successful, good lives that go against your religious beliefs. And that there is always a possibilty that in the end they will not go straight to hell for such a sin. Let it go. "

    Whoa whoa whoa. When did I say that it was wrong to cohabitate? When did I say it was against my religious beliefs? Slow down there.

    Also, who cares if you "lived it?" You are one example out of millions. Your one example in case you dont know, which I can only assume you dont, is hardly a representative sample of the entire cohabitating population. My two brother's examples outweigh your one already, let alone the other millions.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:21 PM


    Hey Oliver, you should read this. More recent studies are actually finding that cohabitation can lead to LOWER divorce rates. And they are looking closer at actual causes and trying to get a better understanding of the issues.

    Hmmmmm....................


    A generation ago, unmarried couples who lived together were often derided for "shacking up" or "playing house." Studies in the 1980s supported those negative stereotypes, suggesting that cohabitation could doom a long-term relationship, substantially raising the risk of divorce.
    While researchers say the overall divorce rate is higher among those who lived together before marriage, now they don't blame cohabitating.

    "There's been a sea change in societal, cultural and individual acceptance of cohabitation," says Pamela Smock, a sociologist at the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. "A lot of the earlier studies were relying on data that may have been gathered in the late '80s and mid-'90s. We're talking about a moving target. The evidence is a lot more mixed."


    CENSUS: More unmarried couples living together

    Researchers say changing times have produced more extensive information about cohabiters and more sophisticated research methods.

    FIND MORE STORIES IN: New York | University of Minnesota | University of Wisconsin | Bellingham | Ithaca | Pennsylvania State University | Western Washington University | Journal of Marriage | National Longitudinal Survey of Youth | National Survey of Family Growth | University of Michigan-Ann Arbor | Pamela Smock | Population Studies Center
    Census data out today show 9.6% of all opposite-sex couples living together in 2007 were unmarried. "Cohabitation has become a common experience in people's lives," Smock says.

    "The nature of cohabitation has changed," says Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham. "Cohabitators 20 years ago were the rule breakers, the rebels, the risk takers — the folks who were perhaps not as interested in marriage, and using cohabitation as an alternative to marriage."


    VOTE: Which best describes your views on cohabitation?

    "Twenty or 25 years ago, if you were cohabiting and then married them, the marriage was more likely to dissolve and end in divorce," he says. "Today, that's not the case. You can cohabit with your spouse and not experience increased risk of divorce. We're making these finer distinctions that we didn't make before."

    Teachman's analysis of federal data on 6,577 women whose first marriages occurred between 1970 and 1995 found that a woman who has lived only with her future spouse has no greater risk of divorce. But for women who lived with someone else in addition to the eventual husband, there is a greater risk of divorce, found the study, published in 2003.

    Those aren't the only studies reflecting changes — researchers across the country, including at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Minnesota, Pennsylvania State University, Cornell University and others, are studying cohabiting couples. Among other recent findings:

    • The odds of divorce among women who married their only cohabiting partner were 28% lower than among women who never cohabited before marriage, according to sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

    • Divorce rates for those who cohabit more than once are more than twice as high as for women who cohabited only with their eventual husbands, says Lichter's study, to be published in the Journal of Marriage and Family in December.

    • Cohabiting between a first and second marriage doesn't raise the risk of divorce — unless the woman brings a child into the marriage from a previous relationship. A man with a child from a previous relationship does not raise the likelihood of a second divorce, finds a study in the May Journal of Marriage and Family, in which Teachman analyzed findings on 655 women from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.

    Other recent studies have shown that certain subgroups don't appear to experience negative effects from cohabiting, such as engaged couples who move in together or those who have already decided to marry in the future.

    Some new research goes further, suggesting that living together may reduce risk of divorce.

    "We showed women who only cohabited with their husband had lower rates of divorce than women who didn't cohabit and went straight to marriage," Lichter says. "There seems to be less risk than if you cohabit many times or if you don't cohabit at all." An academic paper on that lower divorce risk for cohabiters is forthcoming, he says.

    His research on serial cohabitation analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and found that women living with even one more man in a romantic relationship other than the eventual spouse increased divorce risk.

    Sociologist Kelly Musick, also from Cornell, says the focus on cohabitation research is shifting.

    "The emphasis in the cohabitation literature for a very long time was on trying to understand why couples who cohabit before marriage split up at higher rates than those who don't," she says. "More recent studies have tried to understand more about what it means and look at it more as a family form in its own right."

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 2:29 PM


    "other words, people who tend not to cohabitate are more likely to respect marriage than those who do cohabitate, and are, according to you, more likely to have healthier long term relationships, regardless of the cause."

    Nice try. I said nothing about their marriages being "healthier".

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 2:32 PM


    Regardless it still stands that cohabitators divorce more often, so it is more likely for someone who cohabitates to divorce than for those who do not. Your explanation is that those who cohabitate have more trouble with relationships, which is a fine possible explanation.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:19 PM

    Ha! There you go making generalizations again. SOME cohabitors have trouble with relationships. Others are just fine with them.

    You might want to be careful with generalizations now that more current research is coming out. They could bite you in the butt!

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 2:36 PM


    I associate the "death" of a relationship as "unhealthy." If a marriage is more likely to survive and last it is healthier. So if cohabitators are more likely to divorce and non-cohabitators are more likely to not divorce, then non-cohabitators are having longer lasting marriages, and therefore healthier marriages.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:41 PM


    Whoa whoa whoa. When did I say that it was wrong to cohabitate? When did I say it was against my religious beliefs? Slow down there.

    Also, who cares if you "lived it?"

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:21 PM

    Sorry, Oliver I jumped the gun there and assumed you were as here-now-holier-than-thou as toostunned! So you don't think it's wrong to cohabitate? It's not against your religious beliefs?

    Who cares if I lived it? I do. And it's part of why I think cohabitation is a smart choice. Just as say Carla's having an abortion is part of why she thinks it's a bad choice. Do you ever ask her who cares?

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 2:42 PM


    Asitis: "Ha! There you go making generalizations again. SOME cohabitors have trouble with relationships. Others are just fine with them.

    You might want to be careful with generalizations now that more current research is coming out. They could bite you in the butt!"

    What the hell are you talking about? Some have trouble and some dont. Cant you get through your brain? Some versus most is NOT the issue. The issue is who is more likely to have problems. Sheesh. Of course "others are just fine." My point is not that everyone who cohabitates is going to divorce, but just that the statstics hold that if you are a cohabitator, you are more likely to divorce, period. It doesnt mean you will, just that you are at great risk.


    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:44 PM


    I associate the "death" of a relationship as "unhealthy." If a marriage is more likely to survive and last it is healthier. So if cohabitators are more likely to divorce and non-cohabitators are more likely to not divorce, then non-cohabitators are having longer lasting marriages, and therefore healthier marriages.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:41 PM

    Oliver you are overlooking the fact that a marriage can survive and still be unhealthy, possible even miserably so for either or both parties.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 2:45 PM


    Certainly, but the disolution of a relationship is akin to the death and therefore the unhealthier option.

    I hate to remind you yet again, but this is not an issue of absolutes, but an issue of comparison. "Healthy" is not the point, it is "healthier."

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:48 PM


    My point is not that everyone who cohabitates is going to divorce, but just that the statstics hold that if you are a cohabitator, you are more likely to divorce, period. It doesnt mean you will, just that you are at great risk.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:44 PM

    "Great risk"? How great Oliver? What percentage of previous cohabitors' marriages end in divorce? What percetage on non-cohabitors' end in divorce? What if the only person you cohabited with was the person you married?

    And you know.... the new studies are showing new trends..............

