SINNER!

Seriously, though - these holy folks should stop telling people how to live their lives. They believe that they can force their form of morality on everybody else, but they are WRONG.

Now, seriously, seriously - I have been living with my girlfriend for about two years and everything has gone great. If two people move in together and can’t stand each other after only two months, they probably weren’t meant to be together to begin with.

Interesting! The percentage of people who live together with their future spouse seems to be running in parrallel with the percentage of divorced as well–both well over 50% in this day-and-age. Is there a link then?

I see one glaring problem with the issue of comparing cohabitation with a traditional marriage relationship. The change that you cite from surveys from the 1950’s through the 70’s indicated, “People were more interested in self-fulfillment, intimacy, fairness and emotional gratification. They believed in autonomy and voluntary cooperation versus the obedience, authority and social expectations that have been traditionally expected of marriage.” What you are describing is a societal change in being concerned about the well-being of others or another to being more concerned about oneself and his/her on pleasure, gratification, or independence. That is the key distinction that is plaguing human society as a whole.
With these changes in society, yes, cohabitation is more prevalent and accepted. Any credible marriage counselor will tell you that when the marriage becomes mostly about each person pleasing themselves, the marriage has basically failed. Traditional marriage only works when each person is equally concerned about the well-being and happiness of their spouse. The changes in society that have progressed over the past 50 years are plaguing our culture in more ways than in just how couples are defining their relationship. The consequences are endless and the solutions to the consequences more extreme. We see these consequences in the exponential growth of STD infections, illegitimate children (leading to single-parent homes and increased poverty), increased heinous crimes involving abuse and neglect, and a general loss of concern for the well-being of others.
Label me however you would like. Celebrating the consequence of a negative societal change, and calling it normal and healthy is ridiculous. The evidence to the contrary is deafening.

While I do enjoy reading your column and it appears that you have represented both sides here fairly well from a statistical point of view (in my uneducated opinion), I have a question for you.
You stated the following:

“What straw broke the camel’s back? Surveys from the late 1950s through the 1970s reveal that there was a huge drop in support for conformity around issues like marriage.

People were more interested in self-fulfillment, intimacy, fairness and emotional gratification. They believed in autonomy and voluntary cooperation versus the obedience, authority and social expectations that have been traditionally expected of marriage.”

Am I assuming correctly that you are saying that people in marriage do not get to experience ’self-fulfilment, intimacy, fairness, and emotional gratification’?…it seems that is what we are meant to infer…?

I am married, and I can assure you that my wife and I experience plenty of those things on a regular basis. It is not one way or the other - when two people work at a marriage, it can be both.

I’m 58 and old fashioned. On the upside marriage offers to me a sense of emotional security. The downside is, being divorced with grown children, having to sort through all the legal crap to make sure everybody gets their fair share after my demise. Maybe I’m better off divorced.

I’ve never liked your column - not because you promote some agenda that is corrupting our society, but because you are a bad writer and your columns aren’t that interesting. Check the definition of “starter marriage” and try harder next week.

I’m married for 28 years to a wonderful woman. I would not have seen her as wonderful if she wouldn’t have been willing to commit her love to me through marriage. We also waited to “go all the way” until our wedding night. That is now a cherished memory that is a foundational pillar to our 28 years together. Free thinking people today have no idea what they’re missing!

I am personally a very conservative person, but appreciate your column for its educational value. I do believe people should be able to become educated and make decisions from there. On that note, I think you left out one negative effect of cohabitation that is plaguing our country. With these so-called dispensable unions, unfortunately, come too make dispensable children. While, true, there are many single parent homes as a result of divorce of a “legal” marriage, I would guess there are more from these casual or “less than committed” unions. It is hard to look at these two Hollywood couples with their millions and compare them to the average Americans who think they can copy this behavior, only to leave more women alone with children to care for (and society to pay for). I would also think that the idea of marriage would give both partners a bigger sense of responsibility for the children that resulted from that union. I would love to see your data on these issues. Your article, as it is, while interesting and compelling, is incomplete in giving all the facts to help people become educated.

The sad phenomenon of artificially separating the sex from having children and a family has led to the shallowness exhibited in this article. Very little is said here about how cohabitation affects the children (if there are any) in these relationships, and therefore how cohabitation affects future generations. All that seems to matter is if the two adults are getting what they want. This leads to the kind of self-enclosed and ultimately loveless relationships that we see all around us. The antidote to this narrow, selfish, quid-pro-quo is the Theology of the Body.
This author, while she may claim to know all about achieving orgasms, remains a mere technician when it comes to the importance of sex.

