Thank you Sisi - kindly see my responses below:

Sisi_Kill: Well done ladies!!

What are the stat on how many couples actually sign this agreement before co-habitation?

Although there is no precise figure readily available on the exact number of people that sign cohabiting or 'no-nup' contracts, according to a leading law firm in London: Figures from the 2011 Census showed 6.5 million people are now in cohabiting relationships. Soaring numbers of unmarried couples who plan to live together are signing ‘no-nup’ agreements to protect their wealth if they decide to split. According to the firm, they said they have seen a doubling in the number of people entering into cohabitation agreements over the past five years. The 'no-nup' is so-called because it refers to couples who do not intend to marry and so will not use pre-nuptial agreements.

It goes further to say that: The written contracts are designed to ensure assets brought into a relationship remain under an individual’s control if a couple decide to go their separate ways. It is similar to a prenuptial agreement, in that it sets out what would happen to the property, joint outgoings and inheritance if the couple parted. The contracts are especially popular among the wealthy. They can be drawn up by a solicitor and stipulate who is responsible for loans, what happens if one partner dies and whether one partner should be able to buy the other out of their share of property if they split. They can also cover areas of potential conflict such as who pays household bills and whether the couple will have joint credit cards and bank accounts.

So what we can infer from that research is that since there has been an increase in the number of cohabiting couples, it stands to reason that the number of cohabiting couples signing up no-nup or cohabiting agreements is on the rise.

Sisi_Kill: How would you respond to someone who says....If I going to sign this, might as well sign a prenuptial agreement and get married.

This depends on individual choice and what the couple in question want for themselves. There are no hard and fast rules, right or wrong answers to this and it truly boils down to what the couple in question want. Personally, I believe that the more a couple have to lose, the more likelihood they would want to protect their assets before entering into any agreement be it cohabitation or marriage. That notwithstanding, doesn't mean they love themselves any less, but are simply being practical. Nevertheless, let's bear in mind that the underlying reason(s) why couples go into cohabitation is to decide for themselves whether or not marriage to their partner in question is what they really want - but while entering into that arrangement, it makes financial sense to protect their assets in case they split. A pre-nup on the other hand, I believe is one step closer. In this case, the couple have already made arrangements to get married or are on the verge of getting married but need to sign the prenups before signing the dotted lines.

So, while cohabiting couples have the freedom and choice to walk away from the cohabiting arrangement if it doesn't work out for them, the no-nup or cohabiting agreement ensures that their properties and assets are safe in the case of a split.

Sisi_Kill: Are there case studies or researches showing couples are more receptive to this kind of agreement than they are a pre-nup? I ask because I am wondering why this puts co-habitation at an advantage over marriage.

That question is out of the scope of this discussion which is: whether cohabitation is a recipe for successful marriages or not. Additionally, nowhere in my argument did I state that co-habitation is much more advantageous over marriage. What I've consistently argued for, is that co-habitation can and has proven to be a recipe for successful marriages, based on the premises that couples are made very much aware of what they're getting into - with their eyes wide open. That notwithstanding, I think the best approach to answering your question would be to look at the differences between pre-nups and no-nups (cohabiting agreements):

Prenuptial agreements are a valuable estate planning tool that can be utilized to:

(1) reduce or eliminate the federal estate tax;
(2) preserve the Marital Deduction when the first spouse dies;
(3) protect the inheritance of the children;
(4) provide financially for the surviving spouse; and
(5) provide for the division and distribution of estate assets upon the death of either party. They are also an effective means of dealing with issues (and avoiding family divisions and litigation) for blended families and in situations where there is a significant difference in wealth and income between the couple.

On the other hand, Cohabitation Agreements are:

~ For those who do not (yet) wish to enter into a marriage, but desire some structure and perhaps some of the protections that the law affords those who marry,

~ They address financial and personal affairs.

~ Are governed by contract law rather than family law

~ Can be contracts for almost everything, except children and custody. They can cover tax matters, property and income divisions, alimony, the duties each owes to the other, and more.

Another point worth noting here is that a cohabitation agreement can be an opportunity to set out the parameters that are individually suited to that couple.