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 2:49 PM


    Asitis: "Sorry, Oliver I jumped the gun there and assumed you were as here-now-holier-than-thou as toostunned! So you don't think it's wrong to cohabitate? It's not against your religious beliefs?"

    You make lots of assumptions, actually. I personally dont give a rat's ass what other people do with each other. I dont believe it to be the morally correct thing, but that has nothing to do with its positive OR negative consequences and has nothing to do with how I live my life or raise my children.

    Asitis: "Who cares if I lived it? I do. And it's part of why I think cohabitation is a smart choice. Just as say Carla's having an abortion is part of why she thinks it's a bad choice. Do you ever ask her who cares?"

    No, but I would not use her experience to justify the abortion fallout for every or even the majority of women. Just like I wouldnt use Erin's experience to create a general belief. Your one experience is essentially meaningless in this conversation and is simply an appeal to emotion. The morality of abortion doesnt hinge on any one mother's experience, again positive OR negative. Abortion is wrong because it unjustly violates a human's right without his/her consent. Cohabitation doesnt fall under that category, so I dont care. What I care about is your wanton abuse of logic. Until we become a logical and thoughtful society, the abortion debate will be meaningless. Unfortunately, I dont really see that happening...just based on my experiences with the pro-choicers here. You guys arent interested in creating logically sound arguments, for the most part.


    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:54 PM


    Certainly, but the disolution of a relationship is akin to the death and therefore the unhealthier option.

    I hate to remind you yet again, but this is not an issue of absolutes, but an issue of comparison. "Healthy" is not the point, it is "healthier."

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:48 PM

    Healthy, healthier.... it doesn't really matter. You should simply stick to saying longer lasting marriages and not making any claim regarding "healthier".


    Oh, and you really should read the new studies.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 2:55 PM


    Asitis: "Healthy, healthier.... it doesn't really matter."

    It absolutely matters. Its the heart of your confusion. "Better" does not mean "Good" and "Worse" does not mean "Bad," etc etc.

    I did read your study and I dont really see much to be interested in. It seems that cohabitating with one person prior to marriage is better, but that cohabitating twice or more is worse. If you want to expand the debate, go for it. My point is that the mindset that is fine with cohabitating for the sake of cohabitating is either detremental to marriage, or is a product of another problem that is detremental to marriage. The single cohabitators are fine by me actually. Of course, Id like to know what percent of these "single cohabitators" are those already engaged or those already intending to marry and what percentage of these single cohabitators are "trying out" their partner and what the correlating divorce rates are.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 3:00 PM


    You (pro-choice) guys arent interested in creating logically sound arguments, for the most part.
    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 2:54 PM

    This cracks me up everytime I hear it here. I'm sorry, but it does.

    Okay so you don't believe cohabitation is "morally correct". Are you religious? Does this dictate your moral code?

    You misunderstood my use of Carla as an example, by the way.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 3:05 PM


    Wow, Oliver.. your views of relationships is depressing. I wouldn't want to be your wife who had to read that, you pretty much don't trust that she won't leave you. That's really sad..

    Hm, too bad for you guys I guess.

    Asitis, I'm blonde too! Like, WHITE blind. I think the numbers are skewed because blondes are much fewer than brunettes! :) It was just an example hahah.

    Oh, I leave for Iraq March 18th... it'll take about thirty hours to get there. Ugh.


    "If there is indeed a correlation, there is some explanation. Its simple."

    You apparently didn't get anything I said. Blondes arne't more attractive, brunettes aren't smarter.. there's NO reason. That's just how it is. Just like maybe couples that live together do have a "higher divorce rate" (which none of you have proven with facts, you just keep saying it..) but it doesn't mean they divorce because they live together.

    Oh, Oliver.. I'm also one of the blondest people ever. This is me: http://lh5.ggpht.com/_lx-OBkGay9o/SZM9-Is115I/AAAAAAAAAeE/LICg2_kadUc/josiemitch.jpg (that's not my bf..)

    The study was natural blondes, but I heard about this when I took the ACTs about four years ago. I'll try and find it now. It was a big deal 'cause I was the only natural blonde in my class. The ACT lady was telling us about it, and ribbing me the whooole time!

    Posted by: Josephine at February 11, 2009 3:09 PM


    Asitis: "Healthy, healthier.... it doesn't really matter."
    It absolutely matters. Its the heart of your confusion. "Better" does not mean "Good" and "Worse" does not mean "Bad," etc etc.

    I did read your study and I dont really see much to be interested in.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 3:00 PM

    Oliver, there is no "confusion". I am actually suggesting you should avoid using "healthier" to describe a surviving marriage (as opposed to a divorce) because this can be confused with happier or more successful. And that is not necessarily the case. The sad truth is that there are some miserable marriages out there. More miserable... more unhealthy.... than ones that have already ended in divorce.

    It's not "my study" by the way. And it's not just one. And I think you've already mentioned something of interest actually.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 3:10 PM


    Josephine, nice to have a face for the name. Your ARE a white blond! I'm actually a strawberry. With lots of freckles. Does that make me smarter than you? :)

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 3:14 PM


    "Does that make me smarter than you? :)"

    I'm pretty sure it definitely does! Unfortunately for us, everyone with brown hair makes us look slow. *Sigh*

    Posted by: Josephine at February 11, 2009 3:18 PM


    Ah well, at least we have more fun!

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 3:21 PM


    So the new studies are showing that living with your future spouse (and only your future spouse) prior to marriage results in a LOWER divorce rate than not cohabitating.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 3:38 PM


    Certainly, but the disolution of a relationship is akin to the death and therefore the unhealthier option."

    Oh, have to really disagree with that. There are many cases where a divorce is much healthier for Everybody then staying in an unhappy marriage.


    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 4:14 PM


    Hal :"I think pornographers have rights to publish. I think parents, not the government are responsible for protecting children from being exposed to things the parents don't want them exposed to."

    That's easier said than done. I refuse to bring my children into convenience stores with me anymore because I know that the stores, although they are SUPPOSED to have covers over all but the titles of the porn magazines behind the counter usually do NOT and that they are often "accidentally" stacked with the regular magazines at the front of the counter right at my preschooler's eye level and within her reach. (Yes, I complain to store management and call the national phone number for that chain each time it happens, but they don't really seem to care.)

    There are certain parts of town that I have to drive through (they are within a block, for example, of my children's doctor's office) that I have to have all of my children cover their eyes because of the lewd signs outside and, for older children, the words alone...

    If a perfectly acceptable show on, say, cooking, history, or some other such topic happens to be on late at night, I have to be quick when we watch the DVR'd version... the commercials are disgusting!

    Oh, and don't accidentally type "Little Women" into a search engine, Louisa May Alcott is the least of what you'll be exposed to...

    Not to mention the soft core porn thrown in gratuitously to many otherwise acceptable movies and TV shows. (Luckily my children are well trained and a sharp bark of "EYES!" gets hands over all little eyes in our household.)

    I am very, very, very cautious, especially with my sons, because my first marriage was destroyed by a pornography addiction that led my first husband to a double life I knew nothing about until he was arrested for selling engineering samples from the company he worked for on the black market to a very shady character in order to pay off blackmail to a stripper he had been having an affair with during my second and third pregnancies. This was after much counseling for his addiction after each incidence of my finding the evidence of his addiction during our marriage. Nothing helped. (He has since lost his family, not only that job but his entire career, and all standing with both of our families. I will never forget the look on his younger brother's face when he found out not only that we were divorcing, but WHY... it devastated him.)

    Posted by: Elisabeth at February 11, 2009 4:51 PM


    Oh, and as to the whole blonde/brunette issue, I'm opting out...

