Unmarried couples in Poland = pathology

you're just looking for arguments with people... haven't seen you having a nice polite conversation for a while :)

Possible case of sampling error methinks. In a marriage (harder to get out of) it's equally well attested by research that battered wives (and, OK, husbands) choose the path of least resistance, ie the abuse goes unreported.

There's our chicken-or-egg conclusion: It's not that unmarried couples somehow become scum by cohabiting; but that society's scum chooses to cohabitate without the commitment of marriage. Hardly something to celebrate... Who would want to mimic that?


Lie. Get off my leg and MYOB.

Ah, Zimmy is here. So, back to violence... I think those statistics have more to do with socio-economics than the marital status. In my view, things get much worse if people cannot get away from each other because of economic reasons.

Tired excuse designed to excuse minority and low class scum crime and violence.
Being poor doesn't in itself make one a scumbag. Rather, scumbags are poor because they are scumbags. And they don't marry...

Because of the social stigma of getting a divorce (which isn't acceptable in RC anyway). Just like RC is probably the only church with no drop-outs, because once a catholic always a catholic (even if you're lapsed).

Some mention such things as if this were somehow bad. But if shame of social pressure caused more couples to try to work out their problems or to seek marriage counselling rather than just taking the easy out and bailing on the marriage when things got rough, then how is this bad?

Your proving my point if you were married (made the commitment to each other) without the possibility of civil disruption (divorce) you would have been more inclined to work it out. On a side note if you truly feel that way perhaps you did the right thing not getting married as you were not ready for the commitment in the first place.

It is not necessarily a bad thing in some cases, but it means the numbers are artifical. It's like saying a religion has the fewest cases of converts to other faiths when that religion preaches harsh punishments to those who leave it.

I mean, the catholic church places great stock in the chastity and non-marriage of priests (even slagging CofE for allowing it) and yet it doesn't stop SOME priests breaking their vows (although some parishoners don't want to hear about it).

Can you be sure that people do try to find answers rather than just live in misery? I've known a few people make a better go of it the second time around (married or not) with a new partner. Living in a dead marriage would have been a sentence for them.

I have long ago learned that so many things we 'think' are facts really dont add up. There are many more 'counter-intuitive' truths than we realize. Many of my links and facts in these forums often bring out a derisive response from those (usually females) who go with their 'feelings' about things which are usually culturally driven. Often, these 'feelings' are

in complete opposite of reality.

It is impossible to say for certain but I believe a marriage shared through a religious ceremony is more likely to succeed because of the social stigma attatched with divorce. Marriage is a huge commitment and should not be entered into lightly. Civil divorce has destroyed the sanctity of marrage and has cheapened it.

Those individual who made a better choice the second time around may have made a better chioce the 1st time if they knew there was no get out of jail free card. Marriage is about sacrifice. Both parties sacrifice to make a better whole.

But what is your definition of 'succeed'?

It could also be argued that the breakdown of the social stigma allowed a greater honesty about the failures of marriage.

The thing is that there was always a social stigma to non-marriage (live in sin) even in civic society (tax laws, rights to property etc) so the only marriage worth having was a church one in a churchy society.

Yes, or at least more likely to be worked on rather than just abandoned.


And the anti-marriage folks have been working to change this stigma to make non-marriage shacking up more socially and fiscally acceptable. But then we've seen the costs that this changing of perceptions rather than embracing marriage has had on society...


Lol. Yep, Libs too, all about their feelings; things like truth and facts and science be damned...

I'll just leave you guys to your theories, one quick question though - any of you are married?

No marriage will be perfect as no individual is. By succeed I meant unending.

The failure of marriages can I believe be directly linked to the lack of religion in todays society. No stigma. No consequences. No one cares. We are a selfish generation believing in an individuals freedoms over the whole. Marriages are doomed from the outset if people going into do not understand what it takes to have a succesful marriage. What is the point of the oath till death do us part in sickness and in health, through richer or poorer....this basically says we will stick it out through the good and the bad and we will work it out. Those who don't are just weak. The mistake is not who they got married to...it is that they got married in the first place because they were not ready for the commitment.


Yes I am married to my wife for 20 years. we have been a couple for 27. We met when we were 15.

I had a read through a couple of studies (busy evening....). It seems that socio-economic standing has more of correlation to domestic violence and successful child rearing than marriage vs cohabitation. So the well off "cohabiters" should be ok :)


Keep in mind that marriage and breeding is also subsidized to a large degree in most countries... :(

Well said.


Society and individuals are the better for marriage. One can know this without actually being married. Science backs this knowing.
One need not themselves own a car in order to know it should be operated properly, nor to see the costs to others when it is not.

Congratulations. Honestly.
Another quick question, and I'm not baiting, I'm really curious about your opinion - do you think you two would last as long if you were not married? And if not, who would have bailed?

Remaining unmarried and breeding gets its own rewards over here. It's practically encouraged. :s

The perceived modern failure of marriages is in fact, due to that quaint (and entirely liberal/modern) expectation that one marries for love, and not duty. The 'success' of marriages in the idealised past is inextricably linked to the notion that duty overrides all the other crap that a spouse would otherwise not put up with.

But if it is miserable, staying together 'for the kids', abusive, unfaithful etc but still together, is it still a success? Do you see what i mean?

I have a relative who was married (and she's not one to take these things lightly and she wasn't a kid when she was married). It failed after some years. She later found another man, "shacked up" had kids and later got married and have been together around 30 years. Now has grandchildren.

Had she stayed in the other, bad marriage, then things might never have worked out the same, better way.


I agree with a lot of what you say, but surely one of the reasons people shack up is to see if they are compatible. Another point is that there have always been those who have had multiple marriages/divorces and those who had affairs etc, but stayed together. Often it was the richer in society who were able to divorce because their money put them above socieities morality.

All true!
But "quaint" expectation of love, vs "idealized" past linked to duty... you're not telling us which world would you rather live in?

Aha, where's the [irony][/irony] tag when you need it? Quaint old modern times is where I'd rather be.

Abuse and infidelity are something completely different. Not many today advocate remaining together in such a marriage.


She's not the brightest sammich in the stable. :s

But isn't that the point? Today you could leave such a marriage but some would consider this a failure rather than a positive step.

I've known women who badly wanted to stay in their marriages, despite knowing the guy was around creating a new generation with half the girls in the pub. Why the heck did they want to stay? Lonliness, for one thing. So, would it have been a successful marriage if he had stayed?

Sure, the marriage would still be a 'failure'. But the stigma and social shame would not be there. I don't think anyone (except maybe a few old school extremely religious folks) would begrudge anyone for leaving such a union.

Jazus Avalon, I think you missed your vocation as a marriage counselor :)

Although you have a point and 'kids' should try to realise what kind of contract marriage is.
If you look to the other corner of said bar, you will see an old fella, sitting alone, with a pint in front of him and a far off look on his face. He has one cup, plate and a spoon he uses for a fork at unkept home.

My point is you can look at the miserable side of anything.

I suspect there are more of these.

f stop


It is hard to answer that but I in my heart would probably have to say no. My wife and I were together 7 years before geeting married. Our relationship did survive 3 years of college and long distance (I went to school in Florida- she went to Rhode Island) but we were truly in love and that was the easy part. After getting married the ups and downs the economic swings, the 4 kids...I can honestly say if thier wasn't any retribution I could have strayed and if I did so the relationship would have ended. My wife wouldn't have tolerated it.

Sweet story, M. Good for yous.