What Cohabitation Does for Marriage by Glenn Stanton on 09/22/2011 at 2:05 PM

There are some curious things going on with cohabitation and marriage that seem to tell two different stories.

First, the folks at Pew recently told us (see p. 36) that young adults have the strongest desire to marry of any generation alive today. Other data supports this. And the unmarried folks in other generations are not, nor have ever been, disinterested in marriage.

But unmarried cohabitation is the fastest growing family/domestic form in the United States as well as most of the Western world. It's exploding, having increased 15-fold since 1960. And that growth has more than doubled in real numbers since the mid-1990s in the U.S. and by much more than that in other countries. In fact, more than 60 percent of marriages today are preceded by some form of cohabitation.

Young adults are pro-marriage, but cohabitation is sky-rocketing. Is this ironic, or does it make complete sense?

I address this curious question — and many others — in my latest book, The Ring Makes All the Difference: The Hidden Consequences of Cohabitation and the Strong Benefits of Marriage. In preparation for writing this book, I carefully collected and read nearly all the leading published academic studies on cohabitation published over the past 30 years. Yes, I'm a sad research nerd. And my book explains in plain, straightforward language what this impressive body of literature teaches us.

Most people cohabiting today (75%) see their live-in relationship as some kind of step toward marriage, and 62 percent of young adults believe cohabiting before marriage is a good way to avoid divorce. Very few are cohabiting with no eye toward marriage. And these marriage-minded folks are either cohabiting as a test drive of a potential marriage or are cohabiting with Mr. or Mrs. I Don't Think So as a place holder until Mr. or Mrs. Right comes along.

But how wise of an idea is cohabitation? Is there a track record to examine? These are critical questions to ask because many millions of people are doing it and in dramatically increasing numbers.

Well, the good news is we don't have to wonder about strong, reliable answers to those questions. An absolute wealth of social science research by leading sociologists and demographers of the family are telling us much about the consequences of living together before marriage. Here are some of the most startling findings:

• If couples want to dramatically boost their likelihood of divorcing once married, few things so widely practiced will ensure that than cohabiting. This is just the opposite of what most believe.
• If women want to significantly increase their chances of being a victim of physical, sexual and verbal violence from their mate, cohabitation is what they are looking for. Men with rings on their fingers are dramatically less likely to be abusers of any sort.
• If you want to learn poorer problem-solving, communication and negotiation skills in your relationship, cohabitation can help you there also. This is because the lowered sense of commitment and relational clarity causes live-in couples to practice and learn fewer healthy interactions.
• If poverty appeals to you, cohabitation is more likely to put you there, compared to being married, even when both of you work full time. Marriage is a wealth building institution. Cohabitors are three times more likely to be in poverty compared to the married.
• When it comes to keeping up the house, cohabiting men help out less with household chores than their married peers. Husbands pitch in up to eight hours a week more than their unwedded bros on things like toilet cleaning, vacuuming and mopping. And married guys complain less often about lending a hand with the cleaning.
• Sophisticated research shows that men who cohabit before marriage become husbands who tend to be less committed to their wives, compared to husbands who did not cohabit. Cohabiting did not have this commitment-reducing impact on women. This means that women who cohabit are the greater losers in the deal, being more likely to be committed to men who do not return the favor.
• In terms of getting out of a bad relationship, data shows that women might actually have a more difficult time leaving unhealthy cohabiting relationships than a dangerous marriage. This is because the woman tends to have less power, freedom and influence in a cohabiting relationship than in marriage. As a live-in girlfriend, her negotiating position in the relationship is weaker than a wife's position is.

Nearly all of us know someone who is cohabiting. Talking to them about the consequences is not being a moralizing busybody. It's showing deep concern and care for them because of what science reveals cohabitation does to our chances for strong, healthy, thriving long-term marriages.

It is unloving not to bring these truths to their attention. And that is why I wrote this book — to help people know what is more likely to help them achieve their deeply held relational goals — and what is not.

What Cohabitation Does for Marriage by Glenn Stanton on 09/22/2011 at 2:05 PM

There are some curious things going on with cohabitation and marriage that seem to tell two different stories.

First, the folks at Pew recently told us (see p. 36) that young adults have the strongest desire to marry of any generation alive today. Other data supports this. And the unmarried folks in other generations are not, nor have ever been, disinterested in marriage.

But unmarried cohabitation is the fastest growing family/domestic form in the United States as well as most of the Western world. It's exploding, having increased 15-fold since 1960. And that growth has more than doubled in real numbers since the mid-1990s in the U.S. and by much more than that in other countries. In fact, more than 60 percent of marriages today are preceded by some form of cohabitation.

Young adults are pro-marriage, but cohabitation is sky-rocketing. Is this ironic, or does it make complete sense?

I address this curious question — and many others — in my latest book, The Ring Makes All the Difference: The Hidden Consequences of Cohabitation and the Strong Benefits of Marriage. In preparation for writing this book, I carefully collected and read nearly all the leading published academic studies on cohabitation published over the past 30 years. Yes, I'm a sad research nerd. And my book explains in plain, straightforward language what this impressive body of literature teaches us.

Most people cohabiting today (75%) see their live-in relationship as some kind of step toward marriage, and 62 percent of young adults believe cohabiting before marriage is a good way to avoid divorce. Very few are cohabiting with no eye toward marriage. And these marriage-minded folks are either cohabiting as a test drive of a potential marriage or are cohabiting with Mr. or Mrs. I Don't Think So as a place holder until Mr. or Mrs. Right comes along.

But how wise of an idea is cohabitation? Is there a track record to examine? These are critical questions to ask because many millions of people are doing it and in dramatically increasing numbers.

Well, the good news is we don't have to wonder about strong, reliable answers to those questions. An absolute wealth of social science research by leading sociologists and demographers of the family are telling us much about the consequences of living together before marriage. Here are some of the most startling findings:

• If couples want to dramatically boost their likelihood of divorcing once married, few things so widely practiced will ensure that than cohabiting. This is just the opposite of what most believe.
• If women want to significantly increase their chances of being a victim of physical, sexual and verbal violence from their mate, cohabitation is what they are looking for. Men with rings on their fingers are dramatically less likely to be abusers of any sort.
• If you want to learn poorer problem-solving, communication and negotiation skills in your relationship, cohabitation can help you there also. This is because the lowered sense of commitment and relational clarity causes live-in couples to practice and learn fewer healthy interactions.
• If poverty appeals to you, cohabitation is more likely to put you there, compared to being married, even when both of you work full time. Marriage is a wealth building institution. Cohabitors are three times more likely to be in poverty compared to the married.
• When it comes to keeping up the house, cohabiting men help out less with household chores than their married peers. Husbands pitch in up to eight hours a week more than their unwedded bros on things like toilet cleaning, vacuuming and mopping. And married guys complain less often about lending a hand with the cleaning.
• Sophisticated research shows that men who cohabit before marriage become husbands who tend to be less committed to their wives, compared to husbands who did not cohabit. Cohabiting did not have this commitment-reducing impact on women. This means that women who cohabit are the greater losers in the deal, being more likely to be committed to men who do not return the favor.
• In terms of getting out of a bad relationship, data shows that women might actually have a more difficult time leaving unhealthy cohabiting relationships than a dangerous marriage. This is because the woman tends to have less power, freedom and influence in a cohabiting relationship than in marriage. As a live-in girlfriend, her negotiating position in the relationship is weaker than a wife's position is.

Nearly all of us know someone who is cohabiting. Talking to them about the consequences is not being a moralizing busybody. It's showing deep concern and care for them because of what science reveals cohabitation does to our chances for strong, healthy, thriving long-term marriages.

It is unloving not to bring these truths to their attention. And that is why I wrote this book — to help people know what is more likely to help them achieve their deeply held relational goals — and what is not.

Comments

[1. Phylicia said the following at 2:33 PM on Sep 22:]

1

I heard you on the radio (90.1 Moody) yesterday regarding this topic! Definitely going to get the book. Thanks for this!

[2. Stephanie said the following at 3:57 PM on Sep 22:]

2

Are there any explanations for why these statistics are as they are?

[3. Lee said the following at 4:10 PM on Sep 22:]

3

Repeat after me:

Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

This goes for people on BOTH sides of the argument.

[4. Kelly-1 said the following at 4:15 PM on Sep 22:]

4

This message needs to get out to the general public, because no one believes it.

And so often amongst my non-believing friends, the only ones who actually get to marriage are the ones who co-habit first. They all seem happy enough now but I guess we'll see what happens over the next few years.

Even last weekend, my friend who's been engaged for 10 years (that was her condition of moving in with him) finally walked down the aisle.

[5. Corwin said the following at 4:15 PM on Sep 22:]

5

@ Glenn:

I'm wondering if you have looked at any studies suggesting that the risks you outline disappear for couples who live together only after being engaged (like this one:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-03/entertainment/27057883_1_cohabiting-couples-marriage)

I'm not asking this to dispute anything you've said or defend living together before marriage. I'm just curious how you would respond to someone that argues living together after engagement is a good idea (because I have no idea how to respond to them!).

[6. arielle said the following at 6:54 PM on Sep 22:]

6

you give science the credit behind cohabitation being a poor idea for those desiring marriages, but since this is a Christian blog, isn't it more of an issue to evangelize to them and rather than point to science as to why their marriage will probably fail, point to Christ as the solid, uniting force in marriage.

It used to be the norm that people didn't have sex or live together before marriage (and if they did, they got shunned mostly), but that doesn't mean their marriages or lives were focused on the most important thing: God.

[7. jen. said the following at 7:40 PM on Sep 22:]

7

This is all great to know and have in mind, but do you have any suggestions as to how to start/steer the conversation towards this *without* triggering someone's defensive walls?

[8. Sara said the following at 8:09 PM on Sep 22:]

8

I'd like to repeat along with Lee #3 that it doesn't make sense for individuals to work backwards from statistics. Statistically, I'm probably Asian, but that fact doesn't make me any less of the North American that I am.

I feel like you'd have a better argument if you could prove how a cohabiting environment makes otherwise strong couples falter.

[9. glenn said the following at 10:29 PM on Sep 22:]

9

OK, some interesting comments here to respond to...

Stephanie #2, Lee #3 and Sara #8 comments all seem to be related.

There is no real debate in the literature on whether cohabitation is related to greater relational issues and dramatically increased risk of divorce. *The question is why.* There seems to be some good indication that the process of cohabiting can actually teach couples poorer relational skills and habits because of the ambiguity of and the differing valuing of the relationship by the two partners. I go into this in more detail in the book, but there does seem to be some causation effect for few reasons.

It is an important and interesting question to address. I might write about it here in more detail in a subsequent post. Let me know if you would like that.

Also, Corwin #5, yes I do address this issue in the book, of those couples who move in AFTER engagement. I read these studies carefully. This does not remove all the negative consequences of cohabitation, but it does seem to lessen them. There are logical reasons for this, which my book explains. It has to do with the nature of the engagement itself. Not just if the couple is engaged, per se, but if they are making plans and intentions toward marriage. This makes them a different kind of couple. Kelly #4's point is perfect here. Engaged for 10 years is not engaged. But a man whose mother-in-law to has ordered her wedding dress, the cake picked out, and a deposit put down on a reception hall is more on the hook than this guy who popped the question 8 years ago. Sociologists say these two kinds of relationships are very different than one another because the couple acts differently toward one another, as do the friends and extended family. The relationship has a clear future focus. But even these "we're making real plans" engaged cohabitaters still faces many serious problems.

Engagement doesn't remove all the problems. The large lady hasn't sung yet, so to speak. The deal is not done. And many cohabiting engaged folks never get to the altar, which puts them in the general cohabited category, which is not a healthy category to be in, in terms of future relational prospects.

Arielle #6, you seem to make the gnostic mistake of thinking that Christians have no real interest in science, but only in faith. I actually address this chapter 8 of the book because it is an important point. Can a good Christian book or blog make a scientific point and still be faithful?

Yes. Christ is Lord of All. This means He is Lord of the natural order, which reveals His glory. Science, well-done, is reveals this as do other things. And this science on cohabitation reveals that beautifully. It is a very real sort of evangelism. To say that Christian should only concern themselves with the "spiritual" or "religious" part of life says Christ is only Lord of this stuff over here, the strictly religious.

[10. Chantel said the following at 11:25 PM on Sep 22:]

10

Stephanie #2, that's a good question. I haven't looked into the statistics behind cohabitation that much, but I've found enough to convince that me that it is not beneficial. I don't remember all the reasons I found, but I know that one of them is that those who cohabit do not start out as committed.

[11. Chantel said the following at 11:27 PM on Sep 22:]

11

#3, I agree with you. It isn't good to jump to conclusions but I'm sure you'd agree that there are times when correlation is definitely part of the cause. It's not just religious people who think that cohabiting is detrimental; many secular sources report the same thing.

[12. Lydia said the following at 2:33 AM on Sep 23:]

12

I think that confounding occurs, because the people who still do get married, come from totally different backgrounds than the people who cohabit
A man who cohabits, thinking 'I'm holding out for Mrs Right while enjoying being taken care for by my girlfriend' might be less likely to help out in household chores than a man who loves his girlfriend and commits to marriage!!