    I'm an Irish redhead...

    Posted by: Elisabeth at February 11, 2009 4:53 PM


    Elisabeth: I hear you about the convenience store situation. I don't patronize convenience stores because of the porn issue - particularly the porn movies.

    as an aside I did the search you suggested in google and had no problems....
    in fact the first 3 pages brought up sites relating to LMA's Little Women and one site on Little women for little women in afghanistan...
    What search engine did you use?

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 5:00 PM


    Elisabeth,
    Thank you for the wonderful comments on how to be a counter cultural parent!!

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 5:18 PM


    Elisabeth,

    I'm so sorry about what happened to you. I know things happen, I know there are addictions. I know it's terrible. However, we can't pretend that's the "norm"... it's not. You were in an unfortunate situation, VERY unfortunate.


    "So the new studies are showing that living with your future spouse (and only your future spouse) prior to marriage results in a LOWER divorce rate than not cohabitating.
    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 3:38 PM"


    YAY!!! I'm set, then!

    Posted by: Josephine at February 11, 2009 5:18 PM


    I am very, very, very cautious, especially with my sons, because my first marriage was destroyed by a pornography addiction that led my first husband to a double life I knew nothing about until he was arrested for selling engineering samples from the company he worked for on the black market to a very shady character in order to pay off blackmail to a stripper he had been having an affair with during my second and third pregnancies. This was after much counseling for his addiction after each incidence of my finding the evidence of his addiction during our marriage. Nothing helped. (He has since lost his family, not only that job but his entire career, and all standing with both of our families. I will never forget the look on his younger brother's face when he found out not only that we were divorcing, but WHY... it devastated him.)

    Posted by: Elisabeth at February 11, 2009 4:51 PM

    aww, this is just incredibly sad...
    I'm very sorry Elisabeth...:-(

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 5:27 PM


    "This month the General Household Survey found that the number of unmarried women under 50 has more than doubled over the past 30 years. And by the age of 30, one in five of these “freemales”, who have chosen independence over husband and family, has gone through a broken cohabitation."


    Just read this online! oh well, I guess it's just a generalization! lol

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 5:44 PM


    toostunnded, just because you read something on the internet doesn't make it true...

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 6:08 PM


    The women I know who have had abortions don't have regrets- me, my mom, several of my friends...and our abortions were 30-2 years ago. So there's that.

    Posted by: Wichita Linewoman at February 11, 2009 6:16 PM


    toostunnded, just because you read something on the internet doesn't make it true...

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 6:08 PM

    agreed! But the General Household Survey is nothing to snuff one's nose at.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 6:34 PM


    who have chosen independence over husband and family, has gone through a broken cohabitation."


    What the heck is a "broken cohabitation?" These women have chosen not to get married. According to the quote at least.

    No story here.

    Posted by: Hal at February 11, 2009 6:35 PM


    toostunned, just out of curiosity, how old is the article/survey? Don't you thin it is possible that trends involving marriage and cohabitation can change?

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 6:38 PM


    There are close to 4,000 Operation Outcry declarations from women who have been hurt by abortion. They continue to pour in daily and are used in prolife legislation across the US.

    Please go to http://www.operationoutcry.org

    and fill out a declaration if have been hurt by abortion and want your story to be added to thousands of others.

    You can also call The National Helpline for Abortion Recovery 1-866-482-LIFE to speak with someone who has been there.

    OR you can email me. :)

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 6:40 PM


    toostunned, I have trouble accepting a survey that says cohabitation is wrong, or harmful. This is because I have many family members and friends who cohabit, and they have all been together for many years. Not to mention, that the only divorses in my family are between those who DID NOT live together first.

    But, I can understand how you wouldn't take my word on it.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 6:46 PM


    toostunned, just out of curiosity, how old is the article/survey? Don't you thin it is possible that trends involving marriage and cohabitation can change?

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 6:38 PM

    I think there has been a little back rubbing and comforting on this thread in the form of inventing "trends" up by certain people to assuage their conscience.
    In fact, recent research is demonstrating what our parents and grandparents knew and lived - marriage is best while cohabitation is provides poor outcomes for women AND children. It impoverishes them, children are more open to abuse by women's partners (and in fact, most abuse comes at the hands of men who are NOT the child's natural father) and cohabitating relationships break down more frequently.
    The trend in cohabitation is not towards stability but towards repeated cohabitating relationships to the detriment of all involved.

    I think a broken cohabitation is self-explanatory. If you need that level of definition you really don't get much of anything, Hal. Cheers!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 6:54 PM


    TSTL,
    I seriously don't know how you do it....working through so many conversations and keeping on track. I admire that very much and I am grateful that you are here. I agree with much of of what you say.
    Thank you.

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 6:58 PM


    Josephine: "Wow, Oliver.. your views of relationships is depressing. I wouldn't want to be your wife who had to read that, you pretty much don't trust that she won't leave you. That's really sad.. "

    No, I dont blindly trust any human, and any seasoned adult understands this. Does it mean I dont "trust" her in the sense that I openly doubt her? Of course not, and you would see this by reading my post. I dont blindly trust that my wife is not a serial killer on the side. I barely blindly trust the laws of physics, honestly. I find myself, in spirit at least, on the side of Hegel, Berkeley and Descartes in that regard.

    Hopefully pretty soon you will learn that nothing can truly be claimed with full certainty. Otherwise you will open yourself up to clever deception. Then again, if I remember correctly, you support the Democratic Party, so I guess thats happened already.

    (By the way, I cant view your picture for whatever reason, but I would be suprised if your blondness surpasses mine. The doctors thought I was an albino when I was born. In fact, my sons prenatal doctor noted down that I was an albino 4 years ago.)

    Hal :"Oh, have to really disagree with that. There are many cases where a divorce is much healthier for Everybody then staying in an unhappy marriage."

    I expected someone to make this mistake. You have confused a healthy relationship with what is healthy for the people involved in the relationship. You cannot argue that a dead relationship is in fact a healthy relationship, even if it is in fact healthy for the people involved. The relationship is dead, in the least successful position possible.

    Asitis: "This cracks me up everytime I hear it here. I'm sorry, but it does."

    This cracks you up because you are relying on the perception of reality, not actual consideration of what is going on. It is the perception that "right-wing" ideas are ill-conceived and/or based on emotion and that the "left-wing" ideas are based on a progressive view of the world and/or rely on logical deduction backed up by education. However, the truth is that both "wings" uphold baseless beliefs on ethics and economics.

    A lot of what drives the left, for example, stems from base instinct or the desire to uproot the status quo. Those motives often contradict the basic assumptions about human rights and activity that are accepted universally, which is of course what makes the process of "reverse engineering" a support system so difficult. When it comes to the death penalty and when it comes to gay marriage and so on and so forth, there is a lot of good debate on both sides. However, when it comes to abortion, it has struck me that most pro-choicers have no real basis for their support outside of empty platitudes, and the few that do produce some form of support, trip over their own ethical shoe-laces so to speak.

    Dont get me wrong, a lot of pro-lifers do the same thing and they just happen to be on the right side of the argument. However, due in part because the pro-life side better coincides with our other universally held beliefs and principles, their arguments less often rely on circular reasoning and/or buzz phrases.

    So feel free to "crack up" when you hear anyone complain about the illogical left, but keep in mind that you are simply reacting to the "perceived" reality, which is exactly the reason why the left is so logically flawed in the first place.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 7:04 PM


    TSTL, even saying that cohabitation is a bad thing is a making reference to a trend.

