Ten Questions to ask a woman before you propose to her (courtesy of Deadspin)

[NotAHenchwench]

It's not offense that's being taken, except to the use of misleading statistics to perpetuate personal beliefs. That particular cliche quip is tossed around as pure fact, hard evidence that living together before marriage is dooming to the marriage. I was simply pointing out that 'less divorces' do not equal 'more happy marriages.'

I agree with this. Not to mention there's no real way of telling if someone is actually in a happy marriage. If you ask them, they could just be lying their butts off.

The article itself strikes me as satirical, but some decent points have been made. I think it is important to live with someone for at least a year before you even THINK about getting married. I know it all depends on the couple, but I work best in a situation where I can see how my S.O. lives and try to co-exist with that person. The goal is to be harmonious in most things that you do around the house [because let's face it, quarrels happen] and in your lives together.

I also don't agree with one party being the primary bread winner for the family. Both people should have careers [hopefully ones they like] and be bringing in money and contributing. If there are kids involved, it complicates things, but if there are no kids, I feel quite strongly that both parties should be working and bringing in enough money to support themselves. To me, independence is a HUGE part of being in a relationship. If or when I ever get married, I'm always having my own bank account, no contest. Not that I wont trust my spouse, but I need small things like that to keep my semblance of self, and it'll make me a happier person in the long run.

Sorry... didn't mean to rant for so long.

 

[Hotwire]

4. If I agree to be the breadwinner in the family, will you accept that sometimes I have to DO ****ING WORK in order to win said bread?
Happens to some men out there. They get married, they get a job, they have a ****load of kids, and then wifey is on the phone at 2PM every day saying, "HEY, I NEED YOU TO COME HOME." Or, "Couldn't you take a day off or something?" Well, no. No, that isn't how it works. In order to live, we need MONEY. Which means we have to ****ing work, sometime late! We're not out a titty bar. We're not golfing. We're really, truly, legitimately working. And we'll be right home, unless you delay our work by calling every ten ****ing minutes.

My wife does this to me from time to time.

 

[katie_girl09]

It's not offense that's being taken, except to the use of misleading statistics to perpetuate personal beliefs. That particular cliche quip is tossed around as pure fact, hard evidence that living together before marriage is dooming to the marriage. I was simply pointing out that 'less divorces' do not equal 'more happy marriages.'

And be careful about chastising someone for making assumptions and then lobbing your own (as bolded). Makes you look hypocritical.

(1) Okay. So you make yet another assumption. This time about me. Why do you imply that I believe it is wrong to live together before marriage? When did I ever say that? Or do I have to have this belief because I mentioned a statistic? Pretty presumptuous.
(2) I have never claimed that it was fact! How many times have I said that statistics point to possible correlations between things? Why are you trying to make a non-issue into an issue?
(3) I'm a hypocrite because I suggested that some might not argue against the statistic if it had said the opposite was true? M'kay... Did I say that this was a fact in any way? It was obviously meant to be a suspicion. But you clearly have your opinions about me fixed so take from it whatever you will.

 

[katie_girl09]

Yea, forgive me for wanting a girl that likes me, and not my bank account.

Taking things too seriously much?

 

[Prison Mike]

Oh. And as for #1, I've read that couples who live together before getting married are actually more likely to get divorced than couples who don't statistically speaking.

I was taught that in sociology class. Most of the couples who live together prior to marriage are more likely to come from lower-class backgrounds and live together for financial reasons. I'm not saying ALL couples, just most of them...

 

[SentinelMind]

It's not offense that's being taken, except to the use of misleading statistics to perpetuate personal beliefs. That particular cliche quip is tossed around as pure fact, hard evidence that living together before marriage is dooming to the marriage. I was simply pointing out that 'less divorces' do not equal 'more happy marriages.'

And be careful about chastising someone for making assumptions and then lobbing your own (as bolded). Makes you look hypocritical.

I didn't see Katie perpetuate any personal beliefs in her initial post...just a factual statement, that people who cohabit before marriage are more likely to divorce. Its you who made the implication that they're "not really happy"...a typical smear against religious people (those most likely unwilling to cohabit)

The correlation is a fact. While you might imply those who don't cohabit people are "foolish", with lack of data ,...you seem to ignore the other MORE obvious implication...that those who cohabit beforehand were less likely able to determine that their relationship wouldn't work out before getting married than those who don't cohabit. The only objective conclusion is those who refuse to cohabit before hand are more likely to commit and stick together during the good and bad times as opposed to other casual couples who look for reason to split up.

 

[SentinelMind]

Because they have enough sense to leave if a relationship is obviously not working.