[13. Denise said the following at 5:18 AM on Sep 23:]

13

good message, would love more grace in the delivery/ less sarcasm. :) totally understand that it's a message that needs to be hard-hitting, but it does come across as slightly argumentative and holier-than-thou. just my 2 cents.

[14. Tony said the following at 6:21 AM on Sep 23:]

14

I think someone has to say this for the Christian front. This question should only relate to unbelievers, as a Christian should never live in with his future spouse before married. We are charged by God to not fornicate, which is impossible to resist if you live together.

Though the sad thing is, there are people in my church who secretly live together, only to go through quite a hard time once they want to take premarital counseling at my church. The first question the counselor asks is "are you living together?" I went though it so I know, he was relieved to know we were living separately.

[15. Lock said the following at 6:54 AM on Sep 23:]

15

Correlation does not equal causation.

Actually, it may or may not; "does not" is incorrect.

What we're seeing is the rise of serial monogamy, of which cohabitation, short marriages or short-lived relationships are a part. A few articles on that are are we seeing the rise of relationship quickies, is serial monogamy worth pursuing, and what is a serial monogamist?

[16. Susan H. said the following at 7:16 AM on Sep 23:]

16

Glenn,

Yes, I'd very much like to see a follow-up post on why this is causation going on, not just correlation. I tend to believe cohabiting probably does lead to worse relationships, but in every discussion I've had about this with someone who's in favor of cohabitation, they insist it's just correlation. Thanks!

[17. Wanda said the following at 7:45 AM on Sep 23:]

17

Ever think that maybe the people who got married have more money because they could afford to get married. People who cohabit may not be in the financial position to pay for a wedding, thus appearing to be poorer in the statistics.

[18. Jane said the following at 8:05 AM on Sep 23:]

18

the best example of cohabitation i can think of? my parents. they lived together for two-three years before they got married, first in group houses with friends, then in an apartment (with a dog).

they'll be celebrating their 32nd wedding anniversary in November.

i'm not saying that cohabitation is the answer to the world's problems, i'm saying (and i am an agnostic, so i'm not going off any religious-based backing) that context matters. some people live together because the rent is cheaper. some people live together because one member of the couple is abusive and has forced their partner to move in. people do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. it's worthwhile to think through those reasons before we talk about the consequences.

[19. Tony said the following at 8:39 AM on Sep 23:]

19

@Wanda

That's an irrelevant excuse, if people weren't materialistic they wouldn't "need" money to have a large or expensive wedding. It can be done very inexpensively. My brother got married younger, and the total cost for him was $1400.

[20. David said the following at 8:49 AM on Sep 23:]

20

Glenn,

As a conservative (and reformed / calvinistic) Christian I am having trouble with your statements in this post.

There is no evidence based on the documents you linked to. Those documents merely discuss scenarios between couples that could happen inside or outside of a marriage. I have seen plenty (and I do mean PLENTY) of marriages where abuse is prevalent and I've seen plenty of healthy unmarried couples working towards a solid marriage. It is wrong of you to assume that these scenarios are only held toward a specific demographic. Those stats can easily be skewed or leave out important data in order to support your argument.

The issue here is not whether couples are cohabitating, but rather if their relationship is intentional from the beginning. Regardless of whether you cohabitate before marriage or not, if you are sincere and desire a God centered marriage and move toward that, then that is what matters. It is guaranteed you will sin along the way no questions asked - we are born sinners and our flesh / bodies carry it in our very nature. It's how you respond to the sin in the relationship and move back to God through the power of the Holy Spirit that counts.

REDEMPTION Glenn. Our walk with Christ is based on redemption and grace, not behavioral science.

The Bible says absolutely nothing (I've looked long and hard) on cohabitation. You are therefore merely leaving it 100% to science to dictate whether it is WISE or not to cohabitate before marriage. It is unhealthy to scare people into a behavioral mindset convincing them that is is the CHRISTIAN way.

I think God fully understood before the world was made that this type of unwise decision that can lead to various sins would in fact take place. Therefore it is unhealthy to assume the position you are taking in causing hurt people looking to live in the perfection of Christ to throw up their defensive walls to defend their actions. Stop living in fake conservative Christianity that is bent on making people feel like depraved human beings. We already know this based on the doctrine of "Total Depravity".

Instead you should be helping Christians and non-Christians alike move towards a healthy stable marriage by helping to accelerate the move to marriage as the APOSTLE PAUL states in 1 Corinthians 7.

It's not enough to bring forth what you have in this post. Statistics can easily be manipulated by the Christian right or the liberal left to say whatever they want to say. I know this after living many long years that statistics are merely a marketing ploy to sway people to take one position over another rather than bring someone into a correct moral ethical standing based on what GOD says in his word.

And sure, science can and does back up much of what the Bible says but you have to look at each scenario carefully to make sure that both science and the Bible have authority on a particular issue. If both do not have bold and definitive evidence then I would question whether something like "Cohabitation before marriage" is wrong or simply unwise.

Glenn, overall my argument to you here is to take a pastoral / counselor role here and not one of beating information over people's heads. This is a mute point. The Christian right wingers have gotten lost in legalism rather than understanding scripture in the context of history.

[21. janine said the following at 8:53 AM on Sep 23:]

21

@Tony and everyone else. Even though I do agree that living together is not the way to go, it is not true that it's not possible to live together and not 'consume'. I have done so succesfully for 4 years. The reason is complicated, but in our case it saved our relationship and now marriage. how do people feel about that? not fornicate, but living together?

[22. Doc B said the following at 9:05 AM on Sep 23:]

22

As a professor who teaches statistics, it can be very frustrating to read comment sections on blogs...it proves we professors aren't doing our job very well.

"Correlation does not equal causation."

While the intent was correct, this is a poorly-worded statement. In reality, correlation does not imply causation; don't make a statement about it being 'equal' to causation...it in fact can be.

Here's an example: we can't prove that smoking causes lung cancer. But because of good correlations along with other follow-up studies, we can say with confidence that smoking is a strong contributor to lung cancer. In the same way, the author here is not saying that cohabitation causes divorce, but he is saying that it is a strong contributor to marital difficulties, including divorce.

While correlations don't imply causation, but they not only imply, they quantitatively demonstrate significant relationships between variables (usually of a linear nature). This means either direct causation is present or that there are underlying, hidden variables that do cause the marital problems, and these are in some ways tied to the practice of those who cohabit.

That's all the blog is claiming. Cohabitation is associated with negative outcomes in marriage. We don't know all the confounding and interaction factors, but we are learning those through other types of research. The author never claimed that cohabitation causes divorce; it clearly does not. What cohabitation does is provide a platform for related variables to happen that do indeed cause marital problems, up to and including divorce.

Look how often the author uses terms like, 'likely', 'dramatically boost', 'significantly increase', etc. These are not claims of direct causation.

[23. Brian said the following at 9:34 AM on Sep 23:]

23

"The Word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing but to those who are being saved it is the power God (1 Cor. 1:18)." Now what does that have to do with anything? That means that as believers we must not be surprised when unbelievers act like unbelievers. They have no desire for holiness. However, as believers we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. What does the Word of God say about cohabitation. There is one scripture that is quite interesting to me...Heb 13:4 "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." Now I have been taught that the "marriage bed is undefiled" part relates to the sexual nature of the relationship inside the marriage covenant. However, I believe it is quite different based on the Greek word and the follow up statement made by the author. The word for "marriage bed" is "koite" and literally means "cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful." The author is exalting marriage as ordained by God (at the beginning of the verse) and is illustrating that cohabitation is a beautiful benefit of marriage, and is therefore undefiled. He then follows up the statement with the judgment of God, which I believe speaks to the fact that cohabitation outside of marriage is sinful in God's eyes. All that to say this...the Word of God is our standard...I believe the results of Mr. Stanton's research only displays the failure of depraved, sinful man's attempt to love another with out knowing the God who is the very definition of love...a word, in our culture, that has been far removed from its biblical definition of a committed choice, and reduced to a fickle, frivolous, lustful emotion on which we base our relationships. The results are no surprise.

[24. Lisa Anderson said the following at 10:14 AM on Sep 23:]

24

David (#20):

Please tell me what about cohabitation encourages an intentional move toward marriage; for my part, I've never seen this happen.

And when you say, "it is guaranteed you will sin along the way no questions asked," are you implying that sexual sin is inevitable? Because I don't think our response should be to throw up our hands and say, "We're doomed! We can't avoid this, so let's sign a lease and buy a king-sized mattress while we figure out this marriage thing." The fact is that while you're intentionally moving toward marriage you can greatly lower your chances of sexual sin, and it's not by living together, sleeping together, hanging out in your jammies together -- whatever. It's by embracing a biblical model of purity and putting whomever or whatever you need up in your business as accountability and encouragement to get there.

I agree that God knew a bunch of things "before the world was made," not least of which were the silly arguments like this one that humans would make to try to cloud the obvious. As Doc B (#22) says, "cohabitation is associated with negative outcomes in marriage." My guess is we should take this to heart and not set ourselves up for failure by adopting practices that are sure to undermine marriage as a whole.

As a self-described "reformed/calvinistic Christian," you should know this. The Westminster Larger Catechism specifically commands "chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto."

Notice how cohabitation is mentioned only in the context of marriage, above. The WLC then goes on to prohibit the "undue delay of marriage." Hardly a pass for shacking up, I'd say. Is this the "fake conservative Christianity" you describe? Because it's written in your church tradition's documents.

[25. Tony said the following at 10:15 AM on Sep 23:]

25

@janine

If that's even true, that's a rare case. The majority of couples living together are having sex, or have come close in other ways.

Let me ask you this question, if you were a recovering alcoholic would you keep beer in the fridge just "in case friends came over?"

Making a provision for the flesh isn't wise, especially when it comes to sexual temptation. Dating has changed the course of relationships, and in my opinion for the worse. There were no long term dating relationships in the past like there are today. Dating someone for 4-5 years before marriage was unheard of.

[26. Tami said the following at 10:19 AM on Sep 23:]

26

janine (21) Not knowing what the background in your situation is/was (it sounds like you're married), but generally -- I wouldn't advise even a chaste cohabitational arrangement in the general sense. It's difficult enough not to head down the wrong road when you're NOT living together; I can't imagine that living together makes it any easier.

So while it's not *impossible* to live together chastely, it's not really *easier* to do it. Therefore in the grand majority of cases I'd say it's unadvisable.

Now, my question: What do you all say to non-Christian friends who are considering moving in with their intended? My general line is: You know I'd make a different choice, given what I believe about sex before marriage; but take everything you know about the person and yourself into consideration before you do so. What more can I say beyond that? If they're already having sex, and if they're engaged or soon to be engaged, it's not like living together - or not - is going to make a difference in terms of how they choose to live. Really, the matter is that they need Christ; He's the one that will make the true difference in their decisions. Glenn, does your book address how to have this discussion with unbelieving friends? Especially in a situation where it's an emotional decision and stats likely won't move them to consider things differently?

[27. Tami said the following at 10:46 AM on Sep 23:]

27

David - let's not kid ourselves. With a few rare exceptions, most couples who live together have sex. Yes, even Christians. And there is plenty in the Bible to argue against that.

I don't see where Glenn is being "fake" or where he's using statistics to override what the Bible says.

And is wisdom not something we're supposed to have or follow? Aren't we supposed to *read the Bible with wisdom* and not take it SO literally that if we don't find something that literally addresses our issue (e.g., living together) we assume the Bible is silent and that God has no opinion one way or the other about it? I also believe it IS wrong to make a decision that's "simply" unwise. If you know it's unwise, why do it?

I'm also frankly confused by your position as a Reformed Christian; most of the Reformed folks I've come across are WAY conservative to the point of not even kissing or holding hands prior to marriage, let alone living together and letting on the appearance of evil. Do you view them as "fake" as well?

[28. Preston said the following at 11:48 AM on Sep 23:]

28

I think Doc B and Lisa A. say it all quite well

[29. David said the following at 1:31 PM on Sep 23:]

29

Those who have read my post and not heard my whole case are misconstruing my words and goal here.

I understand what the WLC says and it is not the Bible nor is it upheld to the standard the Bible is. It is an imperfect document written as a summation of what the church believes by very conservative Christians who lived in a culture far different than ours (economically and socially).

Tami how can you be confused by my Reformed view? I am frankly confused by why you think people should not date for several years in order to find the right mate. It's better to find the right person the first time rather than divorce multiple times because you got married too fast! This comes about because the right wing conservatives out there fear the blank spots the Bible doesn't talk about and insert their "Careful words of wisdom" as if it will make them safe.

You keep forgetting that while it is certainly not ok to keep on sinning so that grace may abound, it is not ok to become a monk living in a monastery who can't engage the culture around them and provide clarity to a hurt generation thirsty for a savior!

Are you one of those Christians who thinks that parents should wed their daughter to a man she doesn't know only to find out that that man is not a Godly man and mistreats her?

I'm serious here. Why is this community so outright against taking the right amount of time to find the right mate?

Why is it so difficult to get past the whole "Dating" aspect of our lives? We sin. God redeems and moves us closer to him!

It's so simple yet you are all getting hung up over legalistic rituals and rules that only isolate you from the culture and don't make you a good evangelist of the Word!