    And, I don't think people are making up trends, but are telling you what they see are the general trends. No one needs to make you think that their lives are 'proper' or to relieve their conscience. Obviously, if these people thought it was wrong, they wouldn't do it.

    Maybe its just because I have close friends who live with their boyfriends or girlfriends, but I find it judgmental...To say that all cohabitation, or even most, is detrimental to women and children. I can agree that in SOME cases this may be true, but not all or most of them.

    The recent trends that I have seen, and studied in school, have shown that cohabitation trends are changing from being more related to divorse, to now being LESS related.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 7:08 PM


    Jodes: "toostunned, I have trouble accepting a survey that says cohabitation is wrong, or harmful. This is because I have many family members and friends who cohabit, and they have all been together for many years. Not to mention, that the only divorses in my family are between those who DID NOT live together first."

    Care to explain how your 4 or 5 examples are representative for the whole of cohabitation?

    Its funny because all my experiences are just the opposite. Everyone that I explicitily know to have had "live-in" boyfriends or girlfriends have ended their marriages or engagements, whereas everyone that I explicitly know to have NOT had "live in-" boyfriends or girlfriends have NOT ended their marriages or engagements. What does this mean? Nothing, because my 5 or 6 examples mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Please use some reason before you post next time.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 7:09 PM


    TSTL,
    I seriously don't know how you do it....working through so many conversations and keeping on track. I admire that very much and I am grateful that you are here. I agree with much of of what you say.
    Thank you.

    Posted by: Carla at February 11, 2009 6:58 PM

    why thank you Carla! *blushing* Does this mean we are tango-ing? I think you tangoed quite nicely earlier in the day!! God bless you!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:12 PM


    Oliver, I never said my examples reflects the whole.
    I said I have trouble accepting the trends you and TSTL have offered because of these examples.

    Maybe you should read what is being said before you try to tell me to use some sense.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 7:14 PM


    Jodes: "Oliver, I never said my examples reflects the whole.
    I said I have trouble accepting the trends you and TSTL have offered because of these examples.

    Maybe you should read what is being said before you try to tell me to use some sense."

    So you dont believe your examples are enough to base generalizations, yet you allow them to influence how you accept trends? Thats actually worse and more illogical. You openly do not think that your examples are representative. Why on earth would you allow them to influence your beliefs about the general trends?

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 7:18 PM


    Maybe its just because I have close friends who live with their boyfriends or girlfriends, but I find it judgmental...To say that all cohabitation, or even most, is detrimental to women and children. I can agree that in SOME cases this may be true, but not all or most of them.

    It is not a case of judging. It is a case of research studies and not anecdotal cases. The latter have some merit but it's the study of stats and family characteristics that make the case.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:21 PM


    Oliver

    I don't think ANYONE here, or just about anywhere, have enough examples to base generalizations. Yet, EVERYONE uses there own experiences to influence what they believe. Is it logical? Maybe not. But, it is human nature to use the information that you have directly observe.

    I never said I COULDN'T accept surveys or articles which have a different conclusion than the one I already have, but I would, like most people, have trouble with it because it is not what I have directly observed. That being said, I would also be more likely to question if said articles/surveys used enough examples or if they interpreted the results properly, as would anyone else.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 7:24 PM


    TSTL, I don't think you mean for it to sound judgmental, but that is how it sounded to me.

    I have to ask if you would accept new articles that are saying that it is no longer the trend, or that the trend is lessening, that cohabitation leads to divorse?

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 7:27 PM


    I think there has been a little back rubbing and comforting on this thread in the form of inventing "trends" up by certain people to assuage their conscience.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 6:54 PM


    hahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yeh, you're right too stunned. We made up all those recent studies!

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 7:36 PM


    It is not a case of judging. It is a case of research studies and not anecdotal cases. The latter have some merit but it's the study of stats and family characteristics that make the case.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:21 PM


    Too bad your research is outdated toostunned. And your exposure limited.

    Posted by: Anonymous at February 11, 2009 7:39 PM


    "So the new studies are showing that living with your future spouse (and only your future spouse) prior to marriage results in a LOWER divorce rate than not cohabitating.
    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 3:38 PM"


    YAY!!! I'm set, then!

    Posted by: Josephine at February 11, 2009 5:18 PM


    I know! You're gonna be alright kiddo. For a couple of blondes we're actually pretty smart! ;)

    Posted by: Anonymous at February 11, 2009 7:40 PM


    Those anons were moi!

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 7:40 PM


    Jodes :"I never said I COULDN'T accept surveys or articles which have a different conclusion than the one I already have, but I would, like most people, have trouble with it because it is not what I have directly observed. That being said, I would also be more likely to question if said articles/surveys used enough examples or if they interpreted the results properly, as would anyone else."

    Whether or not it is human nature is of little concern to me. Justifying unacceptable behavior by appeal to the "status quo" is what gets most people into unresolvable moral conflicts to begin with.

    Allowing your limited experience to affect your judgement is not really avoidable, this I understand. However, relying on those experiences to conciously build suspicion enough to post about it on the internet is where you cross the line into absurdity. Besides, how many of these marriages have you seen through to their entirity? How many of these "experiences" are even relevant to the discussion of long-term reprecussions?

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 7:41 PM


    I have to ask if you would accept new articles that are saying that it is no longer the trend, or that the trend is lessening, that cohabitation leads to divorse?

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 7:27 PM

    This I gotta hear.....

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 7:42 PM


    Oliver, I would admit that I haven't seen most of these relationships to the end, and in most cases I couldn't until someone dies.
    But how many are relevant to the discussion of long-term relationships? It depends on what you call long term. Being young, I would call relationships that are 10+ years long term. So yes, I would say I know a minimum of 5 couples that fit that description.

    To say that it is absurd to post something on the internet because of my own experiences, is in itself absurd to me. That is what 99% of people do. And you are one of them, even if you occasionally have some studies to back up your own personal beliefs.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 7:50 PM


    (By the way, I cant view your picture for whatever reason, but I would be suprised if your blondness surpasses mine. The doctors thought I was an albino when I was born. In fact, my sons prenatal doctor noted down that I was an albino 4 years ago.)

    "Oliver" is that you in the snaps under "Lauren"? If so, Josephine beats you in the uber-blonde competition.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 7:52 PM


    I have to ask if you would accept new articles that are saying that it is no longer the trend, or that the trend is lessening, that cohabitation leads to divorse?

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 7:27 PM

    I would have to critically review the research to assess the methodology. Often today, ideology gets in the way of honest unbiased research. This is especially the case in abortion research.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:57 PM


    TSTL, I would just like a yes or no answer, just so things don't get confused. To say you would need to critically review the research isn't an answer.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 8:00 PM


    TSTL, what I mean is, if the same methodology of these articles you cite now, if it was found, multiple times, that the trend is either decreasing or gone, would you accept it, or would you still believe in the older research?

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 8:06 PM


    Asitis: ""Oliver" is that you in the snaps under "Lauren"? If so, Josephine beats you in the uber-blonde competition. "

    No...thats my wife Lauren.

    Jodes: "Oliver, I would admit that I haven't seen most of these relationships to the end, and in most cases I couldn't until someone dies.
    But how many are relevant to the discussion of long-term relationships? It depends on what you call long term. Being young, I would call relationships that are 10+ years long term. So yes, I would say I know a minimum of 5 couples that fit that description."

    Although I would argue that 10+ is by no means a "long term" marriage, I would say that it would be enough to use as an example of at least a semi-respectable one. It still does not reverse the fact that those handful of experiences are meaningless in the overall debate.

    Jodes: "To say that it is absurd to post something on the internet because of my own experiences, is in itself absurd to me. That is what 99% of people do. And you are one of them, even if you occasionally have some studies to back up your own personal beliefs."