Sisi_Kill: Wouldn't you agree that as long as there has been a combination of assets & liabilities the same problems one faces when getting divorced are no different from those faced by those who decide to live together?

No, not necessarily.

Under English Law: Where cohabiting couples jointly own their family home, the property will automatically be divided 50:50 – even if one partner contributed more to its purchase – unless they made a written legal agreement at the time of purchase saying in what proportions they own it. But then again, this can be disputed in court. However, if a cohabiting document is drawn up (the beauty of it being that it can be tailor made to meet the specific needs of the couple in question), then the courts are able to dispense the property based on the contents of the agreement(s) drawn up. Cohabiting agreements are legally binding documents that will stand up in a court of law.

In addition to that, couples seeking to cohabit are encouraged to draw up wills and trust deeds so there would be no question as to where exactly the partners' properties go if they meet their untimely demise. The execution of these (wills and trust deeds) are performed under very strict and well defined laws. Similar occurrence in Wales and Scotland.

REFERENCES:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/mar/09/cohabitation-agreement-essential-non-married-couples

http://www.dykstralegal.com/prenuptial-and-cohabitation-agreements.html

http://www.greatreporter.com/content/top-divorce-lawyer-offers-cohabiting-couples-no-nups

Cheers,
Efe.

too many info to process....
i feel dizzy & i can't feel my face right now.

Oh my!
What a super presentation!
Standing ovation for u ladies!!!

I came in very late. It wasn't intentional.
My apologies.
Will def bookmark this.

coogar: too many info to process....
i feel dizzy & i can't feel my face right now.

R u sick?

So what we can infer from that research is that since there has been an increase in the number of cohabiting couples, it stands to reason that the number of cohabiting couples signing up no-nup or cohabiting agreements is on the rise.

1. Where were these studies done?
2. Can we conclude that because there has been an increase in the number of CC, there has been an increase in successful marriage? Unfortunately, so has the number of divorce. Is there a correlation?

Hello again, TV01. Thank you for your questions. Kindly find my responses to your claims below:

TV01:

1. I did not claim that abuse does not happen in marriage

Good. And neither did I - and if I did, then kindly point out where in my post I specifically, and categorically stated that abuse DOES NOT happen in marriage? But let's refresh your memory with the claims within your statement:

TV01:

Yes, the abuse one. This topic generates a lot of heat - although not much light from what I can see - on the Family section. Threads of 100+ pages are not uncommon.

One thing that is startlingly clear is that violent abuse is suffered in co-habitation arrangements. This fact, allied with studies which clearly demonstrate that proper marriage is still the safest place for women and children, make it is logical to infer that women suffer more abuse in "co-habs". Also interesting is that they seem to find it as difficult to leave abusive situations as properly married victims. And lastly, the insinuation that co-habiting would flush put potential abusers seems odd, when most of the the self-identified victims of abuse swear blind that it was well hidden until marriage.

Could the debaters please address this please. Especially the "for cohab" proponent.

Thanks
TV

~ Pray, do tell - what was the basis of your making that direct comparison between abuse suffered by women in cohabiting relationships as opposed to those suffering the same abuse in marriage?

~ And where are you statistical backed by solid, hard to dispute research claims that those in cohabiting relationships suffer more abuse than those in marriages?

TV01:
2. Domestic abuse clearly covers any type of domestic arrangement and for the UK will probably include SSC as well. Your excerpt shows nothing specific. Domestic does not = marital, it = living together.
3. I showed in yesterdays SF a link showing that women and children are safer in marriage.
4. I did not say that marriage keeps women and children safe. Just that it is safer than any other type of domestic arrangement.

Kindly clarify the difference between your third and fourth points where you state that women and children are safer in marriage, yet you claim in the same breath that marriage does not keep women and children safe. Safe from what exactly? I've taken the time to show you excerpts on the statistical figures of people in domestic relationships that suffer abuse, but you're hell bent on harping on the different types of abuse. So going from your claims, we've got cohabitation abuse, martial abuse, and other forms of domestic abuse which do not necessarily stem from marital relationships but from 'other' relationships or 'living arrangements', but yet domestic abuse covers all - and yet doesn't? You've got to make a stand on what you're arguing about and until you clarify yourself, it won't be possible for me to address your questions what ever you think they may be. Bearing in mind that the focus of this argument is on cohabitation versus marriage - kindly explain why you're going out of scope here?