I fully enjoy reading your articles and appreciate very much your objectiveness, and ability to give the facts as you see them. For those that don’t, its easy, just don’t read them and go complain about something else. I look forward to reading many more of your articles.. Please keep educating all of us. Thanks again.

Right On Kelly! You took the words right out of my mouth!

Well done article, but don’t the cons of not marrying far outweigh the pros? One thing I would point out is that it has been proven that the experiment of living together is not a good indicator of marital happiness. When the marriage commitment is made, it changes the dynamics of the relationship dramatically. There is not the same level of commitment in cohabitation; so it is not a good proving ground.

I am one who has lived on both sides of the fence.

My wife and I lived together for a number of years before getting married. During those years we struggled significantly with issues of commitment and confidence in one another as well as the moral issue of what we were doing. Our children also struggled with insecurities about whether either my wife or I would simply leave one day and leave the “family” hanging. I mean, after all, mom and dad aren’t really married. And if they truly love one another and are truly committed to one another, why aren’t they married? Why haven’t they made a legal commitment to one another as evidence of their emotional, physical and social commitment?

Since getting married life has been so much better. Everything is better - our relationship, the relationship with our children, even the sexual intimacy.

We have apologized to our children for failing to be a better example of what love and commitment truly means and are encouraging them not to follow our example of co-habitation prior to marriage. In addition, we are encouraging them to refrain from sexual activity prior to marriage, to save themselves for that one person they commit themselves to in marriage.

Will they listen? Only time will tell. But I hope so.

I love my wife. She is the greatest thing that has happened to me. Her happiness and fulfillment is my goal.

Marriage has and is far better than anything either of us experienced in singleness or co-habitation.

If Jane Smith is such a know it all - and great writer - I would like to have seen her definition of a starter marriage, as there is more than one. Fulbright is a super writer and a joy to read every week. If you don’t like the column, you don’t need to read it - or spread negative energy. The rest of her readers don’t need to hear it.

Ignore the trolls who post crap about Dr. Fulbright - they get a kick out of insulting people on the Internet.

I recently read an article on FoxNews “The Pros and Cons of ‘Living in Sin’“

( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354620,00.html?sPage=fnc/health/sexpert ) In the article the author stated: “As a sex educator, I have always strived to give people the facts so that they can make their own sexual decisions based on their own value system. Unlike many of my critics, I’m not here to moralize or judge.”

Hmmm, now lets see, how can I respond and not moralize or judge yet still give the facts? You see, the problem is, is you have to know what is is! Confused? Seems we all are these day. It goes back to last weeks post and where your source of truth is.

There are three key statements the author (who seems like a very nice lady with genuine concern) made that caught my attention. 1. Facts. 2. own value system. 3. moralize or judge.

Lets looks at number one. 1.Facts. Just because something is fact doesn’t mean it’s the end of the story, as one fact can lead to another which may not be mentioned. For instance, the author stated concerning living together before marriage: “It’s great for those turned off by casual sex and who want a committed relationship, but do not feel ready to get married” It is also a fact that people who want a committed relationship should feel ready for marriage, that is what commitment is about.

Number two. 2. own value system. Can we have a stable society where everyone is free to have their own value system? How could we pass laws? How could we determine what is right and wrong? How would we set boundaries for our children? This list could on and on, society is based on a single value system, it has to be or we have confusion and chaos.

Number three. 3. moralize or judge. I have heard it said; “you can’t legislate morality” but every law that is passed does just that. So if we state a moral law are we being judgmental or just stating truth? Oh my, what a society we live in, everybody’s truth is truth. There’s my truth, your truth, his truth, and her truth. If my truth differs from your truth I’m being judgmental and vise versa.

According to the author of this article here is were we are today:

More and more unmarried couples are living together, and research indicates that most people have tried it.

- - - cohabitation is here to stay; up to two-thirds of American households began as “starter marriages.”

“Living in sin” is not a new idea. According to Stephanie Coontz, author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage,” the only difference between cohabitation and legal marriage in ancient Rome was the partners’ intent.

For more than 1,000 years, the Roman Catholic Church recognized commitment by simply taking the couple’s word. If a man and woman had privately agreed to marry, then they were seen as a married couple. Many modern-day thinkers have felt the same way.

American anthropologist George Peter Murdock once defined marriage as “a global institution involving a couple cohabitating, engaging in sexual activity, and cooperating economically.” For many couples, the actual act of officially tying the knot is just a technicality.

I am originally from a country (Iceland) where we don’t tell other people what they can do in their own bedroom. When I moved from Iceland to the U.S. in the 1980s, I was surprised to learn that, in America’s eyes, my Icelandic countrymen – and family members – were basically regarded as a bunch of heathens because they have no problem with the concepts of “living in sin,” or having children out-of-wedlock.