    You completely misunderstand me, whether or not it is intentional. My criticism of your post was directed not at the idea of posting opinions, but at the idea of formulating opinions about general trends based on a highly limited and tainted sample (friends and family.) The point was that you did not allow these experiences to simply affect you, but you actually used them to support suspicion enough to type down the thoughts in an open forum.

    Lots of people have illogical motives and beliefs, but many have the common sense to realize they are not useful in any realm of debate, be it internet or not.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 8:15 PM


    I would have to critically review the research to assess the methodology. Often today, ideology gets in the way of honest unbiased research. This is especially the case in abortion research.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 7:57 PM

    So true! David Reardon would be a prime example. Though odd you would bring that up, seeing as which side you're on.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 8:22 PM


    Asitis: Interesting...wheres your information on this? Id like to review it.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 8:26 PM


    Oliver, again, I don't think I can generalize based on personal experiences, so please stop talking to me as if I do. Thank you.

    I find it very bad form for you to question if I am purposely misinterpreting you, especially since I have never debated or even talked to you before.

    I did misunderstand you, and I am sorry. I will now answer you as I think I now have an understanding of what you are saying.

    Of course i let my experiences question what I was reading, especially since I have seen studies in school (I can't seem to find them right now, but I will try to so you can see for yourself) is contrary to what was being said here.

    And, please, do not suggest that I do not have the common sense to see the difference between reasonable and logical arguments from those that are not. It sets bad form that anyone who disagrees, they could just say *you* don't know the difference yourself. Just a suggestion. :D

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 8:43 PM


    TSTL, what I mean is, if the same methodology of these articles you cite now, if it was found, multiple times, that the trend is either decreasing or gone, would you accept it, or would you still believe in the older research?

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 8:06 PM

    I would evaluate the research based on it's methodology. And the methodology is rarely the same. There are many scientists and researchers today who set out to prove their bias rather than seeking the truth. And if a scientist or doctor experiences a trend that is counter to the accepted liberal ideology favored today, they are blown off as being poor researchers or having bias!
    Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS is one such physician who experienced such treatment when she noticed patients she was seeing for cancer had histories of abortion.
    Most research done by liberal think-tanks and those supporting liberal policy is blatantly biased and poorly done. Abortion research is a very good example of this. A comparison between abortion research conducted in North America and that done in Europe demonstrates a bias in the former where abortion is highly politicized. It is often possible to read a paper studying the effects on abortion and see that the researcher has found abortion significantly impacts women's health, only to be told in the conclusion that abortions have no discernable impact on women's health.
    The same has happened in the area of studies on the effect of placing children in daycare. Study after study has claimed to have demonstrated that children who attend daycare are better socially adjusted, have higher IQs, more adaptable, etc. etc. etc. Excpet that this is NOT the experience of many families and it is not borne out by good research.

    The most current research on cohabitation unfortunately from your point of view Jodes, merely reinforces what earlier research has stated: cohabiting couples have a higher rate of breakups and those couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher rate of divorce.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 9:00 PM


    Asitis: Interesting...wheres your information on this? Id like to review it.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 8:26 PM

    You mean about David Reardon? Seriously you haven't heard about this guy who does abortion "research". Bought his PhD, self-publishes his findings, calls himself the Elliot Institute...... If you seriously haven't and want me to show you some of the stuff I found when some people started citing him here, I will.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:02 PM


    The most current research on cohabitation unfortunately from your point of view Jodes, merely reinforces what earlier research has stated: cohabiting couples have a higher rate of breakups and those couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher rate of divorce.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 9:00 PM

    Actually toostunned, current research is showing that couples who cohabitate prior to getting married have a lower rate of divorce. Which is unfortunate from your point of view.....

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:04 PM


    "The most current research on cohabitation unfortunately from your point of view Jodes, merely reinforces what earlier research has stated: cohabiting couples have a higher rate of breakups and those couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher rate of divorce."

    I still haven't seen you prove this..


    "Most research done by liberal think-tanks and those supporting liberal policy is blatantly biased and poorly done. "

    Not like those uber-smart Republicans who don't believe in science. They do's goods study'un.

    Posted by: Josephine at February 11, 2009 9:05 PM


    TSTL, I think what I am asking is very simple, and I am afraid you seem to either not understand or are trying to pull me into an argument. But, I will try one more time.

    If the methodology that is utilized in the research which you believe, if it was used in a study (or more) and the results showed that the trend is the opposite to what you beleive, would you rethink your position, or would you cling to the older research?

    And, please, a simple yes or no.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 9:09 PM


    I would evaluate the research based on it's methodology. And the methodology is rarely the same. There are many scientists and researchers today who set out to prove their bias rather than seeking the truth. And if a scientist or doctor experiences a trend that is counter to the accepted liberal ideology favored today, they are blown off as being poor researchers or having bias!
    Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS is one such physician who experienced such treatment when she noticed patients she was seeing for cancer had histories of abortion.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 9:00 PM

    That's kind of funny coming from someone who gets their "research" articles off pro-life and catholic websites.

    As for the breast cancer and abortion link: has it ever been shown that breast cancer is a direct result of abortion. Or is there a corelation because abortion delays the age of first pregnancy, just as deciding to wait longer before getting pregnant would?

    Oh wait... let's see what the American Cancer Society has to say about this:

    Can Having an Abortion Cause or Contribute to Breast Cancer?

    Abortion and breast cancer can be hard to talk about

    Abortion and breast cancer are both topics that can bring out strong emotions in people. The issue of abortion is often linked to personal and political viewpoints -- even without a possible disease connection. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. It can be a life-threatening disease -- one that that many women fear.

    Linking these 2 topics creates a great deal of emotion and debate. But research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.

    How do hormones affect the breasts?

    A woman's risk of developing some types of breast cancer is related to hormone levels in the body. Breast cells normally grow and divide in response to the levels of certain hormones, such as estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin. Levels of these hormones change throughout a woman's life, but can change a lot during pregnancy. When a woman is pregnant, her body begins to prepare for breast-feeding by altering the levels of these hormones. This causes changes in the breast tissue.

    How might abortion affect hormones during pregnancy?

    Concern about a possible link between abortion and breast cancer has been raised because abortion is thought to interrupt the normal cycle of hormones during pregnancy. Some believe that this interruption increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

    There are different types of abortion:

    Spontaneous abortion, which most people refer to as a miscarriage, is the loss of a fetus before 5 months (20 weeks) into the pregnancy. It is often caused by problems with the fetus or with the maternal environment in which it is growing.
    Stillborn birth (stillbirth) is usually considered to be the death of a fetus after 5 months' gestation while still in the uterus (womb).
    Induced abortion is probably what most people consider "abortion." This refers to a medical procedure to end a pregnancy.
    All of these situations have been studied to see what effect they may have on a woman's risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

    Research on abortion and breast cancer

    Research study problems

    Many studies have looked at a possible link between abortions and an increased risk of breast cancer. But because of the nature of the topic, these studies have been difficult to conduct. This may help explain why some have reached different conclusions.

    Before 1973, induced abortions were illegal in much of the United States. So when researchers asked a woman about past pregnancies, she may not have been comfortable admitting that she had an illegal abortion. Even though abortion is now legal, it is still a very personal, private matter that many women do not like to talk about.

    Studies have shown that healthy women are less likely to report that they have had induced abortions. In contrast, women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease.