I'm not arguing that sex before marriage is ok. I'm saying that cohabitation should not be lifted up as something far worse in God's eyes. We humans have a really bad habit of layering our sins thinking that the less we sin the more favor we will gain in God's eyes.

My reformed faith states that we are born totally dead to Christ and have no desire for him. From the moment we wake up to the moment we lie down we are sinners because of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. It's not what we do that makes us sinners, it's who we are.

Please get that straight!

James 2:8-13

8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,”[b] also said, “You shall not murder.”[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

[30. David said the following at 1:39 PM on Sep 23:]

30

Oh, and not all Reformed Christians are WAY more conservative.

Have you heard of Mark Driscoll? John Piper? R.C. Sproul? These men are conservative, but not to the point where they lack compassion or the heart to listen, counsel and help someone out of sinful and unwise situations life throws at them.

C.S. Lewis was a habitual chain smoker most of his life. Because the Bible calls for us to live pure lives does that mean Lewis didn't?

Just because people commit sins, doesn't mean they necessarily want to. Paul makes this clear in Romans as well when he talks about the war between our soul and the flesh.

Please humanize your Christian walk rather than turning it into a mechanical list of deeds and actions that you try to force others to comply with.

[31. Chris Krycho said the following at 1:51 PM on Sep 23:]

31

I think the point others have tried to make is the same one that was blaring in my head as I read the post. (I fully oppose cohabitation, and happily waited for marriage to live with my wife and to consummate our marriage. It's Biblical.)

As Doc B highlighted, cohabitation itself does not cause divorce, or lower incomes, etc., and Mr. Stanton knows it... but the way the article was written, and the way most of these studies are presented at a popular level, often makes it appear as though that is the case.

The reality is, it's likely that the abusive man prefers cohabitation to marriage because it's less burdensome and more enabling to him. The sorts of poorer people who are choosing cohabitation over marriage are likely making many other, similarly unhelpful decisions that are impacting their finances. The people who get divorced after cohabiting do so because they have a view of relationships that is inherently temporary in its approach. In each case, cohabitation is a symptom of the underlying problem (many of which, I suspect, can be traced to the prolonged adolescence our culture idiotically idolizes), rather than itself being a case. The main exceptions may be those where poor relational habits are developed in cohabitational relationships because of the sensed lower commitment and correspondingly lower import given to the relationship.

So what people like me – in full agreement with the author's desire – are frustrated with is that those real underlying issues aren't highlighted. The article gives little evidence that the author recognizes this, which is unfortunate, because I'm sure he does. (Good grief, man, that's a lot of papers to read! :) Thus, I think my point comes down to this: we can do better in the way we present our information, and doing so can only be helpful. The more clarity we get on the root issues – in this case, the more we see that cohabitation is symptomatic of serious commitment issues, immaturity, and other emotional problems that ultimately contribute to failed marriages – the more effective our argument against it will be.

[32. David said the following at 1:59 PM on Sep 23:]

32

I think it's the attitude of "let's try this first" that is the real indicator of future failure, not the absence of rings. Guys and gals who are "trying" one another are still on dating behavior, and there's little about dating behavior that reflects real life.

In my own case, we were precluded from marrying by a bitter soon-to-be-ex-spouse, whose spiteful delaying tactics were facilitated by the court system. We held each other's hands, looked each other in the eye, and swore to each other that we were in this relationship with our all, and for all time. And we have behaved and lived "married" since that day three years ago. We have also had a legal wedding along the way, about a year ago. And nothing about our relationship changed on that wedding day, except we were finally relieved of the frustration of being forestalled from marrying.

My wife is my heart, my best friend, my helpmate and supporter. I am hers as well, and her cheerleader. I am so very glad we have the rings now, but from the day we committed to each other, she has had all I could bring to her. We were not playing, pretending, or "trying out."

[33. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:04 PM on Sep 23:]

33

(1) What Doc B (#22) said.

I've heard the "correlation is not causation" argument no small number of times.

While that statement is factually correct, it is also factually correct that a strong correlation does indeed provide actionable intelligence that a prudent man or woman would do well to consider.

I also would agree that while cohabitation--in and of itself--may not cause divorce, it constitutes a flagrant disrespect of the marriage covenant, and serves as a very bad foundation on which to establish a lifelong covenant the sustenance of which requires no small amount of love and respect.

Oh, and when you have children, and those children reach the age at which they start getting pressures to be less than sexually pure, they are going to be looking to you for permission to do that.

If you tell them, "Your mom and I had our challenges, but we restrained ourselves and did not move in together until after we tied the knot", that denies them permission while providing hope--which is what they need when their hormones are speeding at mach 9--especially if your home life is very good.

If they know that you shacked up before you said, "I do", your children will take that as permission to do the same.

Wanna guess what they are going to do?

[34. Michele said the following at 2:10 PM on Sep 23:]

34

Couples may cohabitate together for financial reasons and are avoiding the article for those reasons. Has it been researched where one person would lose benefits if they do get married such as pensions from a previous spouse or lose disabilty payments that the family relies on if the couple does get married. There are may poor women who live on Section 8 housing that would lose it if they moved in with their boyfriend and the two of them are unable to pay rent on their own. At least couples who live together and who aren't married are living their life more honestly than an unmarried couple who are living in different places but are still having sex. I have been to quite a few Christian weddings where the bride and groom didn't live together but the bride was pregnant or had a child with the groom by the time that she had married.

[35. Lee said the following at 2:11 PM on Sep 23:]

35

On "correlation does not equal causation"--you are correct in that sometimes things that correlate ALSO have a cause-and-effect relationship.

However, I remain deeply suspicious though of the implication that cohabitation causes poverty, child abuse, divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism, etc., and the implication that marriage will prevent or lessen these problems. (And yes, there IS an implication in this article that cohabitation causes these things: "Nearly all of us know someone who is cohabiting. Talking to them about the consequences is not being a moralizing busybody. It's showing deep concern and care for them because of what science reveals cohabitation does to our chances for strong, healthy, thriving long-term marriages.")

Could not an equally valid claim be that people who are poor are more likely to shack up sans marriage? After all, you certainly don't need to live together to be having sex, and if you're already having sex and having trouble footing the bills, well, two can live cheaper than one.

Could it be that people who are more likely to abuse their children or significant others or who are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol are less likely to marry in the first place?

Could it be that people who don't have moral qualms about divorce in the first place are also more likely to live together before or instead of getting married?

Marriage is NOT the be-all, end-all solution to the problems of the world. As one of my students put it as to why her parents never married, "Even if my daddy had put a ring on it, he'd have still been a no-good drunk wife-beating a****** who couldn't keep a job."

[36. Natalie said the following at 2:19 PM on Sep 23:]

36

If you're interested in seeing more from Glenn on this, you can read his article here http://bit.ly/pUQjj7.

There's also a free resource here http://bit.ly/pINYjC that references more of Glenn's sources.

Most of all, I would recommend reading his book, if you can. http://amzn.to/oLi953 (I had a chance to read it because I do work with the publisher.)

The book goes a lot further than these articles in examining and explaining his research AND - my personal favorite aspect - it also examines how marriage impacts the hearts of men and women.

As a twenty-something female who has seen plenty of hearts broken, it was refreshing to see some of the ways that marriage is designed to keep that from happening. Not to say that marriage is easy or perfect, but reading the research on what marriage ISN'T (cohabitation), made me really grateful for what it IS.

[37. Stephanie said the following at 2:28 PM on Sep 23:]

37

#21 Janine - in addition to all that has been said in response to you I would ask you to think about this -- even if you didn't fornicate, did you take physical steps that fall short of God's standard for purity before marriage? I'm not picking on you or asking you to necessarily divulge the details of your relationship, but lots of people like to draw arbitrary lines and then get as close to the line as possible while thinking God is pleased. I am not saying this was your experience, but I would bet that for many of those who lived together but didn't fornicate (which probably isn't a big number to begin with) they didn't necessarily adhere to purity in their relationship either.

[38. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:42 PM on Sep 23:]

38

Lisa Anderson says:

And when you say, "it is guaranteed you will sin along the way no questions asked," are you implying that sexual sin is inevitable? Because I don't think our response should be to throw up our hands and say, "We're doomed! We can't avoid this, so let's sign a lease and buy a king-sized mattress while we figure out this marriage thing."

I agree. That said, I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people attempt to justify their premarital sexual activities by using exactly that rationale.

David says:

The Bible says absolutely nothing (I've looked long and hard) on cohabitation. You are therefore merely leaving it 100% to science to dictate whether it is WISE or not to cohabitate before marriage. It is unhealthy to scare people into a behavioral mindset convincing them that is is the CHRISTIAN way.

David, I'm going to tell it to you straight: that was a very intellectually lazy--if not intellectually dishonest--line of reasoning.

Fact is, in ancient Israel, an unmarried woman who lived in the same house as the man was either (a) a slave or (b) a concubine. Surely you aren't going to make a Christian case for taking slaves and concubines...

If an unmarried man and woman had sex, they were considered married. (Don't believe me? Look it up: it's in the Bible you claim to have studied "long and hard".)

If that sex was not consensual, they were still considered married, and he would not be permitted to ever divorce her. (Don't believe me? Look it up: it's in the Bible you claim to have studied "long and hard".)

Moreover, the "it's not specifically in the Bible, so it must be permissible" line of reasoning is quite weak, as it is equally logical to say, "it's not specifically in the Bible, so it must NOT be permissible". My point: you need to come up with a better argument.

Scripture gives us many core principles regarding how we ought to conduct ourselves sexually, both in singleness and in marriage.

There is no credible case from Scripture--especially from a Reformed framework--for premarital cohabitation.

And don't even think of raising the issue of Abishag, the mistress with whom David--who took her at an advanced age--could not consummate due to age-related weaknesses.

(They were still considered married, as Solomon had Adonijah--one of David's SONS--put to death for trying to underhandedly make a claim to the throne for asking to have her as his wife.)

[39. Sander Buruma said the following at 3:04 PM on Sep 23:]

39

Thanks for the research and the well made article. I find this world very confusing and you help to bring much clarity. If I may ask, I would like to know why some couples are having kids together and not getting married and why some couples marry and do not want kids. To me it is linked, but in the Netherlands it is not. My head is starting to spin, I don't understand it.

[40. TB said the following at 3:27 PM on Sep 23:]

40

Can I be honest? I think that, in reality, the hard line against any and all sexual activity before marriage is one reason that a lot of Christian gals are single into their 30's and 40's these days. This may not be right, but a lot of guys - even pretty decent guys - need a little taste to get them to the point that they want to commit. It's a fine line. Too much and he's "getting the cow for free"; not enough and the incentive to get emotionally invested isn't sufficient.

I read an article some time ago about birth timing in American Colonial times (18th century). The number of births five-six months after marriages in that era is astounding.

I'm not saying any of this is a good thing. I'm just saying I think it's true.

Let the vegetable-pelting commence.

[41. Louise Mcbride from Chicago said the following at 3:37 PM on Sep 23:]

41

Actually re household chores I have heard and personally experienced the opposite: live in boyfriends do more "chores" than husbands, i.e. once a woman becomes a wife, it is her duty to "take care" of the house and the husband, despite the presence of outside job responsibilities.

I know the people on this blog do not approve of unmarried cohabitation. I respect that. But let's not get carried away, folks!

[42. Amir Larijani said the following at 3:51 PM on Sep 23:]

42

David says:

Oh, and not all Reformed Christians are WAY more conservative.

Have you heard of Mark Driscoll? John Piper? R.C. Sproul? These men are conservative, but not to the point where they lack compassion or the heart to listen, counsel and help someone out of sinful and unwise situations life throws at them.

If you are trying to make the case for cohabitation as you cite names like Driscoll, Piper, and Sproul, you are really stepping in it. None of those folks--and I DO mean NONE--would condone cohabitation.

C.S. Lewis was a habitual chain smoker most of his life. Because the Bible calls for us to live pure lives does that mean Lewis didn't?

If we were debating smoking--or social drinking, of which Lewis also did his fair share--then this would be a valid argument to raise. After all, there are vices--such as alcohol--that are Biblically permissible within moderation.

Still, with respect to cohabitation, you have yet to make a Biblical case.

Just because people commit sins, doesn't mean they necessarily want to. Paul makes this clear in Romans as well when he talks about the war between our soul and the flesh.

Please humanize your Christian walk rather than turning it into a mechanical list of deeds and actions that you try to force others to comply with.

Admonishing people to abstain from sexual immorality--which Paul did quite often--is perfectly Biblical. (It also "humanizes" the walk by acknowledging that Christians, however sanctified we may be, are going to struggle with the temptation to engage in such behavior.)

There is no such case to be made, however, from Scripture regarding cohabitation. This is because--in Scripture--couples who lived under the same roof, 100% of the time, were considered MARRIED.

Admonishing people to avoid practices that are almost 100% associated with sexual immorality, and so projects the appearance of impropriety--like, say, cohabitation--is also perfectly Biblical.

I realize that someone will come out of the woodwork and exclaim, "My husband and I cohabited for 6 months before we got married, and we have been happily married for X number of years!"