But in the decades since I experienced this culture shock, the acceptance of unmarried cohabitation, as well as children out-of-wedlock, has steadily grown in North America and Western Europe.

Our Founders simply had this to say:

He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections. . . . [P]rivate and public vices are in reality . . . connected. . . . Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men. - - - - Samuel Adams.

[A]ll history is a witness of the truth of the principle that good morals are essential to the faithful and upright discharge of public functions. The moral character of a man is an entire and indivisible thing-it cannot be pure in one part and defiled in another. A man may indeed be addicted, for a time, to one vice and not to another; but it is a solemn truth that any considerable breach in the moral sense facilitates the admission of every species of vice. The love of virtue first yields to the strongest temptation; but when the rampart [resistance] is broken down, it is rendered more accessible to every successive assailant. . . . Corruption of morals is rapid enough in any country without a bounty [an encouragement] from government. And . . . the Chief Magistrate of the United States [the President] should be the last man to accelerate its progress. - - - - Noah Webster.

Of course their ideas were old fashion, strict and confining. It’s surprising that such old fashion and confining idea’s such as this built a nation with greatest experience of freedom the world has ever know! I’m sure glad we are finally breaking away from all those terrible moral restrictions! (pun intended)

May God bless each of you.

David

Marriage is under attack. I researched this subject thorougly in my book, “So Why Have You Never Been Married?”

In 1980, 6% of men in their early 40s had never married. Today that number is up to 17%. Men and women are delaying or avoiding marriage for many reasons, not the least of which is they have had decades to witness bad divorces and bad marriages, both of which were partly the result of societal conformity.

What’s the answer to accomdate the traditional marrisge and realities of modern life? Renewable marriages.

Carl Weisman, Author
So Why Have You Never Been Married?
http://www.WhyNeverMarried.com/
http://www.InsideTheWritersMindbBog.com

I actually thought this article wasn’t bad. I thought Yvonne did a reasonable job of presenting objective pros and cons. As always her opinion on the subject is clearly apparent, but I thought both sides of the argument were addressed. This was quite contrary to the casual sex article where the focus of the article appeared to be: How to have casual sex with the least risk of consequence. David, above, covered the irony I found in one section of this article quite thoroughly.

Yvonne says, “I can already hear the natives getting restless on this matter, ready to blast me on our blog. Just as with my previous examination of casual sex, I will likely be attacked for promoting an agenda meant to corrupt society. As a sex educator, I have always strived to give people the facts so that they can make their own sexual decisions based on their own value system. Unlike many of my critics, I’m not here to moralize or judge.”

Everyone is perfectly entitled to an opinion. However it is sadly ironic when one pushes his/her own opinion and then complains that another who disagrees with them is “moralizing”. The article on casual sex is clearly encouraging a particular moral or ethical attitude. Any objectivity in that article was paper thin at best. If I present my moral foundation publicly, I ought to be willing to accept and address disagreements. Granted, those disagreements should be presented respectfully rather than nastily.

Not every idea is a good idea. Ideas have consequences. Anyone unwilling to listen to challenges to the foundational ideas they hold and build their life upon are simply asking for a collapse in life. Perhaps Yvonne should spend some time considering the consequences of her own views and her opponents’ views instead of rolling out the repeated theme of “Judge not lest you be judged.”

i enjoy reading reading this authors articles. she may not be the best yet she does well; her actricles do tend to lean towards her own opinion however she doesnt insult others simply disagrees. i am young and havnt been married or cohabited with a partner, nor am i virigin mary. i have ground up with different lifestyles around me. beganing my parents whom have been married going on 19 years, unfaithfully. they didnt live together before they got married however they did sleep together, and countless others, before they got married. their married is a mess and pointless, something i wont wish upon my worst enemy. whereas with my aunt and her husband, they lived together for several years before they got married and had children together along with other partners. they now have been married for several years, faithfully and of course some major bumps along the road, resulting from living together before marriage and previous partners. then i have my grandparents, old fasioned. they married virigins and didnt live together before hand. they have the most amazing relationship i have ever known. even when things are at their worst they tough it out.
after growing up seeing all this… i have come to a conclusion about relationships and marriage… while i dont see anything wrong with cohabation, one needs to realize the risks and be ready to handle the consequences.. marriage has the same risks and consequences only on a different level. simply put when you are with someone, married or not, know the conmentment that you are making.. cohabation levels the freedom to walk away. marriage is in for the long run cohabaion make yourself happy.
marriage make the other person happy. both work, on different levels.