    The likelihood that women who have breast cancer will give a more complete account of their abortions than women who do not have breast cancer is an example of recall bias. Recall bias like this can cause studies to find links that don't exist

    Research study design

    Most early studies of abortion and breast cancer used a case-control study design, one that is very prone to recall bias. In these studies, women with and without breast cancer were asked to report past abortions. The researchers then compared the frequency of abortions in women with breast cancer (the cases) to those in women without breast cancer (the controls). It is likely that the higher rates of reported abortions in breast cancer cases (versus controls) seen in many of these studies were not true findings because of recall bias.

    A prospective (cohort) study design is stronger and less prone to bias. In this type of study, a group of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then are watched over a period of time to see if a new cancer occurs. In this type of study all of the women are cancer-free at the start, so there is no chance that having the disease will influence their memory of past abortions or their willingness to report past abortions.

    Some prospective studies have addressed the problem of recall bias by using new ways to find out about past induced abortions. For example, a recent study used birth certificates of children born to women with breast cancer to identify women who had had induced abortions. (The number of previous abortions was listed on these birth certificates.) This study found no increase in breast cancer risk in women whose abortion is followed by a live birth.

    Recent research has confirmed that the type of study likely plays a role in what is found. A review of the previous studies on this issue (see "Research study results"), covering tens of thousands of women, showed that women followed in prospective studies (which are less prone to bias) had no increased breast cancer risk if they had had an abortion. Case-control studies, which are prone to bias, pointed to a slight increase in risk.

    Research study results

    The largest, and probably the most reliable, single study of this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In that study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. So all information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries, was very complete, and was not influenced by recall bias.

    After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provides good evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

    Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003. Again, because they were asked about their reproductive history at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.

    The California Teachers Study also reported on more than 100,000 women in 2008. Researchers asked the women in 1995 about past induced and spontaneous abortions. While the women were being followed, more than 3,300 developed invasive breast cancer. There was no difference in breast cancer risk between the group who had either spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not had an abortion.

    What do the experts say?

    In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were:

    Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child).
    Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
    Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
    The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice also reviewed the available evidence and published its findings in August 2003. After the review, the Committee said that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."

    The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, recently put together the results from 53 separate studies done in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that "the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer." Again, these experts do not find that abortions (either induced or spontaneous) cause a higher breast cancer risk.

    Conclusion

    The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of human populations and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. As of 2008, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that induced abortion raises the risk of breast cancer.



    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:13 PM


    I would like to make a few other points:

    1. I have noticed on this blog that no matter what the topic is, every single liberal commentor on this blog claims to have had an experience that is counter to what the best research often quite ably demonstrates is wrong or unhealthy. I find this to be quite amazing.
    I have to say that my friends experiences and my experiences do not jive with this.

    For example, I have yet to meet a woman who has not experienced some regret at an abortion - even those who are prostitutes and whom one would think are very "hardened" persons.

    2. Much ridicule is heaped on persons who do not necessarily have the credentials from Ivy League schools. No matter. As long as the research is conducted with excellent methodology and can be supported by further research by other scientists in the field this should not be an point of contention. If one can attack a research only by attacking the researcher, then the research is probably hitting a very politically incorrect nerve.
    We would do well to remember that Steven Mosher exposed China's one-child/family law in the 1970's. He was immediately dismissed from his PHD program. Yet everything he wrote about in the late 1970's has come to fruition and has spread throughout the world.

    3. Aside from science, common sense also tells us that certain things simply cannot be correct no matter how many studies are "produced" by liberal ideologues:
    * daycare cannot be better than a mother staying at home to raise her child
    * living together before marriage without any sort of commitment cannot make better marriages
    * killing an unborn baby cannot be healthy for the mother or for the baby

    have a nice evening. I'm off to read War & Peace!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 9:14 PM


    Jodes: "And, please, do not suggest that I do not have the common sense to see the difference between reasonable and logical arguments from those that are not. It sets bad form that anyone who disagrees, they could just say *you* don't know the difference yourself. Just a suggestion. :D
    "

    Remember that you are the one who admited that it is possibly not "logical" to use personal experience to drum up support for suspicion. My question is why you would then use something that you openly claim is possibly illogical in the first place. If you now want to back up your beliefs based on studies, that is fine, but to come out claiming that you would be troubled to accept a belief because you have 4 or 5 examples of marriages, which you happen to also know were produced after a period of cohabitation, that have lasted over ten years, is to invite criticism.

    Here is an analogous example. Say everyone of your friends happens to love chocolate, and say that they all happen to also be very fit. Would it be reasonable to be especially doubtful of a study that asserts either that a majority of Americans dislike chocolate, or that people who like chocoloate are more likely to become obese later in life than those who do not? Of course not.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 9:15 PM


    Josephine "I'm so sorry about what happened to you. I know things happen, I know there are addictions. I know it's terrible. However, we can't pretend that's the "norm"... it's not. You were in an unfortunate situation, VERY unfortunate."

    Jo, it happens more than you think, beleieve me.

    Posted by: Jasper at February 11, 2009 9:15 PM


    And the National Cancer Institute:


    In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report .

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:16 PM


    Jasper-- I never denied it happened. It's NOT common though, it's NOT the norm, and we can't pretend it is. Just like people can drink, but being an alocholic isn't the norm. It happens a lot, and it's unfortunate-- in no way though are most people that drink "alcoholics."


    "* living together before marriage without any sort of commitment cannot make better marriages"

    Who lives together without commitment? You don't make sense. Living together is a HUGE commitment. Just because you're not married doesn't mean you're not in a committed relationship. Sheesh.

    By the way, TSTL, I'm sure you know loads of prostitutes.. *eyeroll*

    Posted by: Josephine at February 11, 2009 9:25 PM


    TSTL: "have a nice evening. I'm off to read War & Peace!"

    Good luck. I read about 500 pages and suddenly realized that there was a character who was actually two different people the whole time. I pretty much gave up. Apparently in Russia they only have 6 names. You would think they wouldnt write novels with 417 characters if they only have 6 names.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 9:27 PM


    TSTL, I think what I am asking is very simple, and I am afraid you seem to either not understand or are trying to pull me into an argument. But, I will try one more time.

    I'm not trying to bait you. I am not a troll as are some others on this board. I am telling you that the research will never show what YOU wish it to show because the truth is that cohabitation will not lead to lower rates of divorce. It is not an ideology it is a fact borne out by both research and generations of experience. An increase in cohabitation has seen a parallel increase in the divorce rate and a reduction in the number of marriages. So those couples who do marry AND have cohabitated prior to marriage have a much greater chance of divorcing.


    BTW Jodes, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute are highly politicized organizations who have stated that they have chosen to ignore the breast cancer risk and focus on prevention. Whatever that means?

    Women have successfully sued doctors and hospitals over developing breast cancer from abortion and in one case have also sued for incurring an increased risk because the patient was not informed that she would be at higher risk of breast cancer if she aborted.

    Cheers!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 9:30 PM


    Toostunned at 9:14pm

    Oh where to begin....

    In 1.... it would be interesting to hear what you mean by "best research"! And i for one, actually do know someone who does not have regret for an abortion. I also know someone who has regret for giving up for newborn for adoption.

    In 2.... we often are talking about "research that does not have "excellent methodology" and is not supported by other (respected) reasearchers in the field. And there's a huge difference between a PhD earned from an Ivy League school or any recognized college for that matter and one you buy.

    In 3.... Daycare can (sadly)be better, or just as good as a mother staying home. Living together before marriage can indeed be better for the marriage and in fact new studies are confirming this. And there are cases where abortion can be healthy for the the mother.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:30 PM


    TSTL: "have a nice evening. I'm off to read War & Peace!"