That's like saying, "I smoked pot when I was a teenager, but I turned out okay."

[43. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:30 PM on Sep 23:]

43

Lee (35): I have seen guys “man up” when marriage comes into the picture, as a present or future reality, and your student might well have been surprised at the changes marriage might have brought.

That said, I agree that some of your suggestions are likely to be true. Speaking as a guy, if a girl is willing to move in without first getting married, then she's shown herself to have certain moral values by doing so; that form of selection must surely feed into the (usually bad) outcomes.

Of course, that sort of argument doesn't make the case against cohabitation any weaker; rather, it strengthens it, as it's clearly worth avoiding such girls! Causation or not, it's wise to avoid “people who don't have moral qualms about divorce” if you don't want divorce to be a part of your future.

[44. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:31 PM on Sep 23:]

44

TB (40): What Amir said :) There is the possibility that sex defines the marriage, and the couples in Colonial times were simply adding a human ceremony to what was in fact already a marriage.

[45. Tami said the following at 4:35 PM on Sep 23:]

45

David - "Are you one of those Christians who thinks that parents should wed their daughter to a man she doesn't know only to find out that that man is not a Godly man and mistreats her?"

Absolutely, ABSOLUTELY not. I don't know where you'd even get that from (and I didn't say anything about the length of time people should date in my message at all?). But I don't think that taking time to know someone necessarily means that you will date for years to do so. Or that living together is a smart way to accomplish that.

...Or that I'm a monk in a monastery?

And I'm not sure where you're getting that I have a "mechanical list of deeds and actions that [I] try to force others to comply with," simply because I disagree with you about living together.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm not Reformed, and I don't hold to the no-holding-hands, no-kissing view. Though *most* of the Reformed people I know do. And that's why I am confused by your standpoint.

[46. Tami said the following at 4:45 PM on Sep 23:]

46

TB -- "This may not be right, but a lot of guys - even pretty decent guys - need a little taste to get them to the point that they want to commit. It's a fine line. Too much and he's 'getting the cow for free'; not enough and the incentive to get emotionally invested isn't sufficient."

OK, I don't have any carrots handy, so no veggies pelted here. :) But speaking as a woman -- there's no way to guarantee that you're dealing with a "pretty decent guy" who appreciates an affectionate girlfriend, OR a not-so-decent guy who expects the affection but is still noncommittal even while playing at commitment.

I think there are better ways of demonstrating affection than just giving a taste in order to ensure you keep a guy around. Certainly don't act cold, but don't do stuff out of fear of losing him, either.

And also I can (unfortunately) name a lot of Christian women in their 30's and 40's who gave those "tastes," and they're still not married. So there's that too.

[47. Amarette said the following at 4:49 PM on Sep 23:]

47

Not that I want to be the boring person in the mix, but shacking up can also have some pretty annoying legal consequences.

The longer you live together, the more likely you are to join together financially and legally bind property together... etc. Then were you to break up you wouldn't have spousal protections that the law provides. You also wouldn't have to the courts to help mediate, you would have to attempt to separate your belongings individually. CHAOS.

Even if you are engaged this is a bad idea. Imagine if you and your betrothed were paying off each other's debts or you were dependent on his income or you bought a house together... then your fiance dies. You have no legal protections. You have no spousal rights.

[48. Lee said the following at 8:36 PM on Sep 23:]

48

@Trevor--

Perhaps it's also worth avoiding such GUYS?

[49. Sebs - MaximizingMarriage.com said the following at 1:10 AM on Sep 24:]

49

I've read about similar conclusions to cohabitation or live-in situations. Thanks for reinforcing them. God bless on your ministry.

[50. Eric Ulm said the following at 5:50 AM on Sep 24:]

50

@ 3. Lee, 8. Sara, #12 Lydia etc.

As a published researcher, my first reaction is also often "correlation does not equal causation" but peer reviewed researchers (and their reviewers) are usually well aware of this so it makes sense to read the research and see, rather than just the quick blurb. For instance, the abstract of the first article mentioned says:

"When selection factors for cohabitation and
subsequent marital instability were included in the
statistical model, cohabitors in both cohorts continued
to exhibit poorer marital quality and greater
marital instability."

In other words, they did a lot more than just notice a correlation and infer causation. I suspect this is true of most of the other studies as well, although I haven't checked all of them.

[51. Okaley Dokaley said the following at 12:33 PM on Sep 24:]

51

can you please show what these sophisticated research are? who did them and where are they published?

[52. Ria said the following at 12:52 PM on Sep 24:]

52

Thank you Doc B (#22).

The problem with cohabitation is the lack of commitment and something outside of the couple's economic situation, feelings for each other, etc. to guide their choices and behavior. In marriage, you have vows to be loyal to when being loyal to your spouse gets hard.

A friend told me his parents married when he was 5 years old, "They wanted to be sure they could live together with children before getting married." I tried to imagine such a household. Every day the question would reign in the couples' heads: "Is this working out?" If one of them decides it isn't, what is there to prevent them from leaving, cheating, venting frustration on each other, etc? Because in cohabitation there is not a commitment holding the couple together, there is no right and wrong in the relationship, only *feelings*.
I have not talked deeply with anyone who has cohabitated, but these are just things I can imagine happening to an unmarried relationship.

[53. Joseph said the following at 9:09 PM on Sep 24:]

53

All the research I have read confirms this.

The only place I have seen otherwise was in Colombia, where the cost for the paperwork to get married is well beyond the reach of the poor and most working class, mainly because of archaic laws and corruption. The church I go to down there actually runs a program where they financially help couples to get the paperwork done. Thus most of the couples, whom none have divorced and have been together from years to decades, that I know and are fine examples of strong marriages lived together before being "officially" married.

That is why I do like the Biblical view that the marriage is solidified by sex rather than paperwork. Looking at the early church, a couple would say they were getting married, and if no one in the congregation objected, they were married and would consummate it that night. The way I see it, being one before God counts a lot more than one before the State.

Also there is no one I know of in the US that can't afford a marriage license or a wedding. Said licence is arguably too easy to obtain, and you can have a fabulous wedding for less than 2000. Want awesome catering? Find a mom and pop shop nearby that needs free advertising. You can get a lot of good food on discount. And its even cheaper if you don't want the licence to avoid marriage penalties whether in tax code or welfare issues. (Sadly, our welfare system discourages marriage, which is probably the number one thing that prevents cyclical poverty)

[54. James said the following at 9:09 PM on Sep 24:]

54

Appreciate your thoughtful posts David, I don't know exactly where you were going with post 32, but I wish the responses had been a little more thought out. I think the overall point is that even if a believer makes it past this traditional sin of living together, there are still others that I wish would be given the same emphasis.

[55. arielle said the following at 5:42 AM on Sep 25:]

55

TB:"Can I be honest? I think that, in reality, the hard line against any and all sexual activity before marriage is one reason that a lot of Christian gals are single into their 30's and 40's these days. This may not be right, but a lot of guys - even pretty decent guys - need a little taste to get them to the point that they want to commit. It's a fine line. Too much and he's "getting the cow for free"; not enough and the incentive to get emotionally invested isn't sufficient."

I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but how you could do anything sexual without any guilt or remorse and claim to be a child of God is ridiculous.

Any Christian guy that can't commit without any kind of prior sexual activity is not a guy you want to bind yourself with. I'd rather be alone than sin against God in order to get married.

Have some standards.

[56. David said the following at 4:26 PM on Sep 25:]

56

James (#54):

I think there were other David's that posted in the comments earlier. That wasn't me in post 32.

Thanks for the support too. Doesn't seem to be anyone else here that understands where I was going with all this except you. Also the blog comments section here doesn't seem to allow for long posts so that's why my comments were not as thought out. It would take multiple long blog posts for me just to cite examples, scripture, and other info just to get my whole point across.

I'm really surprised and confounded that Dobson's ministry would take this approach on such a small matter. Cohabitation is NOT the issue. Lack of marriage commitment is with cohabitation becoming an unwise side effect of that.

Statistics never saved anyone. The Gospel is what saves. When you start writing posts like Glenn did, then you wade into the waters of legalism, not getting to the root of the problem, and therefore confusing this generation on how to live their lives. No more scaring young adults with do's and do not's. I could create an endless list till the day I die on how to live and how not to live. It won't save us and it certainly won't help us live better lives! The Holy Spirit does that through supernatural power.

Fact is we won't be able to measure up by God's standard. Our very being is sinful. Focus on the heart issue and all the other small side effects will peel away like layers of an onion coming off.

Remember, we sin because we are sinners (NOT the other way around - We are sinners because we sin.)

[57. Benjamin said the following at 9:41 AM on Sep 26:]

57

David (#32):

In my own case, we were precluded from marrying by a bitter soon-to-be-ex-spouse, whose spiteful delaying tactics were facilitated by the court system. We held each other's hands, looked each other in the eye, and swore to each other that we were in this relationship with our all, and for all time. And we have behaved and lived "married" since that day three years ago.

I don't mean this to be spiteful, but ... given that there was another spouse in the picture, one of you clearly had held hands and looked into eyes and swore to someone else that you were in that relationship for all time.

So though you had sworn that in front of others, and you were still married legally, you presume that in the eyes of God this new marriage (that you "performed" privately) was the one that "counted"? That seems absolutely bizarre to me.

[58. jayme said the following at 9:44 AM on Sep 26:]

58

From the "causation" aspect, I'm guessing:
Man and Woman who don't have a biblical view of marriage + Man and Woman who don't have a relationship with God:
= more likely to co-habitate.
= more likely to abuse and tolerate abuse.
= more likely to have sex before marriage.
= more likely to have sex before marriage = more likely to have self-esteem/comparision issues.
= more likely to see marriage as "temporary" = more likely to divorce.
= more likely to see marriage as "temporary" = more likely to not combine finances and help each other financially.
= more likely to be self-centered = more likely to get out when marriage isn't meeting "needs".
= more likely to be self-centered = less likely to help the other spouse in the relationship.

I didn't get married for more money. I didn't get married for help around the house (truth be told, I do more now as a married lady than I ever did as a single - and that's okay!). A friend-of-a-friend recently asked me why she shouldn't move in with her boyfriend. I had a 3-page response, which I won't put here, but for me (besides the theological ideology of marriage and the roles of husband and wife), a wedding ring says: "I am here through thick or thin. I'm here when we can't figure out who showers first in the morning. I'm here when our sex life isn't that great. I'm here when you get laid off and can't pay a portion of the bills. I'm here when the doctor thinks it might be cancer. I'm here if the pregnancy test shows positive. I'm here. Always and forever." As a woman, marriage provides a huge sense of security - as it should. It's earthly security - it's not my eternal salvation or anything - but it's an example of God's grace while I'm in this world.

[59. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:50 AM on Sep 26:]

59

David: Having been a regular here for most of the last 4 years, I think I'm qualified to say that, for my differences with the folks at Boundless, I've not seen them so much in the "do the Biblical thing because statistics back it up" camp as much as they seem to be in the "isn't it nice when science even affirms the Biblical way of doing things?" camp.

And make no mistake, there is no Christian case, rooted in Scripture, for unmarried cohabitation, unless--of course--you are seeking to make a Christian case for concubines or slaves.

While no one here is suggesting that statistics save anyone, can you please tell us why is it such a crime to highlight those times when science supports Scripture?

Acknowledgement of such hardly requires us to subject the Bible to science; it does, however, allow one to acknowledge those instances in which empirical studies affirm the benefits of Biblical prudence.

At this point, I return to the following paragraph that earned you the rebuke:

The Bible says absolutely nothing (I've looked long and hard) on cohabitation. You are therefore merely leaving it 100% to science to dictate whether it is WISE or not to cohabitate before marriage. It is unhealthy to scare people into a behavioral mindset convincing them that is is the CHRISTIAN way.

Is there any part of that statement that you wish to modify or recant in light of what has been pointed out here?

[60. Preston said the following at 10:10 AM on Sep 26:]

60

@David#56

I think some of the commenters responding to you might actually understand what you are saying, but what they are stressing is that it won't matter if anyone wants to debate the impact/effect of cohabitation, they are saying that it shouldn't even be a factor because you shouldn't cohabit in the first place, which is what Glenn's article is trying to substantiate with statistical evidence.

Lack of marriage commitment exists in our culture now regardless of whether or not you consider cohabitation, so I agree that is in fact what needs to be addressed, but you don't do so by minimizing cohabitation's role any more than you do by dismissing the fact that young people today delay marriage longer than perhaps they should for a myriad of reasons, one of which being commitment issues.

The POINT is this, should you as a believer agree with cohabitation? Glenn's article is citing non-Bible based evidence to support the assertion that you should avoid cohabitation, so that one could show someone who wasn't going to buy a faith or moral/ethical-based explanation for why you should not. Its a demonstration of the consistency of the Word, using statistics as a tool, which is what it is meant to be used for, as explained by Doc B. in his earlier post.

I don't actually think you disagree with this either, I just think you want to stress something else you figure is more pertinent, not that you don't agree what they've been saying.

Just my two cents...

[61. Elisabeth said the following at 1:31 PM on Sep 26:]

61

Amir (#38)

I think you're mistaken about the sex=marriage idea in the Bible.