TV01: 5. Threads on the section show clearly that non-marrieds relationship and especially co-habitees suffer abuse. And studies showing marriage to men is the lowest conflict relationship for women, make it easy to infer that co-habbing is more abusive on the whole. Co-habbing doesn't flush out abuse, it seems to precipitate it's onset.

6. It is also clear from our Family section threads that victims of abuse in co-hab r/ships do not find it any easier to disengage - even without children!

I've also seen the page 100+ thread you're referring to and have followed it closely. It might surprise you to know that majority of the abusee's in that thread that have opened up are actually married women. I'll understand if you choose to refute this fact, but that notwithstanding, I think it's quite lame for anyone to base their figures on 'claims' posted on an online forum. Additionally, the fact that one group of people have spoken up, doesn't mean by anyway that they suffer more abuse than their counterparts in other forms of living together or cohabiting relationships.

I also wholly disagree with you that those in cohabiting relationships suffer more abuse than their married counterparts. Those in cohabiting relationships have the option to leave the relationship and have indeed learnt from it, and most importantly how to spot the signs of a potential abuser - be it emotional or physical. There are well-known handles that have spoken up stating very clearly in unmistakable terms how lucky they were to leave those relationships and are much better people for it. So how then, can you claim that an abusee will willingly remain in an abusive relationship pre-marriage like a sitting duck when he or she's got the option to save themselves, rather than go ahead with tying the knot?? Your claim is simply ludicrous and baseless, if you don't mind my saying so.

TV01:
Long excerpt and conclusions that didn't address the questions

TV

^{All, could the unspoken inference be that men simply value live-ins less than wives?}

[/quote]

On the contrary, I disagree with you. My points have been saliently presented and addressed all questions asked of me.

That nothwithstanding, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions as every other person involved in this debate are. As per your comment on unspoken inferences about men valuing live-ins less than wives - again your words not mine.

Thank you for your time.

Cheers,
Efe.

Hello GEJ,

Thank you for your questions.

GEJ_IS_OUR_SON:

1. Where were these studies done? This question has already been answered by I'll repeat myself here, for your sake: These fgures were derived from the UK 2011 Census which showed 6.5 million people where cohabiting. The results were extrapolated by one of London's top leading law firms.

2. Can we conclude that because there has been an increase in the number of CC, there has been an increase in successful marriage? Unfortunately, so has the number of divorce. Is there a correlation?

As per your second question, you might find your rhetorical questions answered by thoroughly going through the links I provided rather than taking my response out of context. Additionally, my answer was in response to Sisi's question about What are the stat on how many couples actually sign this agreement before co-habitation?

Thank You.

Hello once more again, TV01. Kindly find my response to your questions below in blue.

TV01: Another thing, regards marriage vows, which simple put are love & cherish, through all situations, for always (although Sisi-Kill seems to think that vows are being kept if they simply stay together?)

In a co-hab arrangement how do the serious things that life can throw at you play out. Say for example, one falls seriously sick with the prognosis uncertain. Marriage vows are clear, you stay and support. What is the likelihood - compared to marriage - that a "co-habee" would stay and support in such a situation?

Let's not lose sight of the premises for this debate which is: Cohabitation - a successful recipe for marriage?

There is a marked difference between a couple cohabiting with the goal of marriage in sight, compared to your average roommate in school or your flatmate. When mature (adult) couples enter into the cohabitation agreement, they do so first and foremost because they love each other and are willing / hoping to spend the rest of their lives together. They already have the basic and necessary foundation - love, cherish and a willingness to commit to each other.

However, like all things in life, nothing is set in stone. Even for married couples who uttered their vows to love, cherish, honour and respect till death do them part - we've still got hundreds or better still, thousands of instances where one partner up sticks and chooses to leave the union because of hard times, ill-luck, ill-health, and so on - that might have befallen their spouse. On the other hand, there are instances of cohabiting couples who though not yet married, stick even closer to their spouse when unfortunate events befall them. A very good example is the case of an American quadriplegic soldier who lost his limbs while fighting at Afghanistan. His girlfriend stood solidly by him through thick and thin and guess what - they eventually got married. This story made front page a couple of months ago. It just goes to show that there are no absolute certainties in life.