People who don't live together before marriage are likely religious and/or hold older fashioned ideas of marriage. Thus, they will stay in a marriage even if it's awful, abusive, loveless, etc- simply because 'marriage' means 'forever.' Statistics like that are misleading, because people automatically assume that less divorces equal more happy loving marriages.

Those who live together before marriage have unhappier marriages.A study by the National Council on Family Relations of 309 newlyweds found that those who cohabited first were less happy in marriage. Women complained about the quality of communication after the wedding. A physical relationship is an inadequate foundation upon which to build a lasting lifelong relationship. A study by researchers Alfred DeMars and Gerald Leslie (1984) found that those who live together prior to marriage scored lower on tests rating satisfaction with their marriages than couples who did not cohabit. A study by Dr. Joyce Brothers showed that cohabitation has a negative affect on the quality of a subsequent marriage (Scott 1994). Cohabitors without plans to marry were found to be more inclined to argue, hit, shout and have an unfair division of labor than married couples (Brown and Booth 1997).

http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-socio.html

 

[Logan's Runt]

(1) Okay. So you make yet another assumption. This time about me. Why do you imply that I believe it is wrong to live together before marriage? When did I ever say that? Or do I have to have this belief because I mentioned a statistic? Pretty presumptuous.
(2) I have never claimed that it was fact! How many times have I said that statistics point to possible correlations between things? Why are you trying to make a non-issue into an issue?
(3) I'm a hypocrite because I suggested that some might not argue against the statistic if it had said the opposite was true? M'kay... Did I say that this was a fact in any way? It was obviously meant to be a suspicion. But you clearly have your opinions about me fixed so take from it whatever you will.

1. I didn't imply that you particularly believe anything in particular. Statistics are used as evidence, as facts. They can be used for many things, but that little statistic is most often used to give weight to the opinion that people shouldn't cohabit before marriage. I couldn't care less what you believe, but I do care to debate what you present and what it represents.
2. It doesn't matter if you specify it as fact. Tossing out 'I read yadda yadda' implies to the casual reader that it is fact from a reputable source. Shame on them for believing it, yes, shame on you for being careless with your words, if that isn't what you meant. I'm not turning a non issue into an issue, I'm simply counterpointing what you say. When you talk, expect to be rebutted.
3. You're a hypocrite for making an assumption immediately after tsk-tsking me for assuming. Saying "I'm sure no one would be arguing against it" is a clear assumption. Now you're backpedaling and saying you said 'some might not' argue? You clearly said 'I'm sure no one', which is worlds apart.

 

[Logan's Runt]

Those who live together before marriage have unhappier marriages.A study by the National Council on Family Relations of 309 newlyweds found that those who cohabited first were less happy in marriage. Women complained about the quality of communication after the wedding. A physical relationship is an inadequate foundation upon which to build a lasting lifelong relationship. A study by researchers Alfred DeMars and Gerald Leslie (1984) found that those who live together prior to marriage scored lower on tests rating satisfaction with their marriages than couples who did not cohabit. A study by Dr. Joyce Brothers showed that cohabitation has a negative affect on the quality of a subsequent marriage (Scott 1994). Cohabitors without plans to marry were found to be more inclined to argue, hit, shout and have an unfair division of labor than married couples (Brown and Booth 1997).

http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-socio.html

You missed my point completely, congrats.

 

[SentinelMind]

You missed my point completely, congrats.

Why should I understand a point that's been proven wrong?

 

[Logan's Runt]

More evidence that you simply missed if completely, honey. But that's just fine for you.

 

[katie_girl09]

1. I didn't imply that you particularly believe anything in particular. Statistics are used as evidence, as facts. They can be used for many things, but that little statistic is most often used to give weight to the opinion that people shouldn't cohabit before marriage. I couldn't care less what you believe, but I do care to debate what you present and what it represents.
2. It doesn't matter if you specify it as fact. Tossing out 'I read yadda yadda' implies to the casual reader that it is fact from a reputable source. Shame on them for believing it, yes, shame on you for being careless with your words, if that isn't what you meant. I'm not turning a non issue into an issue, I'm simply counterpointing what you say. When you talk, expect to be rebutted.
3. You're a hypocrite for making an assumption immediately after tsk-tsking me for assuming. Saying "I'm sure no one would be arguing against it" is a clear assumption. Now you're backpedaling and saying you said 'some might not' argue? You clearly said 'I'm sure no one', which is worlds apart.