According to Exodus 22:16-17 (and Deut. 22:28-29), those who had premarital sex were not already married, because in certain situations, they were required to marry.

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife."

While I doubt there was anything we would easily recognize as marriage ceremony in the Old Testament period (Rebekah seemed to go straight from camel to tent when she became Isaac's wife), I would argue that formal community involvement was customary, serving as their "marriage ceremony."

In Rebekah's case, that included her mother and brother's permission, her own consent, and the giving and receiving of dowry items. The tent, then, was the last step in a formal process. That's why it's called "consummation."

In the New Testament period, betrothal preceded the tent by a year. At this point, the marriage process was incomplete, but still solid enough that the couple's relationship could only be dissolved by divorce. (This is well illustrated by the story of Mary and Joseph).

Betrothal probably included similar elements as OT marriage: parental consent, dowry, and consent of the bride. (It may have included giving and receiving of a cup of wine and a marriage certificate; I'm not sure exactly when these customs arose).

Heading to the tent early was a recognized way of fully formalizing their marriage, but it was frowned upon. (Again, think Mary and Joseph). Usually, the marriage formalities were completed with a community-wide feast -- and then the tent!

I think it's important to clarify this point, lest people think some sort of formal marriage ceremony is simply a modern invention.

[62. Elaine said the following at 1:45 PM on Sep 26:]

62

1. http://www.lhj.com/relationships/can-this-marriage-be-saved/dysfunctional-relationships/living-together-was-so-much-easier-than-being-married/"

http://www.lhj.com/relationships/can-this-marriage-be-saved/dysfunctional-relationships/i-want-to-feel-closer-to-him/

Above are two stories of couples who live together before marriage and problems they face afterward. The problems were there when they live together. These stories were published in the Ladies Home Journal Can this Marriage be saved where they presented stories of persons who seek counseling for problems in their marriages. They have been doing this for over 60 years. It is not a Christian magazine and they too always mentioned problems that living together outside of marriage causes. So it is not alone Christian’s who recognized the problems causes.

In No. 1, the men and women used to make separate decision when living together and find it hard to combine decision when marry. For example, when to watch a movie, which movie to see or should we stay in together.’ In marriage you start off making decision together.

In No. 2, the man and woman were in long distance relationship for four year. It was only when she mentioned either get they breakup or get marriage did he marry her. When they marry, they did not share bedroom, bank accounts, did not eat dinner together. The separateness they use before they marriage where hard to share off.

These cases are listed under dysfunctional relationships.

[63. Jim H said the following at 1:55 PM on Sep 26:]

63

David #20 said:

The Bible says absolutely nothing (I've looked long and hard) on cohabitation...

What about Paul's command in 1 Cor 6:18-20 (NIV)?
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Paul did not just say avoid sexual immorality, but to FLEE from it.
I don’t think cohabitation falls within the spirit of this command. While I suppose it is theoretically possible for a couple to co-habitate in purity prior to marriage (separate bedrooms and strict physical boundaries), I think it is foolish to flirt with sin like that. I know that I would almost certainly succumb to temptation and any man who could endure this without succumbing to temptation either has enormous, almost super-human willpower, or needs to have a physical. It is just not wise to put yourself in this position and flirting with sin like that is foolish for the vast majority of people.

[64. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:26 PM on Sep 26:]

64

Elisabeth:

If a couple in ancient Israel had sex, there were a few possibilities:

(a) it was a whoremonger-prostitute or man-concubine relationship. (the former merited a death sentence, the latter was in practice by certain rich people; this was never viewed favorably in Scripture. Think Solomon...)

(b) it was some sort of extra-marital affair (penalty: death for both offenders)

(c) it was a married couple doing what God ordained married couples to do (think Song of Solomon)

(d) it was a consensual relationship of singles that constituted an act of marriage.

(e) it was some sort of non-consensual relationship (molestation/rape)

(f) it was same-sex (penalty: death)

If it was (d) the man was required to pay the bride price, and she was his wife. In ancient Israel, this was a horrible disgrace, because--even when they have the ceremony--the scandalous nature of the activities reflects badly on the families involved.

If it was (e), he had to pay the bride price, AND he would NEVER be allowed to divorce her.

(If it was (e) and she was married or betrothed, he's a dead man. If she didn't scream, she's also dead.)

To say that the practice of "heading to the tent" was "frowned upon" in ancient Israel would be a gross understatement, as (a) the father would be severely dishonored, and (b) her wedding day would be looked upon scandalously.

To make a long story short, cohabitation would take this a hundred steps farther; not only would it be "frowned upon", it was unquestionably verboten.

What we cannot afford to do is look at the Scriptures with modern, Western eyes. Things that are commonplace today--cohabitation--were considered catastrophically dishonorable in ancient Israel.

Even "one night stands" were bad news: a woman who could not prove virginity ran the risk of death by stoning for "playing the whore". The man, on the other hand, if caught, would be on the hook for taking care of a new wife.

That's not to say that promiscuity didn't go on back then--it did. That said, the price for said behavior was Biblically high.

Many of the younger Israelites tried to get around that, by going to the Canaanite festivals, which included sex with temple prostitutes. To those young, virile Israelite men, it allowed for getting some no-strings-attached sex. Sadly, this also constituted idol worship, and was a major issue about which the prophets railed at Israel.

Bottom line: sexual sin--while forgivable--is very serious business.

[65. James said the following at 2:47 PM on Sep 26:]

65

Jim (63)
I think you've made David's point... there is no specific example found. That leaves stretching verses further than they probably should be. Of course it would be profoundly unwise and I would never recommend/approve of cohabitation. But I think we need to be careful about making the leap from unwise and foolish decisions being equatable to sinful actions.

[66. Jim H said the following at 3:31 PM on Sep 26:]

66

James #65,
The Bible does not speak highly of foolishness (see Proverbs). Whether or not foolishness is a sin in and of itself I would have to do some more research.

Another verse that comes to mind is Ephesians 5:3.

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

In my view, two unwed Christians living together also violates the spirit of this verse. Again Paul says "NOT EVEN A HINT..."

Taking all this verses into consideration and giving it some more thought, I believe that unwed Christians living together is a sin.

[67. Tami said the following at 4:14 PM on Sep 26:]

67

Again -- when has "not wise" become equatable to "not entirely sinful, so it's within the realm of acceptability so don't judge"? We've been given an entire book of the Bible (Proverbs) that warns us AWAY from foolish things -- especially in the realm of sexuality -- and we're called to be discerning.

Additionally, cohabitation isn't something we'd label unwise like "jumping off a bridge into a river" or "driving over the speed limit" or "drinking a double shot of espresso before bedtime." This is a lifestyle choice that has a profound effect on how we choose to live before God, and with profound and lasting consequences.

As Amir and I have both stated, there may be RARE cases where living together prior to marriage is not impure. I'm not prepared to label EVERY case sin, but at the same time, I'm not entirely prepared to divorce a lack of wisdom (foolishness) from sin. I don't think this is a legalistic stance, nor do I think it's stretching biblical truth too far.

[68. TB said the following at 8:22 PM on Sep 26:]

68

Re: #61

"Betrothal probably included similar elements as OT marriage: parental consent, dowry, and consent of the bride. (It may have included giving and receiving of a cup of wine and a marriage certificate; I'm not sure exactly when these customs arose)."

I think the "consent of the bride" part is pretty pollyannish and revisionary. I don't recall Rachel and Leah's father consulting them.

[69. James said the following at 8:59 PM on Sep 26:]

69

Jim,
We're really not that far apart, did I say foolishness was a good thing?

I do think getting into the spirit and what we perceive to be the intended meaning of scripture does a disservice to it. It's too sacred and important to do that. We should examine it carefully and evaluate it based on what is there, not what we imagine to be there, or what would be easier or more convenient.

And I shouldn't have to put so many qualifiers in front of my statements, just because I go a little against the grain doesn't mean I'm endorsing the exact opposite view.

[70. Jim H said the following at 12:05 AM on Sep 27:]

70

James
I agree that Scripture is absolutely sacred and must be treated with the utmost respect. But since Scripture does not provide explicit prescriptions for every conceivable situation and does indeed provide general principles which can be discerned, I think it is a cop out to suggest that everything must necessarily have an explicit Scripture reference. For example, I am not aware of any verses that say “you shall not have an abortion.” Yet Scripture is replete with references to the sanctity and personhood of unborn life.

Getting back to the topic at hand - with clear commands from Scripture to “flee from immorality” and to avoid “ANY HINT of sexual immorality,” it is irresponsible to NOT take a hard stand on unwed Christian cohabitation.

[71. Elisabeth said the following at 1:58 AM on Sep 27:]

71

TB, (#68)

I agree that we want to avoid revisionism. But isn't it possible to be revisionist in a negative way as well? Is there any historical reason to assume that ancient culture was always harsh and "backwards"?

It's quite possible that individual fathers gave their daughters little to no say in who they married. It's also possible that Laban, who was quite the manipulator, was one of them.

However, there are also Biblical examples where the woman clearly did have a say:

Gen 24:58 "And they called Rebekah and said to her, 'Will you go with this man?' She said, 'I will go.'"

Num 36:6 "This is what the LORD commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, 'Let them marry whom they think best, only they shall marry within the clan of the tribe of their father.'"

[72. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:29 AM on Sep 27:]

72

Elisabeth is correct on this: while fathers did give their daughters away in marriage, the dynamics worked out such that the fathers usually worked with their daughters--and the families involved--to arrive at a situation that was good for everyone.

The concept of arranged marriages tends to get a bad rap.

In an arranged marriage paradigm, the onus is on the families to work together. The end result is generally pretty favorable. This approach also carries many advantages that today's American singles do not have.

(For example, if your family is working to secure an "arrangement", both families are going to be examining each other closely.)

In Biblical times, the arranged marriage dynamic was not far-removed from what we have today in cultures that have arranged marriages.

As for Laban, I think he gets too much heat; he was merely looking out for the interests of his older daughter, who--in getting passed over for her younger sister--was otherwise being humiliated.

Besides, Jacob--whose name meant "deceiver"--was simply getting some comeuppance.

Moral of the story: watch the alcohol intake. You never know what you'll wake up with...

[73. Peter said the following at 9:43 AM on Sep 27:]

73

Yet Scripture is replete with references to the sanctity and personhood of unborn life.

Well ... that's not really true. There are a couple of references to God's creative work in the womb. Hardly "replete", and only with much stretching does it have anything to do with the sanctity or personhood of unborn life.

Abortion may indeed be wrong, and I personally think it should be illegal, but the twisting of Scripture necessary to claim that it addresses the issue directly bothers me.

[74. TB said the following at 11:30 AM on Sep 27:]

74

"Backwards"? That's your assessment, not mine. I'm just saying that all evidence is that the USUAL practice in ancient times was not to greatly credit the opinion of the woman.

[75. TB said the following at 11:55 AM on Sep 27:]

75

Re: Arielle:

"Any Christian guy that can't commit without any kind of prior sexual activity is not a guy you want to bind yourself with."

I really don't disagree with you on the merits. All other things being equal, prefer the more righteous man. Definitely.

But there are some issues.

1) All other things are NOT equal. Women tend to want what they want -- attractive male qualities. Ever notice that the attractive musician at church gets more attention than the quiet guy in the back row? Is that because the musician is more righteous? Doubtful. I submit to you that the number of fully righteous men that women also readily find very attractive is quite small -- much too small for every Christian woman to have one.

2) A lot of the guys who have technically been "righteous" have been so due to lack of options. Sometimes the men themselves don't even realize this. But the number of 25-year-old male virgins who are also truly attractive, alpha males capable of having a woman whenever they'd like (think Tim Tebow) is exceedingly small. A lot of guys don't get a lot of attention from women, aren't tempted much, and then turn that into a virtue in their own mind.

3) People are always changing. Sometimes for the bad, but also sometimes for the good. And it simply is not true that men who are not truly righteous at age 25 cannot become good and loyal husbands. I know a lot of guys who were variously dissolute at age 25, and who needed some "coaxing" into marriage, who are now outstanding husbands and fathers. Their wives are very happy.

So. Life is complicated. Some large portion of the many Christian women who would like to be married cannot have one of the very few men who are both attractive and truly righteous at the outset. There are, of course, some righteous but unattractive men available. And there are other, generally decent, men out there who will likely make good husbands eventually but need to be drawn into it.

That's the situation. I'm not suggesting it's easy; there are traps everywhere. But I think making decisions about this stuff is harder than you're making it out to be, especially as a woman ages. It's easy to be picky and idealistic at 21. When 30 starts creeping up at you, it may be a different story.

[76. Kelly-1 said the following at 1:21 PM on Sep 27:]

76

#75 TB said:

But the number of 25-year-old male virgins who are also truly attractive, alpha males capable of having a woman whenever they'd like is exceedingly small.

I date attractive "Christian" men from time to time. I don't expect them to be virgins. I don't think it's possible. He's not going to be age ~30 and unmarried and still with normal "male" drives. And if he is, well, he must be so in tune with God's will that I could never be an appropriate helpmeet for him. (i.e. different levels of spirituality, his would be far greater than mine.)

For women, it's different. We can suppress that drive. Double standard, I know, but that's how God made us.