TV01: Even simpler things like long-term job loss. With a contract/agreement in place or even that financial independence due to the lack of commitment, would the feeling of "carrying the other" or contract violation not come into play and generate resentment?

Thanks
TV

Again, this is a point I've already addressed extensively in my response to Sisi's questions regarding co-habitation agreements or no-nup contracts.

Thank You.
Efe.

Thank you everyone for your questions.

I'm off to bed now as it's the wee hours of another working week. I most likely wouldn't have the chance to look at any further questions till I get back in the evening.

Nonetheless, it's been a great experience. Thank you all for your time.

Cheers,
Efe.

Lerrie John:
I think Couples have enough time to get used to their partners personal habits during courtship. This opportunity arises during vacations or passing weekends together. Is the above said time not enough for anyone to decide wether or not they can live with their partner's idiosyncrasies? After all, months , years or a lifetime is never enough to know someone completely.

I thought part of your argument was that it is the irreligious type that cohabits, so how do you expect the religious, non-cohabiting types to go on vacations together and pass weekends together? Would such people find that acceptable within their religious boundaries?

How will they get to know each other?

Months, years or a lifetime is never enough to know someone completely? Does that in anyway mean the longer you know someone (by increased and longer contact) is of little or insignificant value compared to the shorter you know the person?

Efemena_xy:
Cohabiting gives the couple the chance to make absolutely sure that they are right for each other. If during cohabition they discover they aren't, what do you expect them to do? Slug it out for the rest of their lives? Does that not defeat the purpose of cohabiting? Yes, cohabiting does and should create high expectations of marriage because it's the reason they get into it in the first place - with the goal of marriage and not on some joyride. They are hoping to get married in the future, so of course, it stands to reason that it should be taken seriously. Or are you advocating that the couple don't take themselves seriously and wait until they're wedding day before they do?

What makes you think the core reason for cohabiting by both parties is for making sure they are both right for each other?

Are you saying one party, especially the man, can not be more interested in cohabiting with the intention of having a limited and renewable contract?

This is really interesting and it's getting interesting...

I hope Efe and Lerrie John will honour us with some answers.

I have to say I have been thoroughly impressed by the very capable debaters on this topic. The presentations, rebuttals and exchanges have been of a very high quality.

When challenged, each debater has gone forth to produce further evidence/arguments to back up her position and this should be lauded. Both contestants have delivered excellent performances.

I have not had enough time to join the debate but I quickly want to summarise some findings about the demerits of cohabitation from various journals that dealt with the issue.

1. A 1992 study of 3,300 cases found that coupled who cohabited prior to marriage have a risk for divorce that is about 46% higher than for non-cohabiters (Journal of Marriage and the family: February 1992).

2. Annual rates of depression among cohabiting couples are more than three times what they are among married couples (Journal of Health and Social Behavior: September 2000).

3. Women cohabiting relationships are more likely to suffer physical and sexual abuse than married women (National Marriage Project, Rutgers University: 2002).

4. The more months of exposure to cohabitation, the less enthusiastic couples are about marriage and childbearing (Journal of Marriage & Family: 59, 1997).

5. Cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and satisfaction, and poorer relationships with their parents (Journal of Family Issues: January 1995).

6. Cohabiters tend not to have an ethic of commitment that is as strong as non-cohabiters. This could explain the high rates of divorce among couples that cohabited prior to marriage (Journal of Marriage and the Family: August 1997).

7. Cohabiting unions tend to weaken the institution of marriage and pose special risks to children (Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children and Social Policy. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 2002).

8. By 2000, the total number of unmarried couples in America was almost 4.75 million, up from less than half a million in 1960 (U.S. Census Bureau: 2001).