    Good luck. I read about 500 pages and suddenly realized that there was a character who was actually two different people the whole time. I pretty much gave up. Apparently in Russia they only have 6 names. You would think they wouldnt write novels with 417 characters if they only have 6 names.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 9:27 PM

    lol! hey this is my second go around! I'll let you know how I'm doing!

    Ever try reading the Silmarillion? Every character in that book has at least 3 names all in different languages! You need to read the appendix WITH the book!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 9:32 PM


    By the way, TSTL, I'm sure you know loads of prostitutes.. *eyeroll*


    Posted by: Josephine at February 11, 2009 9:25 PM

    you wouldn't believe the people I meet Josephine! And I love each and every one of em!
    :-D

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 9:34 PM


    TSTL, if you think that it will never happen, and you aren't a troll, then I don't understand why you won't answer the question.
    I am sorry for pushing this, but to me it just feels like you are coming up with excuses to not answer the question.

    Also, I don't know why you are telling me about an abortion and breast cancer link, or about the cancer societies... I had not mentioned them, and I don't feel like discussing it right now.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 9:37 PM


    BTW Jodes, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute are highly politicized organizations who have stated that they have chosen to ignore the breast cancer risk and focus on prevention. Whatever that means?

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 11, 2009 9:30 PM

    Probably means that there is insufficient evidence to warrant putting more money into the research when so much needs to be done elsewhere.

    It's funny how you are so suspicious of real experts but so quick to accept the findings of someone like Reardon or anything written on one of your catholic websites toostunned.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:37 PM


    Also, I don't know why you are telling me about an abortion and breast cancer link, or about the cancer societies... I had not mentioned them, and I don't feel like discussing it right now.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 9:37 PM

    It's because she doesn't want to address her comments to me. So she speaks to me through others. Kind of like in grade school. But with grown-ups.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:39 PM


    "Good luck. I read about 500 pages and suddenly realized that there was a character who was actually two different people the whole time. I pretty much gave up. Apparently in Russia they only have 6 names. You would think they wouldnt write novels with 417 characters if they only have 6 names."

    LOL...I remember using a little cheat sheet for "Crime and Punishment" that listed the names of the characters and how they were derived. I had to read it in a college lit. course. I enjoyed it much more that I thought I would!

    Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 11, 2009 9:41 PM


    "BTW Jodes, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute are highly politicized organizations who have stated that they have chosen to ignore the breast cancer risk and focus on prevention. "


    Political indeed...what a shame.

    Posted by: Jasper at February 11, 2009 9:41 PM


    asitis, because I don't post here often, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt as often as possible. Same goes for anyone here.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 9:42 PM


    That's a good approach to life Jodes!

    Have a good night.

    Posted by: asitis at February 11, 2009 9:53 PM


    again, just because the girls were willing to let themselves be used as sex objects and for the gratification of men doesn't mean we ought to let them go ahead and do this.

    Going way back in this thread, I found this to be a really interesting comment because these are consenting adult women we're talking about.

    I wonder how telling a statement it is on the motivation behind trying to control others in the so-called cultural wars.

    Posted by: Terezia at February 12, 2009 2:00 AM


    "For example, I have yet to meet a woman who has not experienced some regret at an abortion - even those who are prostitutes and whom one would think are very "hardened" persons."

    Let me introduce you to Erin, a very nice young woman who has no regret.

    Posted by: Hal at February 12, 2009 5:17 AM


    I wonder how telling a statement it is on the motivation behind trying to control others in the so-called cultural wars.


    Posted by: Terezia at February 12, 2009 2:00 AM

    Terezia, FYI, society controls the behavior of all of us in many ways. Can you go out and have 15 beers and then turn around and get in your car and drive home? You can but if you get caught you will have a problem.
    You can go and molest your young daughter and stream the video for people to see but we have laws against that too.
    You have NO idea whatsoever just how much feal "choice" was involved in those pictures and how much in manipulation by some man or woman. Just because a person can degrade themselves in front of millions doesn't mean we ought to let them? Maybe you see it as control but I see it as working to create a society where people including women! are not treated as objects but as persons.
    I am supposing then that you are quite in favor of things such as Girls gone wild since apparently all the women in those videos are consenting?

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 6:05 AM


    TSTL, if you think that it will never happen, and you aren't a troll, then I don't understand why you won't answer the question.
    I am sorry for pushing this, but to me it just feels like you are coming up with excuses to not answer the question.

    Also, I don't know why you are telling me about an abortion and breast cancer link, or about the cancer societies... I had not mentioned them, and I don't feel like discussing it right now.

    Posted by: jodes at February 11, 2009 9:37 PM

    I did give you an answer - I would evaluate the paper. Period.
    I seriously doubt that ANY study with impeccable methodology, done by a completely unbiased researcher would demonstrate what you want it to - namely that cohabitation LOWERS divorce rates.
    You are merely part of the 49% of the US population who believe that cohabitation has this affect. This is a myth propogated by social scientists and the media.
    Cohabitation breeds divorce.Period.
    I see your question as inherently dishonest, I'm sorry.
    I gave you the cancer info because of misinformation posted on the board. So sorry that you don't like to be informed, but you have a nice day anyway!

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 6:14 AM


    Hi Hal,
    Please remember that Erin is only a year out from her abortion and is also on medication. Whatever regret she might have in 7-9 years will simply be dealt with through meds.

    Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 6:52 AM


    tstl, good point at 6:05 AM. To exploit someone's "willing to consent" is very cynical. It shows a lack of respect or consideration for the dignity of the human person.

    Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 12, 2009 6:56 AM


    Cohabitation breeds divorce.Period.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 6:14 AM

    Toostunned, you are going to have to come to terms with current research findings. As it turns out, living with ( and only with) your spouse before you get married actually LOWERS the divorce rate.

    Not that you have to change your own personal view of cohabitation - that's rooted in your religious beliefs and no research findings or success rates are going to change your belief that cohabitation is a sin.

    You'll just have to stop telling people they are idiots for choosing cohabitation, that's all.

    Posted by: asitis at February 12, 2009 7:06 AM


    I am supposing then that you are quite in favor of things such as Girls gone wild since apparently all the women in those videos are consenting?

    In favour? As in do I approve of them? No.

    I am, however, very much in favour of laws that allow freedom of expression for everyone, whether I like what they're saying or not.

    Posted by: Terezia at February 12, 2009 9:14 AM


    TSTL, both examples you used wiere thinks that were illegal anyway. Do you have ANY examples of things that are illegal? Do we really have sticks SO FAR up our butts that we should actually tell women to stop doing things that they COMPLETELY consent to that are COMPLETELY legal.

    Most girls AREN'T being coerced. Thousands of girls TRY to get in Playboy!

    Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 9:44 AM


    Carla- two years.

    Posted by: Erin at February 12, 2009 10:57 AM


    TSTL, wow.
    Maybe you didn't mean it, but that last response was really judgmental and passive aggressive. I tried to have an actual conversation with you, and you seem determined to treat me as if I am not worthy of such.
    I understand now that your answer would be to ignore any new studies that do not suit your needs, because nothing could possibly be done to your standards. Unless, of course, it corresponds with your original beliefs.

    And, about that last sentence you just had to put in there...I do like being informed. But, your opinion is not information, and we were not discussing anything to do with that piece of 'information' you decided to tell me.

    So, thank you for finally answering my question!
    Have a wonderful day!

    Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 11:55 AM


    Whatever regret she might have in 7-9 years will simply be dealt with through meds.
    Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 6:52 AM

    Whatever regret she might or might not have in 7-9 years might or might not be dealt with through meds.

    I don't think there are 40 million American women on meds for the "regret" of their abortions.