My aunt married an attractive Christian virgin at age 35. He turned out to be not interested in intimacy at all. It's caused both of them a lot of pain and left them childless.

[77. Jim H said the following at 1:24 PM on Sep 27:]

77

Peter said #73

...but the twisting of Scripture necessary to claim that it addresses the issue directly bothers me

Thank you for reinforcing my point. I said clearly there is no single verse which directly addresses abortion. But you are wrong about scant Biblical support of personhood in the womb which makes abortion equivalent to murder.

Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Isaiah 49:1 (ESV)
Listen to me, O coastlands,
and give attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.

Luke 1:15 (concerning John the Baptist)

And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

Galatians 1:15 (Paul speaking)
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace.

Genesis 25:3 (ESV)
Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”

[78. James said the following at 2:10 PM on Sep 27:]

78

Jim, while I would go with you on the pro-life belief, legal positions are another matter entirely. That's even further out of bounds than the moral issue we were discussing.

[79. Jim H said the following at 6:02 PM on Sep 27:]

79

James,
I think the general principle is that regardless of what the culture values or doesn't value, regardless of what is legal or illegal, we need to develop a Christian worldview that is Biblically based and be obedient. The Bible does not have specific guidance for every situation but that does not relieve us of the responsibility of using general principles from the Bible to arrive at an answer. The Bible speaks to some things clearly such as adultery, theft, false statements, etc. while other topics such as abortion, co-habitation, embryonic stem cell research, etc. are not explicitly addressed. In those cases we must exercise careful diligence in applying general principles from the Bible to arrive at the answer.

So regardless of whether or not co-habitation is becoming more normalized in society, Christians should not be engaging in that behavior.

Regardless of whether or not abortion is illegal, Christians should oppose it as much as they can within the law and not practice it themselves.

[80. James said the following at 12:11 AM on Sep 28:]

80

Well Jim, that's simply where you and I part ways. I am not prepared to extend scripture to the point you do. I would say that mankind's attempts to arrive at answers outside of scripture does not have a very good track record. Not to be too dramatic but your wording on those other issues troubles me.

I wake up in the morning and I try and think about Christ, and what I can do to be Christ like during my day..how to extend that to others, etc. No politics, no modern traditions... it's incredibly refreshing to strip away all of that and just get back to basics, to get back to what scripture says, not the current trends.

I've enjoyed our back and forth, and look forward to more of the same.

[81. Jim H said the following at 6:49 PM on Sep 28:]

81

James,
I, too, have enjoyed our exchange. One of the key disconnects may be what kinds of things fall under the category of charity and what kinds of things call for a hard stand (and the explicitness of Scripture on a topic when making a hard stand). I do believe there is a big place for charity in our Christian walk. Paul gives an overview of the kinds of things that fall under charity in Romans 14 (NIV).

2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

One example of charity I practice is alcohol consumption. I don’t believe it is sinful to have a glass of wine with dinner but there are some Christians who view any alcohol consumption as a sin. Therefore, I would never drink in their presence.

However, there are some things that are so important, such as protecting the innocent unborn babies and being salt and light in the way we live (i.e. the command to avoid any hint of sexual immorality as it pertains to unwed Christian co-habitation), that it calls for a hard stand. And I still hold to the belief that it is a cop out to not diligently search the Scriptures and come to a conclusion, even if there is not explicit Scripture reference to that exact situation. Charity is for non essentials (eating, drinking, which days are special, etc.) but matters of life, purity, the Gospel, etc. require a hard stand.

[82. DNP said the following at 4:31 PM on Sep 29:]

82

76.Kelly-1 said the following at 1:21 PM on Sep 27:

“I date attractive "Christian" men from time to time. I don't expect them to be virgins. I don't think it's possible. He's not going to be age ~30 and unmarried and still with normal "male" drives. And if he is, well, he must be so in tune with God's will that I could never be an appropriate helpmeet for him. (i.e. different levels of spirituality, his would be far greater than mine.) “

You think?!

“For women, it's different. We can suppress that drive. Double standard, I know, but that's how God made us.”

Different women have different libidos. Some are low and some are high. It is not so much of a double standard you wrote about but a stereotype.

“My aunt married an attractive Christian virgin at age 35. He turned out to be not interested in intimacy at all. It's caused both of them a lot of pain and left them childless.”

Likewise I have heard mirrored stories where the woman was not interested in intimacy at all. It happens both ways. That's life!

[83. Prickly Pete said the following at 10:43 PM on Sep 29:]

83

Kelly (#76):

Your comments really made me a bit sad. If your experience with men is such that you think it is virtually impossible for a 30 year old Christian man to be a virgin ... I don't know, I feel for you, and I hope your experience is not the norm.

And if he is, well, he must be so in tune with God's will that I could never be an appropriate helpmeet for him.

I am not quite sure what you mean by that part. God designed sex for marriage, and it is pretty easy to see that in the Bible; I don't think it takes all that much special spiritual insight or super-human self control to want to save it for that.

Don't buy into our culture's lie that everyone has to have sex, or that men are nothing more than dogs that have to hop on any pretty thing that walks by.

[84. Tony said the following at 8:31 AM on Sep 30:]

84

Just to dispel rumors that "Attractive Men" who are Christians aren't pure, I can honestly say with no ego that I never did anything sexually with a women until I was married at 25. My wife was also a virgin.

I was pursued by Christian (and non Christian women) constantly too. Everyone has the chance to sin sexually. Most people just fall into it either by putting themselves in dumb, risky situations or not fully understandingthe spiritual implications of the action.

This whole "Well I shouldn't expect purity from anyone over 20" is garbage. Also, the main way to stop sexually sinning is for PARENTS TO STOP ALLOWING YOUR CHILDREN TO DATE FROM AGE 12! It's ruining not only sexual morals but also physicological/mental/spiritual development.

[85. HAP said the following at 10:38 AM on Sep 30:]

85

#76 Kelly-1

Your post made me sad. I know of men and women who have also suffered like your aunt, however, my husband who is very attractive was a virgin at 26 when we married. I do not believe he nor I are on the low end concerning sexual desire. I don't think super spiritual is true either. I would say it was only by the grace of God. We work with youth and are constantly telling them IT IS POSSIBLE. I really believe that.

[86. Kelly-1 said the following at 12:47 PM on Sep 30:]

86

Sorry, everyone, if my post made you sad. My personal experiences have led me to these conclusions. And please keep in mind I was referring to the "alpha males" who could have pretty much any girl they wanted.

83. Prickly Pete said :
"I am not quite sure what you mean by that part."

Again, based on my experiences, I believe that it's a huge effort for a man to remain chaste his whole life, AND be very attractive, AND not have married by his mid-20's. (Unless he's Jesus.)

Me? I'm a sinner. Not sexually, but in other ways, and I could never compare myself to a guy who is on fire for God so much that he can put all distractions/temptations of this world out of his head and focus on serving.

I KNOW there are men here in their 30's who are virgins. I applaud you for that. But I also think that if you could have had any girl you wanted, you would have been married in your 20's. Same as me. In my early-mid 20's, I was not a good prospect for marriage. I had so much to learn, so much growing to do. I wasn't a "desirable girl" - and when you're not that, it's much easier to remain a virgin.

Since I started dating a lot, the troubles of experience have become so apparent to me. I look attractive; there's an assumption that I have 'fallen into sin' just like they have.

And you know, that's okay, I understand why. I understand that there are reasons why he didn't get married in his 20's, just like there are reasons that I didn't. We're all fallen humans who fall short and only by the grace of God are we given endless chances.

I hope this makes sense.

Is there a 30+ alpha-male here who can prove me wrong? ;)

[87. TB said the following at 2:10 PM on Sep 30:]

87

"But I also think that if you could have had any girl you wanted, you would have been married in your 20's."

Yep. This is correct. An alpha male who was devout enough to insist on no premarital sexual activity would have no difficulty pursuing and capturing the heart of a woman. If a man is in his '30's and has not found a wife, he is either not a virgin, or not an alpha. No alpha would go twelve sexless years.

[88. Corwin said the following at 3:41 PM on Sep 30:]

88

@Kelly-1 (86) and TB:

I am in my 30s, play in the NBA, am worth millions, get hit on every night by beautiful women, and am still a virgin.

...Okay, so maybe only one of those is true. :P

You do have a point, and frankly I've come to a similar realization about attractive women my age (I'm actually in my late 20s). While I don't expect that everyone has had sex, there is a reasonably high probability that I will not be marrying a virgin.

Statistically, 86% of fundamentalist protestant woman have had sex by 22 and only 17% of married woman from those faiths didn't have sex until marriage (unless I am reading these stats wrong: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf )

But the fact that everyone is doing it does not make it okay. I would have questions for someone who has had premarital sex and would want to know that they are repentant.

Also, don't make the mistake of concluding that men who remain pure into their late 20s/30s are unattractive, not sexual, or too spiritual for you. Sure I may not have had as many sexual opportunities as the attractive guys, but I still had enough (living in a university residence, girls often came home with beer goggles that worked in my favour and believe me, at times it was tempting).

I have worked very hard and intentionally to not put myself in situations where opportunities to sin present themselves. Dismissing the work I've done by telling me I'm just ugly or lacking sex drive is insulting. Excusing other men's bad choices by blaming their good looks is dangerous -- it tells attractive young men to just stop trying.

@TB:

You also have a point that men can change and become more righteous. But it's rare from what I've seen. If a man is selfish enough to demand "a taste" from you knowing that it violates your values, that’s a pretty deep character flaw that will likely follow him for the rest of his life.

It’s not a sexual problem, that's a lack of respect for you and your values problem -- which will creep into all areas of your marriage.

Finally, if you have to choose between attractiveness and righteous (which I believe is a false dichotomy), remember that attractiveness usually fades in a hurry while character is slower to change. Sacrificing character for attraction will likely leave you with neither.

[89. Corwin said the following at 4:48 PM on Sep 30:]

89

If a man is in his '30's and has not found a wife, he is either not a virgin, or not an alpha. No alpha would go twelve sexless years.

Wow, it sounds like being an alpha means you are basically an animal incapable of keeping your pants up. Is it that unbelievable that a man would pass up good opportunities for marriage or sex to pursue other goals?

And if it is, why would anyone want as a husband an alpha who can't delay their own physical gratification in the interest of higher things? I mean, wouldn't it then also be unrealistic to expect these alpha husbands to not mess around with other women when their wives become pregnant and unattractive?

[90. TB said the following at 6:35 PM on Sep 30:]

90

"Wow, it sounds like being an alpha means you are basically an animal incapable of keeping your pants up."

I think this takes a view of sex that is unrealistic. Sex is not food or water, but it's an extremely strong internal drive for men. It goes to the core of what a man is, and it is a rare man indeed that can go through his 20's without sex and suffer no ill effects. It was St. Paul himself who said that the gift of celibacy was not given to many, and that therefore it is better to marry than to burn with lust.

Stereotypes don't arise from nothing. There's a reason that so many women look at a male virgin in his 30's as sort of a weirdo. It's not the usual design; not how a man was meant to function. It leaves a mark.

Also, I didn't say there were NO righteous AND attractive men. I said the supply of men satisfying both those criteria was LIMITED. Once that supply is exhausted, you're left with men who are attractive but not righteous; or righteous but not attractive. It's simple math.

[91. HAP said the following at 4:35 AM on Oct 1:]

91

Kelly-1

Thanks for your reply to let everyone know a little better where you are coming from. I've got to be quick so I hope I make sense. :)

Believe me just because I put a ring on my husbands finger doesn't mean women have stopped making themselves available to him! He could still have nearly have any woman he wanted. But I trust his integrity. If he would have confided in me while we were dating that he wasn't sexually pure that wouldn't have changed what I knew about his current walk with the Lord and character in the face of temptation. I would have still married him without hesitation. Am I thrilled to be his one and only? Definitely! I thank him for waiting for marriage every so often. The bond we share is indescribable. Being married to 'Jesus' doesn't sound to bad to me. I wanted to marry a man who could lead me spiritually.

My brother-in-law who is a virgin is getting married in a few weeks to a woman with a difficult past and a ten year old son. If you asked him if he feels cheated, I'm sure he would laugh in your face. He is confident that she is his best choice for a wife for him and we are very happy for them.

May God bless you in whatever relationship you may be blessed with and may you serve God whole heartedly together!

[92. Benjamin said the following at 9:30 AM on Oct 1:]

92

Also, I didn't say there were NO righteous AND attractive men. I said the supply of men satisfying both those criteria was LIMITED. Once that supply is exhausted, you're left with men who are attractive but not righteous; or righteous but not attractive. It's simple math.

Even if that were true, who cares?! Of righteousness and attractiveness, one matters immensely and the other matters very little.

I personally want to be like Jesus. And if that means I can't be an "alpha" or will be seen as a "weirdo" like our Lord who did not have sex for his whole life, so be it.

[93. Trevor Dolby said the following at 12:20 PM on Oct 1:]

93

Kelly-1: It's not only your personal experiences but those of many other people as well, and you're spot on with what you're writing.

The one thing that jumped out at me from your comment 76 is that you apply high standards to yourself, and extend grace to those you meet. I hope it doesn't sound patronising to say I applaud that sentiment.