9. Cohabitation increases acceptance of divorce among young people (Journal of Marriage & Family: 59).

10. Cohabitation can contribute to selfishness and later a lack of openness to children.

11. Respondents who cohabited after divorce or cohabited with their partner in a subsequent marriage reported, on average, lower levels of happiness in the remarriage than remarried respondents who did not cohabit at after the initial divorce (Journal of Marriage and Family: Vol. 68, Number 2. May, 2006).

12. Compared with peers who had not cohabited prior to marriage, individuals who had cohabited reported higher levels of depression and the level of depression also rose with the length of cohabitation. (Alabama Policy Institute: August 2006).

13. The longer couples cohabited before marrying, the more likely they were to resort to heated arguments, hitting, and throwing objects when conflicts arose in their subsequent marriage. A longer length of cohabitation was linked to a greater frequency of heated arguments, even when controlling for spouses' age. (Alabama Policy Institute: August, 2006)

14. Women in cohabiting relationships are nine times more likely to be killed by their partner than were married women. Within cohabiting relationships, middle-aged women were at greatest risk of being killed. (Shackelford, T.K. & Mouzos, J., 2005. Partner Killing by Men in Cohabiting and Marital Relationships: A Comparative, Cross-National Analysis of Data from Australia and the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol.30, number 10, 1310-1324.)

Harmful effects of cohabitation on children..... summary of researches on the subject....

1. A report in 2010 on child abuse by the Department of Health and Human Service that found that children living with two married biological parents had the lowest rates of harm, 6.8 per 1,000 children, while children living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the house had the highest incidence, at 57.2 per 1,000 children. Children living in cohabiting households are 8 times more likely to be harmed than children living with married biological parents. (Abuse, Neglect, Adoption and Foster Care Research, National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, NIS-4, 2004-2009, March 2010, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.)

2. Children born to cohabiting versus married parents have over five times the risk of experiencing their parents' separation, showing an exponential increase in relationship failure for couples currently or ever cohabiting. (Smock P, 2010)

3. In 2000, 41% of all unmarried-couple households included a child under the age of 18. This is up from only 21% in 1987 (U.S. Census Bureau: March 2000).

4. One of the major risks to children in cohabiting households is the high rate of breakup. This leads to many personal and social difficulties for children as they face the loss of the security found in home life children (Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children and Social Policy. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 2002).

5. Several studies have shown that children living with their mother and her unmarried partner have more behavior problems and lower academic performance than children in intact families. (Social Forces 73-1: 1994).

6. Fully three quarters of children born in cohabiting parents will see their parents split up before they reach age 16. Only one third of children born to married parents will face a similar fate (National Marriage Project, Rutgers University: 2002).

7. Child abuse is a major problem in cohabiting households. The number of reported abuse has been steadily rising over the past ten years (National Marriage Project, Rutgers University: 2002).

8. Evidence demonstrates that the most unsafe family environment for children is one in which the mother lives with a boyfriend. (The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC: 1997).

9. Among children who did not live in a consistently intact family through age 12, those whose mothers cohabited at some time experienced a higher level of family instability, measured by the number of transitions in household structure, than those whose mothers had not cohabited, 2.6 vs. 1.4 for white children, and 2.0 vs. 0.7 for Black children, (Journal of Marriage and Family: Vol. 66, February, 2004).

10. Anne-Marie Ambert, the author of a study that reviewed hundreds of research papers that examined the social, emotional and financial effects of cohabitation and marriage on women, men, children and society, concluded that cohabitation is inherently unstable and carries a high cost on children's physical and psychological development.
Ambert noted, "Commitment and stability are at the core of children's needs; yet, in a great proportion of cohabitations, these two requirements are absent." (Vanier Institute of Family, "Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related?, 2005)

11. In a study of 149 inflicted-injury deaths during the 8-year study period children residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with 2 biological parents (adjusted odds ratio: 47.6; 95% confidence interval: 10.4-218). Children in households with a single parent and no other adults in residence had no increased risk of inflicted-injury death, Schnizter, PG, Child deaths resulting from inflicted injuries: household risk factors and perpetrator characteristics. (Pediatrics. 2005, Nov;116 :687-93)

bellong:
14. Women in cohabiting relationships are nine times more likely to be killed by their partner than were married women. Within cohabiting relationships, middle-aged women were at greatest risk of being killed. (Shackelford, T.K. & Mouzos, J., 2005. Partner Killing by Men in Cohabiting and Marital Relationships: A Comparative, Cross-National Analysis of Data from Australia and the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol.30, number 10, 1310-1324.)