(1) The way your statement was written definitely implies that I do not approve of cohabitation before marriage. It also implies that I am using the statistic as a way to support said beliefs. My mentioning the statistic is simply giving people something to think about. The author of the article wrote about it as though you are wrong *not* to cohabit and as if it were some proven fact that it made things better. Statistics are never hardcore proof of anything. They can merely be taken as a suggestion of something at the best of times. Even then, they do give you something to think about. Just being objective. What's wrong with presenting and looking at more than one possible side of something?
(2) ... Oookay. Shame on me for what? For mentioning a statistic as something to think about? I guess I should get approval and permission before I mention any, huh? Also, I wouldn't be on a forum if I didn't expect to be rebutted. I just don't take kindly to people putting words in my mouth.
(3) I am not "back-peddling" at all. I am telling you what I meant by saying what I did. It is not meant as an assumption.

 

[SentinelMind]

More evidence that you simply missed if completely, honey. But that's just fine for you.

Could you explain using proper English, please? You're simply wrong. Read Katie's first post in this thread. She stated a statistical fact, made no assumptions anyway what so ever. This is a documented statistical fact, that those who don't cohabit are more likely to stay together married. Now read your response, you made a claim that she was trying to push a personal agenda with no fact and then you inserted your biased perception of religious people and implied they lacked common sense. That was your conjecture based on your opinion, not fact.

After you made your assertion of possible reasons for this fact, I decided to further provide evidence disputing your hypothesis as icing on the cake.

Its a pretty open and shut case.

 

[Logan's Runt]

(1) The way your statement was written definitely implies that I do not approve of cohabitation before marriage. It also implies that I am using the statistic as a way to support said beliefs. My mentioning the statistic is simply giving people something to think about. The author of the article wrote about it as though you are wrong *not* to cohabit and as if it were some proven fact that it made things better. Statistics are never hardcore proof of anything. They can merely be taken as a suggestion of something at the best of times. Even then, they do give you something to think about. Just being objective. What's wrong with presenting and looking at more than one possible side of something?
(2) ... Oookay. Shame on me for what? For mentioning a statistic as something to think about? I guess I should get approval and permission before I mention any, huh? Also, I wouldn't be on a forum if I didn't expect to be rebutted. I just don't take kindly to people putting words in my mouth.
(3) I am not "back-peddling" at all. I am telling you what I meant by saying what I did. It is not meant as an assumption.

1. You're assuming that I assumed that. Which I didn't. I said it doesn't matter why you said it, because it in itself supports a belief. Which I made a counterpoint in regards to- something to think about. Why should your point end the presenting of 'things to think about'? You can present them but I can't?

2. Shame on you for saying things which are not precise enough to relay what you mean, and then getting ******** when someone interprets them differently. No approval necessary, but getting upset and predictably sarcastic does nothing for your case.

3. You back pedaled by softening the certainty of your original statement, to sound as if you said something with open possibility, instead of a certainty. To state something with certainty is to make an assumption, if no facts are present. Saying 'I'm sure no one would argue' is stating a certainty, unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of 'sure'. How you meant it means little.

 

[Logan's Runt]

Could you explain using proper English, please? You're simply wrong. Read Katie's first post in this thread. She stated a statistical fact, made no assumptions anyway what so ever. This is a documented statistical fact, that those who don't cohabit are more likely to stay together married. Now read your response, you made a claim that she was trying to push a personal agenda with no fact and then you inserted your biased perception of religious people and implied they lacked common sense. That was your conjecture based on your opinion, not fact.

After you made your assertion of possible reasons for this fact, I decided to further provide evidence disputing your hypothesis as icing on the cake.

Its a pretty open and shut case.

You say a lot of things that still miss the point. The point being that statistical facts also say a lot of things and miss the point, in regards to human behavior.

Statistics do not represent human behavior. More statistics do not equal evidence in regards to human behavior. They show trends, correlations. They do not predict or prove causation. There is too much individual variation and compounding of factors that cause even the simplest of human behaviors to be trivialized by a set of numbers.

Go on and lick your own icing, if it makes you happy. I'm sure there's a study about whether or not licking your own icing makes one happier than licking someone else's.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Could you explain using proper English, please? You're simply wrong. Read Katie's first post in this thread. She stated a statistical fact, made no assumptions anyway what so ever. This is a documented statistical fact, that those who don't cohabit are more likely to stay together married. Now read your response, you made a claim that she was trying to push a personal agenda with no fact and then you inserted your biased perception of religious people and implied they lacked common sense. That was your conjecture based on your opinion, not fact.

After you made your assertion of possible reasons for this fact, I decided to further provide evidence disputing your hypothesis as icing on the cake.

Its a pretty open and shut case.

You should probably do more research if you want to make such bold claims using antiquated statistics, skippy.

" "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."