[94. TB said the following at 10:14 PM on Oct 1:]

94

Benjamin (#92) - I would suggest that women care. That has been my observation.

[95. Benjamin said the following at 2:16 PM on Oct 2:]

95

TB (#94):

I would suggest that women care. That has been my observation.

Then might I commend simply keeping in mind what is truly important and not bothering with those women are overly obsessed with things that are not? There are others out there with more wisdom.

[96. arielle said the following at 8:05 PM on Oct 2:]

96

Amen @ 95. There's also a huge realm of attractiveness, and you should always be attracted to whoever you marry. That said, I've found many many men to be much more attractive as I got to know them and saw the Spirit pulsing so strongly within them that it definitely causes me to rethink a guy I had dismissed (mentally, not in real life).

[97. TB said the following at 10:46 AM on Oct 3:]

97

Well, again you have a math problem. Men who want to get married have to actually find women who want them. And the number of reasonably attractive women who don't care about a man's attractiveness (by conventional standards) is, I would argue, quite small.

It's nice that Arielle is sweet enough to give a second look to guys she'd previously dismissed. But note that she did, in fact, "dismiss" them on superficial grounds.

Most women won't give the second look.

[98. Trevor Dolby said the following at 10:38 AM on Oct 4:]

98

TB's right: women do care, and it's by no means certain that they're “wrong” or lack “wisdom” because they care.

After all, improving attractiveness is much easier than improving righteousness, so godly men shouldn't be too discouraged by the news that women would rather have both. A few simple things can make a huge difference, as many women have suggested elsewhere, and a lot of the things aren't that hard to do.

For example, most guys can iron clothes, shave, and shower, and yet that can already make a guy stand out. Add a wardrobe that excludes randomly offensive t-shirts, some willingness to be on time and keep commitments, a haircut, and some general knowledge that allows for conversation, and you're not doing too badly.

Granted, this isn't going to make an ugly guy into Brad Pitt, but it's at least showing some willingness. Not all guys do this stuff: I've heard girls complain loads of times about guys who dance with them having clearly not showered, so it's actually not as hard as it might seem to beat the average!

In fact, I suspect this is why women demand that guys make at least some effort: it's really not that hard, and if a guy won't make the effort when he's trying to win a girl, then he's unlikely to improve after marriage.

Now for the caveats: this is not intended to imply that any particular commenter doesn't already do all of the above, nor that doing all of the above guarantees success. These are general observations only.

[1. Phylicia said the following at 2:33 PM on Sep 22:]

1

I heard you on the radio (90.1 Moody) yesterday regarding this topic! Definitely going to get the book. Thanks for this!

[2. Stephanie said the following at 3:57 PM on Sep 22:]

2

Are there any explanations for why these statistics are as they are?

[3. Lee said the following at 4:10 PM on Sep 22:]

3

Repeat after me:

Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

This goes for people on BOTH sides of the argument.

[4. Kelly-1 said the following at 4:15 PM on Sep 22:]

4

This message needs to get out to the general public, because no one believes it.

And so often amongst my non-believing friends, the only ones who actually get to marriage are the ones who co-habit first. They all seem happy enough now but I guess we'll see what happens over the next few years.

Even last weekend, my friend who's been engaged for 10 years (that was her condition of moving in with him) finally walked down the aisle.

[5. Corwin said the following at 4:15 PM on Sep 22:]

5

@ Glenn:

I'm wondering if you have looked at any studies suggesting that the risks you outline disappear for couples who live together only after being engaged (like this one:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-03/entertainment/27057883_1_cohabiting-couples-marriage)

I'm not asking this to dispute anything you've said or defend living together before marriage. I'm just curious how you would respond to someone that argues living together after engagement is a good idea (because I have no idea how to respond to them!).

[6. arielle said the following at 6:54 PM on Sep 22:]

6

you give science the credit behind cohabitation being a poor idea for those desiring marriages, but since this is a Christian blog, isn't it more of an issue to evangelize to them and rather than point to science as to why their marriage will probably fail, point to Christ as the solid, uniting force in marriage.

It used to be the norm that people didn't have sex or live together before marriage (and if they did, they got shunned mostly), but that doesn't mean their marriages or lives were focused on the most important thing: God.

[7. jen. said the following at 7:40 PM on Sep 22:]

7

This is all great to know and have in mind, but do you have any suggestions as to how to start/steer the conversation towards this *without* triggering someone's defensive walls?

[8. Sara said the following at 8:09 PM on Sep 22:]

8

I'd like to repeat along with Lee #3 that it doesn't make sense for individuals to work backwards from statistics. Statistically, I'm probably Asian, but that fact doesn't make me any less of the North American that I am.

I feel like you'd have a better argument if you could prove how a cohabiting environment makes otherwise strong couples falter.

[9. glenn said the following at 10:29 PM on Sep 22:]

9

OK, some interesting comments here to respond to...

Stephanie #2, Lee #3 and Sara #8 comments all seem to be related.

There is no real debate in the literature on whether cohabitation is related to greater relational issues and dramatically increased risk of divorce. *The question is why.* There seems to be some good indication that the process of cohabiting can actually teach couples poorer relational skills and habits because of the ambiguity of and the differing valuing of the relationship by the two partners. I go into this in more detail in the book, but there does seem to be some causation effect for few reasons.

It is an important and interesting question to address. I might write about it here in more detail in a subsequent post. Let me know if you would like that.

Also, Corwin #5, yes I do address this issue in the book, of those couples who move in AFTER engagement. I read these studies carefully. This does not remove all the negative consequences of cohabitation, but it does seem to lessen them. There are logical reasons for this, which my book explains. It has to do with the nature of the engagement itself. Not just if the couple is engaged, per se, but if they are making plans and intentions toward marriage. This makes them a different kind of couple. Kelly #4's point is perfect here. Engaged for 10 years is not engaged. But a man whose mother-in-law to has ordered her wedding dress, the cake picked out, and a deposit put down on a reception hall is more on the hook than this guy who popped the question 8 years ago. Sociologists say these two kinds of relationships are very different than one another because the couple acts differently toward one another, as do the friends and extended family. The relationship has a clear future focus. But even these "we're making real plans" engaged cohabitaters still faces many serious problems.

Engagement doesn't remove all the problems. The large lady hasn't sung yet, so to speak. The deal is not done. And many cohabiting engaged folks never get to the altar, which puts them in the general cohabited category, which is not a healthy category to be in, in terms of future relational prospects.

Arielle #6, you seem to make the gnostic mistake of thinking that Christians have no real interest in science, but only in faith. I actually address this chapter 8 of the book because it is an important point. Can a good Christian book or blog make a scientific point and still be faithful?

Yes. Christ is Lord of All. This means He is Lord of the natural order, which reveals His glory. Science, well-done, is reveals this as do other things. And this science on cohabitation reveals that beautifully. It is a very real sort of evangelism. To say that Christian should only concern themselves with the "spiritual" or "religious" part of life says Christ is only Lord of this stuff over here, the strictly religious.

[10. Chantel said the following at 11:25 PM on Sep 22:]

10

Stephanie #2, that's a good question. I haven't looked into the statistics behind cohabitation that much, but I've found enough to convince that me that it is not beneficial. I don't remember all the reasons I found, but I know that one of them is that those who cohabit do not start out as committed.

[11. Chantel said the following at 11:27 PM on Sep 22:]

11

#3, I agree with you. It isn't good to jump to conclusions but I'm sure you'd agree that there are times when correlation is definitely part of the cause. It's not just religious people who think that cohabiting is detrimental; many secular sources report the same thing.

[12. Lydia said the following at 2:33 AM on Sep 23:]

12

I think that confounding occurs, because the people who still do get married, come from totally different backgrounds than the people who cohabit
A man who cohabits, thinking 'I'm holding out for Mrs Right while enjoying being taken care for by my girlfriend' might be less likely to help out in household chores than a man who loves his girlfriend and commits to marriage!!

[13. Denise said the following at 5:18 AM on Sep 23:]

13

good message, would love more grace in the delivery/ less sarcasm. :) totally understand that it's a message that needs to be hard-hitting, but it does come across as slightly argumentative and holier-than-thou. just my 2 cents.

[14. Tony said the following at 6:21 AM on Sep 23:]

14

I think someone has to say this for the Christian front. This question should only relate to unbelievers, as a Christian should never live in with his future spouse before married. We are charged by God to not fornicate, which is impossible to resist if you live together.

Though the sad thing is, there are people in my church who secretly live together, only to go through quite a hard time once they want to take premarital counseling at my church. The first question the counselor asks is "are you living together?" I went though it so I know, he was relieved to know we were living separately.

[15. Lock said the following at 6:54 AM on Sep 23:]

15

Correlation does not equal causation.

Actually, it may or may not; "does not" is incorrect.

What we're seeing is the rise of serial monogamy, of which cohabitation, short marriages or short-lived relationships are a part. A few articles on that are are we seeing the rise of relationship quickies, is serial monogamy worth pursuing, and what is a serial monogamist?

[16. Susan H. said the following at 7:16 AM on Sep 23:]

16

Glenn,

Yes, I'd very much like to see a follow-up post on why this is causation going on, not just correlation. I tend to believe cohabiting probably does lead to worse relationships, but in every discussion I've had about this with someone who's in favor of cohabitation, they insist it's just correlation. Thanks!

[17. Wanda said the following at 7:45 AM on Sep 23:]

17

Ever think that maybe the people who got married have more money because they could afford to get married. People who cohabit may not be in the financial position to pay for a wedding, thus appearing to be poorer in the statistics.

[18. Jane said the following at 8:05 AM on Sep 23:]

18

the best example of cohabitation i can think of? my parents. they lived together for two-three years before they got married, first in group houses with friends, then in an apartment (with a dog).

they'll be celebrating their 32nd wedding anniversary in November.

i'm not saying that cohabitation is the answer to the world's problems, i'm saying (and i am an agnostic, so i'm not going off any religious-based backing) that context matters. some people live together because the rent is cheaper. some people live together because one member of the couple is abusive and has forced their partner to move in. people do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. it's worthwhile to think through those reasons before we talk about the consequences.

[19. Tony said the following at 8:39 AM on Sep 23:]

19

@Wanda

That's an irrelevant excuse, if people weren't materialistic they wouldn't "need" money to have a large or expensive wedding. It can be done very inexpensively. My brother got married younger, and the total cost for him was $1400.

[20. David said the following at 8:49 AM on Sep 23:]

20

Glenn,

As a conservative (and reformed / calvinistic) Christian I am having trouble with your statements in this post.

There is no evidence based on the documents you linked to. Those documents merely discuss scenarios between couples that could happen inside or outside of a marriage. I have seen plenty (and I do mean PLENTY) of marriages where abuse is prevalent and I've seen plenty of healthy unmarried couples working towards a solid marriage. It is wrong of you to assume that these scenarios are only held toward a specific demographic. Those stats can easily be skewed or leave out important data in order to support your argument.

The issue here is not whether couples are cohabitating, but rather if their relationship is intentional from the beginning. Regardless of whether you cohabitate before marriage or not, if you are sincere and desire a God centered marriage and move toward that, then that is what matters. It is guaranteed you will sin along the way no questions asked - we are born sinners and our flesh / bodies carry it in our very nature. It's how you respond to the sin in the relationship and move back to God through the power of the Holy Spirit that counts.

REDEMPTION Glenn. Our walk with Christ is based on redemption and grace, not behavioral science.

The Bible says absolutely nothing (I've looked long and hard) on cohabitation. You are therefore merely leaving it 100% to science to dictate whether it is WISE or not to cohabitate before marriage. It is unhealthy to scare people into a behavioral mindset convincing them that is is the CHRISTIAN way.

I think God fully understood before the world was made that this type of unwise decision that can lead to various sins would in fact take place. Therefore it is unhealthy to assume the position you are taking in causing hurt people looking to live in the perfection of Christ to throw up their defensive walls to defend their actions. Stop living in fake conservative Christianity that is bent on making people feel like depraved human beings. We already know this based on the doctrine of "Total Depravity".

Instead you should be helping Christians and non-Christians alike move towards a healthy stable marriage by helping to accelerate the move to marriage as the APOSTLE PAUL states in 1 Corinthians 7.

It's not enough to bring forth what you have in this post. Statistics can easily be manipulated by the Christian right or the liberal left to say whatever they want to say. I know this after living many long years that statistics are merely a marketing ploy to sway people to take one position over another rather than bring someone into a correct moral ethical standing based on what GOD says in his word.

And sure, science can and does back up much of what the Bible says but you have to look at each scenario carefully to make sure that both science and the Bible have authority on a particular issue. If both do not have bold and definitive evidence then I would question whether something like "Cohabitation before marriage" is wrong or simply unwise.

Glenn, overall my argument to you here is to take a pastoral / counselor role here and not one of beating information over people's heads. This is a mute point. The Christian right wingers have gotten lost in legalism rather than understanding scripture in the context of history.

[21. janine said the following at 8:53 AM on Sep 23:]

21

@Tony and everyone else. Even though I do agree that living together is not the way to go, it is not true that it's not possible to live together and not 'consume'. I have done so succesfully for 4 years. The reason is complicated, but in our case it saved our relationship and now marriage. how do people feel about that? not fornicate, but living together?