Stunning numbers. Any theories from the study as to why this is so in these two countries? Is there a certain profile of women that choose to cohabit that puts them at increased risk to be abused? And the men? Why are they more abusive in cohabitation arrangements than marriage?

bellong: Harmful effects of cohabitation on children..... summary of researches on the subject....

1. A report in 2010 on child abuse by the Department of Health and Human Service that found that children living with two married biological parents had the lowest rates of harm, 6.8 per 1,000 children, while children living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the house had the highest incidence, at 57.2 per 1,000 children. Children living in cohabiting households are 8 times more likely to be harmed than children living with married biological parents. (Abuse, Neglect, Adoption and Foster Care Research, National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, NIS-4, 2004-2009, March 2010, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.)

I can definitely see this.

How about the rate of harm in children living with two unmarried biological parents?

ileobatojo:

Stunning numbers. Any theories from the study as to why this is so in these two countries? Is there a certain profile of women that choose to cohabit that puts them at increased risk to be abused? And the men? Why are they more abusive in cohabitation arrangements than marriage?

I don't know how to attach a PDF document here for the full paper but find below the link to the full paper.

http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Shackelford-Mouzos-JIV-2005.pdf

From their study, they are of the opinion that the Differences in demographic characteristics between those persons in cohabiting versus marital relationships have been flagged as a possible explanatory factor. For example, persons in cohabiting relationships tend to be younger, have lower education, occupation, and income levels, and are more likely to misuse alcohol.

Although cohabiting couples are less likely to reside with children than are married couples, when children are present, they are more likely to be stepchildren (the product of previous relationships). They emphasized that this is an important difference because research has identified that the presence of stepchildren increases the uxoricide risk.

Another explanation focuses on the relatively tenuous nature of cohabiting relationships, suggesting that this may account for the greater risk of partner killing faced by cohabiting women. Cohabiting relationships have a higher dissolution rate than do marriages.

Finally, An evolutionary psychological interpretation of this difference suggests that men in cohabiting relationships might feel less control over their partners and more threatened by intrasexual competitors. Menin cohabiting relationships, therefore, might be more likely than married men to use threats or violence (which might sometimes result in death) to establish and maintain control over their partner.

ileobatojo:


I can definitely see this.

How about the rate of harm in children living with two unmarried biological parents?

Could you please give a better explanation of this question. I suppose two unmarried biological parents are cohabiting, if this is what you mean, the study gave 8 times more than married biological parents which can be estimated to 54.4/1000.

Please clarify if I got your question.

bellong:

I don't know how to attach a PDF document here for the full paper but find below the link to the full paper.

http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Shackelford-Mouzos-JIV-2005.pdf

From their study, they are of the opinion that the Differences in demographic characteristics between those persons in cohabiting versus marital relationships have been flagged as a possible explanatory factor. For example, persons in cohabiting relationships tend to be younger, have lower education, occupation, and income levels, and are more likely to misuse alcohol.

Although cohabiting couples are less likely to reside with children than are married couples, when children are present, they are more likely to be stepchildren (the product of previous relationships). They emphasized that this is an important difference because research has identified that the presence of stepchildren increases the uxoricide risk.

Another explanation focuses on the relatively tenuous nature of cohabiting relationships, suggesting that this may account for the greater risk of partner killing faced by cohabiting women. Cohabiting relationships have a higher dissolution rate than do marriages.

Finally, An evolutionary psychological interpretation of this difference suggests that men in cohabiting relationships might feel less control over their partners and more threatened by intrasexual competitors. Menin cohabiting relationships, therefore, might be more likely than married men to use threats or violence (which might sometimes result in death) to establish and maintain control over their partner.