    Posted by: Hal at February 12, 2009 12:51 PM


    TSTL, both examples you used wiere thinks that were illegal anyway. Do you have ANY examples of things that are illegal? Do we really have sticks SO FAR up our butts that we should actually tell women to stop doing things that they COMPLETELY consent to that are COMPLETELY legal.

    Most girls AREN'T being coerced. Thousands of girls TRY to get in Playboy!

    Posted by: Josephine at February 12, 2009 9:44 AM

    thank you Josephine for the crass response. Nevertheless, while you may believe that it's okay for a girl to desire and aspire to be in playboy, I do not. I think it's bad for the girl and bad for society to encourage an entire group of women to behave like this. And I thinks it's sad that a young "Catholic" girl like yourself would think otherwise. :-(

    Jodes: not passive aggressive though I'm sorry you think so. I think your posts try to hide your views and agenda but no so well. ;)
    I stated my position - I would evaluate the paper. You refused to accept this. So be it.

    Based on my professional and personal experience, there are many many flawed studies produced which claim to support the social engineering we've been subjected to the past 40 years. Among these include purportedly "authoritative" studies which demonstrated the
    1. preference of day care for children as young as 3 months
    2. the safety of abortion
    3. the preference of sex ed to reduce teen pregnancy
    4. the use of condoms to prevent disease and pregnancy
    5. cohabitation as a way to prevent divorce

    yet social science stats do not bear out a single one of these "methods" as being effective.

    In fact the opposite is true. Since these policies have been implemented we've seen astronomical rates of abortion, STI's, unwed teen mothers, divorce and dysfunctional kids.
    What are we told: more money for sex ed, condoms, abortions and laws that encourage daycare, divorce and cohabitation.
    To me the science simply isn't there and it will never be there.
    I'd be open to viewing such a study but it will never be produced because these behaviors do not lead to the outcomes that YOU wish. Cohabition does not lead to stable marriage. That was my point to you.
    Take or leave it - that's your "choice" .
    And thanks, I am having a very nice day indeedy! :-D

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 12:55 PM


    TSTL, I am not trying to hide my agenda, because I don't really have one. If you mean hiding my view point, then I'm not trying to hide it, because I already said what it was.

    I can't put my finger on it, but I still find you passive aggressive...I am sorry if I am interpreting your 'tone' wrong! Seriously, I am.

    I understand your position, very well actually, as my mom has the same one.
    However, I think it sets bad form to say that there will NEVER be evidence contrary to what you believe. I would agree that for many scientific theories, they will not be proven wrong. But, social science depends directly on people and the current beliefs of the majority.
    That is why I continued to ask the question, hoping for an answer beyond critically examining the research, because I would hope that everyone who reads an article would be critical of it. I was hoping for an answer one way or another, but if you don't have a definite answer, then please forgive my persistence in this matter.

    And, maybe this is only opinion, but it is not the same to say that cohabitation is more likely to lead to divorse as it is to say cohabitation does not lead to a stable marriage. It is possible to live together prior to marriage and still have a stable marriage.

    P.s. If I come off as childish or passive aggressive myself, I sincerely apologize! It is not my intent!

    Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 1:26 PM


    I wasn't talking about 40 million women, Hal. I was talking about Erin, who is already on meds.

    40 million women may be drinking or doing drugs to escape the pain of an abortion.

    I did read something somewhere about all of the antidepressants being popped by women ages 30-40. Hmmmmmm....think it might have something to do with postabortion regret?? Naaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

    Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 2:58 PM


    Cohabition does not lead to stable marriage. Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 12, 2009 12:55 PM

    Actually they do. And current research is showing this to be the case. You stand corrected.

    Posted by: asitis at February 12, 2009 7:39 PM


    TSTL, wow.
    Maybe you didn't mean it, but that last response was really judgmental

    Posted by: jodes at February 12, 2009 11:55 AM

    Oh she meant it alright jodes. If there's one thing toostunned is, it's judgemental. Through and through!

    Posted by: asitis at February 12, 2009 7:41 PM


    jodes, this may help you: one thing I have learned about toostunned is that she will go to great lengths to explain what constitutes valid research and complain that science is marred by bias. But then she up and gets all her "science" from catholic and pro-life websites. She cites the works of unrecognized (or even ridiculed!) "researchers" and totally discounts peer-reviewed journal articles based on sound research written by respected researchers. Basically, if it speaks to her beliefs it's valid. If it doesn't it's not.

    So that pretty much explains to you why she would never accept research that concludes that cohabitation leads to stable marriages.

    Hope that helps jodes.

    Posted by: asitis at February 12, 2009 7:52 PM


    I did read something somewhere about all of the antidepressants being popped by women ages 30-40. Hmmmmmm....think it might have something to do with postabortion regret?? Naaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

    Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 2:58 PM

    How about all those drugs those college boys are doing...... maybe that's abortion regret too. OMG...maybe Michael Phelps had an abortion!!!!!

    Posted by: asitis at February 12, 2009 7:55 PM


    Maybe Michael Phelps drove his girlfriend to get one!!! OR maybe he's a pothead!!!

    Off to ponder you some more, V. :)

    Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 10:08 PM


    Maybe all those 30-40 year old housewives are just druggies??????

    Posted by: asitis at February 12, 2009 10:31 PM


    jodes: you are the passive agressive one and then post that you are sorry if come off as such! lol (too funny, really!)

    My point once again *sigh*:

    Based on my professional and personal experience, there are many many flawed studies produced which claim to support the social engineering we've been subjected to the past 40 years.

    Yet social science stats do not support these behaviors as being ones which enhance the well-being of persons.

    As I stated previously, the opposite is true. As sexual mores have been loosened, and BC, abortion, divorce and so forth have been "encouraged" and promoted by legislation, media and society in general, we have seen the disintegration of the family and of society. We have seen the loss of protection for women and children and the rise of predatory males (and sometimes females too!).

    Prior to 1960, abortion was rare, STI's were not common - there were only 2 or 3, which were curable, fewer children born outside of marriage, fewer divorces and more marriages and stable families which produced functioning emotionally healthy adults. The world was not perfect but it WAS better for women and for children.


    To me the social science simply isn't there and it will never be there. Cohabitation is completely antithetical to marriage. It breeds poverty for women and children, instability for families, and so forth. Since cohabitation has become the norm, all of these problems have not subsided they have increased.

    Your proposition is not logical. It's like saying if you could show me research that proves an object dropped from a desk will travel upward would I believe it? Well, NO! Because I can demonstrate to you that objects fall to the ground 10 times out of 10!


    And as I said before: I consider the quality of the research, as I do for every source I use and for sources posted even by Jill Stanek.

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 7:39 AM


    I beg to differ toostunned: prior to 1960 the world was better for women and children? Certainly there are women that will disagree with you on that. And people that were children back then. Many that would really disagree!

    Now..... Being so conservative and traditional, you could say it was better for you toostunned, but not for all.

    Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 8:40 AM


    TSTL, You have your opinion. Fine. You think Cohabitation is not good for individuals or society. You're free to "discourage" it all you want. I think differently. No real reason to debate it. People will make their own decisions after listening, as much as they care to, to people like you and me.

    Posted by: Hal at February 13, 2009 2:09 PM


    That's pretty much it Hal!

    Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 3:35 PM


    People will make their own decisions after listening, as much as they care to, to people like you and me.

    Posted by: Hal at February 13, 2009 2:09 PM

    yes but perhaps they will not make the choice you think they will?!! :-D

    Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 13, 2009 3:44 PM


    It shouldn't matter to others what they choose toostunned. That's the beauty of having choices!
    Isn't it GREAT!

    Hopefully whatever it is, it's the right choice for them.

    Posted by: asitis at February 13, 2009 4:12 PM