"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."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm

 

[Sarge 2.0]

So SentinelMind now that it's not an open and shut case do you want me to help wipe the egg off your face, or would you like to simply leave it there? Also, I wouldn't go around criticizing Runty's grammar when you used the possessive form of "its" instead of the contraction "it's". Just sayin'.

 

[katie_girl09]

1. You're assuming that I assumed that. Which I didn't. I said it doesn't matter why you said it, because it in itself supports a belief. Which I made a counterpoint in regards to- something to think about. Why should your point end the presenting of 'things to think about'? You can present them but I can't?

2. Shame on you for saying things which are not precise enough to relay what you mean, and then getting ******** when someone interprets them differently. No approval necessary, but getting upset and predictably sarcastic does nothing for your case.

3. You back pedaled by softening the certainty of your original statement, to sound as if you said something with open possibility, instead of a certainty. To state something with certainty is to make an assumption, if no facts are present. Saying 'I'm sure no one would argue' is stating a certainty, unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of 'sure'. How you meant it means little.

(1) I don't need to assume anything in that regard. Anyone with reading comprehension skills can see that you were accusing me of pushing an agenda. It seems to me that you are the one who is back-peddling now that you realize you were wrong.

(2) What I meant was to present a statistic. That's all. You take what you will from it. But you can do that without accusing someone of trying to force their views on other people with "misleading statistics". Resort to side personal attacks as usual, but that doesn't change the fact that you had absolutely no grounds to do so.

(3) Goodness. You sure are making a lot out of my miswording something. Maybe because that's all that you really have in the way of an argument?

Look. I know that you have issues with me and that this is not going to go anywhere. So let's just drop it.

 

[Logan's Runt]

(1) I don't need to assume anything in that regard. Anyone with reading comprehension skills can see that you were accusing me of pushing an agenda. It seems to me that you are the one who is back-peddling now that you realize you were wrong.

(2) What I meant was to present a statistic. That's all. You take what you will from it. But you can do that without accusing someone of trying to force their views on other people with "misleading statistics". Resort to side personal attacks as usual, but that doesn't change the fact that you had absolutely no grounds to do so.

(3) Goodness. You sure are making a lot out of my miswording something. Maybe because that's all that you really have in the way of an argument?

Look. I know that you have issues with me and that this is not going to go anywhere. So let's just drop it.

1. You're assuming again, darlin. I was accusing you of pushing an agenda, yes, but not accusing you of pushing it knowingly. If anything, I was accusing you of being ignorant of the common use of the statistic you were lobbing and being surprised when people rebut it, in itself, regardless of your personal belief about it. Toss a grenade, stand too close, and you'll naturally get some shrapnel, even if it was tossed simply to 'think about.' I was pointing out that the particular fact is used with no regard to the human variation within it, for a specific agenda, and that those using it are typically of a certain persuasion. If people interpret you to have such agenda when you use it, perhaps you should make your beliefs clear before using a traditionally biased fact.

2. I will point out the issues with facts regardless of what you 'meant' to do with them. Unwittingly supporting an agenda is just as bad, if not worse, than purposefully doing so.

3. I've made my argument perfectly clear, and you tried to disregard it by backpedaling and changing what you claim to have said. Since that particular part of my argument was based on what you said, I wasn't going to allow you to squirm out of it by claiming a different meaning through restating your words.

I'll drop it when I get bored, as always. Right now you're thoroughly entertaining.

 

[C. Lee]

People...discuss and debate the issue without the petty snipes at people or thier opinions. Be civil.

 

[SentinelMind]

So SentinelMind now that it's not an open and shut case do you want me to help wipe the egg off your face, or would you like to simply leave it there? Also, I wouldn't go around criticizing Runty's grammar when you used the possessive form of "its" instead of the contraction "it's". Just sayin'.

Interesting article although i think its highly misleading. First the article discusses opinion polls, which have no relevance. The article suggests a woman will more likely stay married GIVEN that she cohabits with only one person in her lifetime. So basically they pick those who cohabit and stay married and compare it to all non-cohabitant couples. That's a biased selection that serves no purpose. It doesn't refute the research that's out there that those who do cohabit will still more likely become divorced than those who don't.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

People...discuss and debate the issue without the petty snipes at people or thier opinions. Be civil.

Impossible!!!

 

[Halloween]

"Nothing is impossible." - Tesla, from The Prestige.

 

[Gilpesh]

That's a biased selection that serves no purpose.

Aren't you the guy that said non-believers are miserable people because all the non-believers you know are miserable?



So... what's up with that?

 

[Anubis]

"Nothing is impossible." - Tesla, from The Prestige.

"The only thing that's impossible is nothing!" - Dr. Leo Quintum, from All-Star Superman