I find this highly engaging. Thanks a lot Bellong. (why didn't you participate in the debate!). I will certainly check out that paper.

bellong:

Could you please give a better explanation of this question. I suppose two unmarried biological parents are cohabiting, if this is what you mean, the study gave 8 times more than married biological parents which can be estimated to 54.4/1000.

Please clarify if I got your question.

Yes, that is my question but I'm not sure that is the right answer. If you are referring to the following statement:

bellong:

1. Children living in cohabiting households are 8 times more likely to be harmed than children living with married biological parents.

My understanding is that this is the rate of harm for children in all cohabiting households (inclusive of 2 biological parents and 1 biological+1 unrelated partner cohabiting). Would you agree?

ileobatojo:

Stunning numbers. Any theories from the study as to why this is so in these two countries? Is there a certain profile of women that choose to cohabit that puts them at increased risk to be abused? And the men? Why are they more abusive in cohabitation arrangements than marriage?

it's a no-brainer.
marriage complicates things. a married woman is less likely to admit her marriage is abusive to an interviewer than a live-in girlfriend.

besides, abusive boyfriends are also less likely to get married because no woman would commit herself eternally to an abusive loser but willing to do a try-out or experiment(cohabiting)

age is another factor. the average age of a cohabitor is 30, the average age of a married person is 44. maturity = responsibility. one would expect a 44 year old man to be more responsible than a 30 year old on a level playing field.

ileobatojo:

My understanding is that this is the rate of harm for children in all cohabiting households (inclusive of 2 biological parents and 1 biological+1 unrelated partner cohabiting). Would you agree?

No, the statistic is for two biological parents cohabiting while 1 biological and 1 unrelated is estimated to 57.2/1000.

ileobatojo:

I find this highly engaging. Thanks a lot Bellong. (why didn't you participate in the debate!). I will certainly check out that paper.

The schedule was not friendly. I thought it was going to be a day thing and for only one topic but didn't know it has series. I have been very busy these past few weeks, making the debate became impossible. Thanks

coogar:

it's a no-brainer.
marriage complicates things. a married woman is less likely to admit her marriage is abusive to an interviewer than a live-in girlfriend.

Hmmm, possible. So perhaps, the numbers may be spuriously inflated but I would really think this would be negligible unless the data was obtained from police reports or something. A married woman who wants to save her marriage should still be able to give an independent interviewer the correct answer as long as there would be no legal repercussions.

coogar:

besides, abusive boyfriends are also less likely to get married because no woman would commit herself eternally to an abusive loser but willing to do a try-out or experiment(cohabiting)

Have you read any abuse threads on NL? It wouldn't seem so!

coogar:
age is another factor. the average age of a cohabitor is 30, the average age of a married person is 44. maturity = responsibility. one would expect a 44 year old man to be more responsible than a 30 year old on a level playing field.

Hmmm. Do abusers really outgrow their condition? Or does this only happen when other factors for instance alcohol and drug use contribute to the abuse?

Without reviewing the data, I struggle to see why an abuser would be more abusive in a co-habitation than in a marriage.

I think this may be a classic case of mistaking correlation for causation - i.e. if co-habitation relationships are more abusive, it is more likely because those that are abusive preferentially select/end up in co-habitation (for a yet to be determined reason), and less likely to be that the relationship makes them abusive.

This flaw is quite common when arguing to 'support' a position - any statistic that shows 'better' performance in the selected position is assumed to be better because of that position when it isn't necessarily so. While the latter might be an indicator, it needs to be confirmed by identifying an eliminating any 'bias'.

One more thing to note - this discussion (at least the debate between contestants) isn't around comparing marriage to co-habitation, rather it is whether cohabitation supports successful marriages or not.

Therefore the pertinent subset of co-habitation under examination here is that which is entered into with the view to getting married (if successful), not the wider group which includes those who engage in co-habitation as a substitute for marriage.

ileobatojo:
Hmmm, possible. So perhaps, the numbers may be spuriously inflated but I would really think this would be negligible unless the data was obtained from police reports or something. A married woman who wants to save her marriage should still be able to give an independent interviewer the correct answer as long as there would be no legal repercussions.

a married woman is more likely to want to work things out than a live-in lover. most women won't admit things are bad until things have gotten really bad. the numbers are over-exaggerated.

Have you read any abuse threads on NL? It wouldn't seem so!

i have but the nigerian scene is different. marriage is like religion to us. the pressure heaped on women to get married in Nigeria is ridiculous. the society is harsh on them thus making them choose wrongly or believing with fasting & praying, mike tyson might become kirk franklin.

Hmmm. Do abusers really outgrow their condition? Or does this only happen when other factors for instance alcohol and drug use contribute to the abuse?

you are more likely to find a 21 year-old live-in boyfriend than you would find a 21 year-old married man. most males in this age bracket are hardly mature. they drink, use substances & mostly are not responsible enough to take care of their partners.

in any case, it's important not to mislead women to avoid live-in boyfriends & only shack up with husbands. things like how her partner manages anger, his drinking habits, etc are more crucial issues. a wedding ring won't make an abuser decent & the lack of a wedding ring won't turn a decent guy into a monster.

bellong:

No, the statistic is for two biological parents cohabiting while 1 biological and 1 unrelated is estimated to 57.2/1000.

I don't believe this is accurate. I tried to dig up the actual article but no success so far. Anyway, we can leave it at that unless there is additional clarifications from the article.

bellong:

The schedule was not friendly. I thought it was going to be a day thing and for only one topic but didn't know it has series. I have been very busy these past few weeks, making the debate became impossible. Thanks

Yes, it is definitely a tough schedule.

Kudos to all our debaters for volunteering so much of their time and effort. Much appreciated.

coogar:

a married woman is more likely to want to work things out than a live-in lover. most women won't admit things are bad until things have gotten really bad. the numbers are over-exaggerated.

I understand that. But what I was trying to say is that respondents to surveys are usually savvy in the US and Australia where the study is from. So say for instance, they had the respondents fill out confidential questionnaires answering questions about abuse, I don't think too many women in these parts would decide to lie about that even if they were married. Remember, for anything to be done about the marriage, the abusee needs to come forward and specifically press charges or something. The women know that researchers cannot just come and interfere with their marriages because of what they put down in a questionnaire.

On the other hand, if the data was obtained from police or court records from abusees who came forward, I could see how there might be some discrepancy between marrieds and cohabitants.

coogar:

i have but the nigerian scene is different. marriage is like religion to us. the pressure heaped on women to get married in Nigeria is ridiculous. the society is harsh on them thus making them choose wrongly or believing with fasting & praying, mike tyson might become kirk franklin.

They are on a very long tin.

coogar:

in any case, it's important not to mislead women to avoid live-in boyfriends & only shack up with husbands. things like how her partner manages anger, his drinking habits, etc are more crucial issues. a wedding ring won't make an abuser decent & the lack of a wedding ring won't turn a decent guy into a monster.

Great point!

ileobatojo:

I understand that. But what I was trying to say is that respondents to surveys are usually savvy in the US and Australia where the study is from. So say for instance, they had the respondents fill out confidential questionnaires answering questions about abuse, I don't think too many women in these parts would decide to lie about that even if they were married. Remember, for anything to be done about the marriage, the abusee needs to come forward and specifically press charges or something. The women know that researchers cannot just come and interfere with their marriages because of what they put down in a questionnaire.

On the other hand, if the data was obtained from police or court records from abusees who came forward, I could see how there might be some discrepancy between marrieds and cohabitants.

even in these countries there are underlying issues. i once read a report in california where domestic violence workers were telling abused women not to disclose the abuse they have suffered to mediators.

women received worse mediation if they reveal they were being abused/had been abused in california - perhaps because millions of people continue to use this technicality, it has gotten to a point that mediators don't longer believe such tales unless there's a police report.

Well done guys.

You guys are all winners IMO

debosky: I have to say I have been thoroughly impressed by the very capable debaters on this topic. The presentations, rebuttals and exchanges have been of a very high quality.

When challenged, each debater has gone forth to produce further evidence/arguments to back up her position and this should be lauded. Both contestants have delivered excellent performances.

I give them a round of applause.

Very impressive!

And I sincerely thank all the debaters who participated. It wasn't easy getting them online all at once.

Well done guys!

The judges also did an excellent job.