[22. Doc B said the following at 9:05 AM on Sep 23:]

22

As a professor who teaches statistics, it can be very frustrating to read comment sections on blogs...it proves we professors aren't doing our job very well.

"Correlation does not equal causation."

While the intent was correct, this is a poorly-worded statement. In reality, correlation does not imply causation; don't make a statement about it being 'equal' to causation...it in fact can be.

Here's an example: we can't prove that smoking causes lung cancer. But because of good correlations along with other follow-up studies, we can say with confidence that smoking is a strong contributor to lung cancer. In the same way, the author here is not saying that cohabitation causes divorce, but he is saying that it is a strong contributor to marital difficulties, including divorce.

While correlations don't imply causation, but they not only imply, they quantitatively demonstrate significant relationships between variables (usually of a linear nature). This means either direct causation is present or that there are underlying, hidden variables that do cause the marital problems, and these are in some ways tied to the practice of those who cohabit.

That's all the blog is claiming. Cohabitation is associated with negative outcomes in marriage. We don't know all the confounding and interaction factors, but we are learning those through other types of research. The author never claimed that cohabitation causes divorce; it clearly does not. What cohabitation does is provide a platform for related variables to happen that do indeed cause marital problems, up to and including divorce.

Look how often the author uses terms like, 'likely', 'dramatically boost', 'significantly increase', etc. These are not claims of direct causation.

[23. Brian said the following at 9:34 AM on Sep 23:]

23

"The Word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing but to those who are being saved it is the power God (1 Cor. 1:18)." Now what does that have to do with anything? That means that as believers we must not be surprised when unbelievers act like unbelievers. They have no desire for holiness. However, as believers we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. What does the Word of God say about cohabitation. There is one scripture that is quite interesting to me...Heb 13:4 "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." Now I have been taught that the "marriage bed is undefiled" part relates to the sexual nature of the relationship inside the marriage covenant. However, I believe it is quite different based on the Greek word and the follow up statement made by the author. The word for "marriage bed" is "koite" and literally means "cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful." The author is exalting marriage as ordained by God (at the beginning of the verse) and is illustrating that cohabitation is a beautiful benefit of marriage, and is therefore undefiled. He then follows up the statement with the judgment of God, which I believe speaks to the fact that cohabitation outside of marriage is sinful in God's eyes. All that to say this...the Word of God is our standard...I believe the results of Mr. Stanton's research only displays the failure of depraved, sinful man's attempt to love another with out knowing the God who is the very definition of love...a word, in our culture, that has been far removed from its biblical definition of a committed choice, and reduced to a fickle, frivolous, lustful emotion on which we base our relationships. The results are no surprise.

[24. Lisa Anderson said the following at 10:14 AM on Sep 23:]

24

David (#20):

Please tell me what about cohabitation encourages an intentional move toward marriage; for my part, I've never seen this happen.

And when you say, "it is guaranteed you will sin along the way no questions asked," are you implying that sexual sin is inevitable? Because I don't think our response should be to throw up our hands and say, "We're doomed! We can't avoid this, so let's sign a lease and buy a king-sized mattress while we figure out this marriage thing." The fact is that while you're intentionally moving toward marriage you can greatly lower your chances of sexual sin, and it's not by living together, sleeping together, hanging out in your jammies together -- whatever. It's by embracing a biblical model of purity and putting whomever or whatever you need up in your business as accountability and encouragement to get there.

I agree that God knew a bunch of things "before the world was made," not least of which were the silly arguments like this one that humans would make to try to cloud the obvious. As Doc B (#22) says, "cohabitation is associated with negative outcomes in marriage." My guess is we should take this to heart and not set ourselves up for failure by adopting practices that are sure to undermine marriage as a whole.

As a self-described "reformed/calvinistic Christian," you should know this. The Westminster Larger Catechism specifically commands "chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto."

Notice how cohabitation is mentioned only in the context of marriage, above. The WLC then goes on to prohibit the "undue delay of marriage." Hardly a pass for shacking up, I'd say. Is this the "fake conservative Christianity" you describe? Because it's written in your church tradition's documents.

[25. Tony said the following at 10:15 AM on Sep 23:]

25

@janine

If that's even true, that's a rare case. The majority of couples living together are having sex, or have come close in other ways.

Let me ask you this question, if you were a recovering alcoholic would you keep beer in the fridge just "in case friends came over?"

Making a provision for the flesh isn't wise, especially when it comes to sexual temptation. Dating has changed the course of relationships, and in my opinion for the worse. There were no long term dating relationships in the past like there are today. Dating someone for 4-5 years before marriage was unheard of.

[26. Tami said the following at 10:19 AM on Sep 23:]

26

janine (21) Not knowing what the background in your situation is/was (it sounds like you're married), but generally -- I wouldn't advise even a chaste cohabitational arrangement in the general sense. It's difficult enough not to head down the wrong road when you're NOT living together; I can't imagine that living together makes it any easier.

So while it's not *impossible* to live together chastely, it's not really *easier* to do it. Therefore in the grand majority of cases I'd say it's unadvisable.

Now, my question: What do you all say to non-Christian friends who are considering moving in with their intended? My general line is: You know I'd make a different choice, given what I believe about sex before marriage; but take everything you know about the person and yourself into consideration before you do so. What more can I say beyond that? If they're already having sex, and if they're engaged or soon to be engaged, it's not like living together - or not - is going to make a difference in terms of how they choose to live. Really, the matter is that they need Christ; He's the one that will make the true difference in their decisions. Glenn, does your book address how to have this discussion with unbelieving friends? Especially in a situation where it's an emotional decision and stats likely won't move them to consider things differently?

[27. Tami said the following at 10:46 AM on Sep 23:]

27

David - let's not kid ourselves. With a few rare exceptions, most couples who live together have sex. Yes, even Christians. And there is plenty in the Bible to argue against that.

I don't see where Glenn is being "fake" or where he's using statistics to override what the Bible says.

And is wisdom not something we're supposed to have or follow? Aren't we supposed to *read the Bible with wisdom* and not take it SO literally that if we don't find something that literally addresses our issue (e.g., living together) we assume the Bible is silent and that God has no opinion one way or the other about it? I also believe it IS wrong to make a decision that's "simply" unwise. If you know it's unwise, why do it?

I'm also frankly confused by your position as a Reformed Christian; most of the Reformed folks I've come across are WAY conservative to the point of not even kissing or holding hands prior to marriage, let alone living together and letting on the appearance of evil. Do you view them as "fake" as well?

[28. Preston said the following at 11:48 AM on Sep 23:]

28

I think Doc B and Lisa A. say it all quite well

[29. David said the following at 1:31 PM on Sep 23:]

29

Those who have read my post and not heard my whole case are misconstruing my words and goal here.

I understand what the WLC says and it is not the Bible nor is it upheld to the standard the Bible is. It is an imperfect document written as a summation of what the church believes by very conservative Christians who lived in a culture far different than ours (economically and socially).

Tami how can you be confused by my Reformed view? I am frankly confused by why you think people should not date for several years in order to find the right mate. It's better to find the right person the first time rather than divorce multiple times because you got married too fast! This comes about because the right wing conservatives out there fear the blank spots the Bible doesn't talk about and insert their "Careful words of wisdom" as if it will make them safe.

You keep forgetting that while it is certainly not ok to keep on sinning so that grace may abound, it is not ok to become a monk living in a monastery who can't engage the culture around them and provide clarity to a hurt generation thirsty for a savior!

Are you one of those Christians who thinks that parents should wed their daughter to a man she doesn't know only to find out that that man is not a Godly man and mistreats her?

I'm serious here. Why is this community so outright against taking the right amount of time to find the right mate?

Why is it so difficult to get past the whole "Dating" aspect of our lives? We sin. God redeems and moves us closer to him!

It's so simple yet you are all getting hung up over legalistic rituals and rules that only isolate you from the culture and don't make you a good evangelist of the Word!

I'm not arguing that sex before marriage is ok. I'm saying that cohabitation should not be lifted up as something far worse in God's eyes. We humans have a really bad habit of layering our sins thinking that the less we sin the more favor we will gain in God's eyes.

My reformed faith states that we are born totally dead to Christ and have no desire for him. From the moment we wake up to the moment we lie down we are sinners because of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. It's not what we do that makes us sinners, it's who we are.

Please get that straight!

James 2:8-13

8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,”[b] also said, “You shall not murder.”[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

[30. David said the following at 1:39 PM on Sep 23:]

30

Oh, and not all Reformed Christians are WAY more conservative.

Have you heard of Mark Driscoll? John Piper? R.C. Sproul? These men are conservative, but not to the point where they lack compassion or the heart to listen, counsel and help someone out of sinful and unwise situations life throws at them.

C.S. Lewis was a habitual chain smoker most of his life. Because the Bible calls for us to live pure lives does that mean Lewis didn't?

Just because people commit sins, doesn't mean they necessarily want to. Paul makes this clear in Romans as well when he talks about the war between our soul and the flesh.

Please humanize your Christian walk rather than turning it into a mechanical list of deeds and actions that you try to force others to comply with.

[31. Chris Krycho said the following at 1:51 PM on Sep 23:]

31

I think the point others have tried to make is the same one that was blaring in my head as I read the post. (I fully oppose cohabitation, and happily waited for marriage to live with my wife and to consummate our marriage. It's Biblical.)

As Doc B highlighted, cohabitation itself does not cause divorce, or lower incomes, etc., and Mr. Stanton knows it... but the way the article was written, and the way most of these studies are presented at a popular level, often makes it appear as though that is the case.

The reality is, it's likely that the abusive man prefers cohabitation to marriage because it's less burdensome and more enabling to him. The sorts of poorer people who are choosing cohabitation over marriage are likely making many other, similarly unhelpful decisions that are impacting their finances. The people who get divorced after cohabiting do so because they have a view of relationships that is inherently temporary in its approach. In each case, cohabitation is a symptom of the underlying problem (many of which, I suspect, can be traced to the prolonged adolescence our culture idiotically idolizes), rather than itself being a case. The main exceptions may be those where poor relational habits are developed in cohabitational relationships because of the sensed lower commitment and correspondingly lower import given to the relationship.

So what people like me – in full agreement with the author's desire – are frustrated with is that those real underlying issues aren't highlighted. The article gives little evidence that the author recognizes this, which is unfortunate, because I'm sure he does. (Good grief, man, that's a lot of papers to read! :) Thus, I think my point comes down to this: we can do better in the way we present our information, and doing so can only be helpful. The more clarity we get on the root issues – in this case, the more we see that cohabitation is symptomatic of serious commitment issues, immaturity, and other emotional problems that ultimately contribute to failed marriages – the more effective our argument against it will be.

[32. David said the following at 1:59 PM on Sep 23:]

32

I think it's the attitude of "let's try this first" that is the real indicator of future failure, not the absence of rings. Guys and gals who are "trying" one another are still on dating behavior, and there's little about dating behavior that reflects real life.

In my own case, we were precluded from marrying by a bitter soon-to-be-ex-spouse, whose spiteful delaying tactics were facilitated by the court system. We held each other's hands, looked each other in the eye, and swore to each other that we were in this relationship with our all, and for all time. And we have behaved and lived "married" since that day three years ago. We have also had a legal wedding along the way, about a year ago. And nothing about our relationship changed on that wedding day, except we were finally relieved of the frustration of being forestalled from marrying.

My wife is my heart, my best friend, my helpmate and supporter. I am hers as well, and her cheerleader. I am so very glad we have the rings now, but from the day we committed to each other, she has had all I could bring to her. We were not playing, pretending, or "trying out."

[33. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:04 PM on Sep 23:]

33

(1) What Doc B (#22) said.

I've heard the "correlation is not causation" argument no small number of times.

While that statement is factually correct, it is also factually correct that a strong correlation does indeed provide actionable intelligence that a prudent man or woman would do well to consider.

I also would agree that while cohabitation--in and of itself--may not cause divorce, it constitutes a flagrant disrespect of the marriage covenant, and serves as a very bad foundation on which to establish a lifelong covenant the sustenance of which requires no small amount of love and respect.

Oh, and when you have children, and those children reach the age at which they start getting pressures to be less than sexually pure, they are going to be looking to you for permission to do that.

If you tell them, "Your mom and I had our challenges, but we restrained ourselves and did not move in together until after we tied the knot", that denies them permission while providing hope--which is what they need when their hormones are speeding at mach 9--especially if your home life is very good.

If they know that you shacked up before you said, "I do", your children will take that as permission to do the same.

Wanna guess what they are going to do?

[34. Michele said the following at 2:10 PM on Sep 23:]

34

Couples may cohabitate together for financial reasons and are avoiding the article for those reasons. Has it been researched where one person would lose benefits if they do get married such as pensions from a previous spouse or lose disabilty payments that the family relies on if the couple does get married. There are may poor women who live on Section 8 housing that would lose it if they moved in with their boyfriend and the two of them are unable to pay rent on their own. At least couples who live together and who aren't married are living their life more honestly than an unmarried couple who are living in different places but are still having sex. I have been to quite a few Christian weddings where the bride and groom didn't live together but the bride was pregnant or had a child with the groom by the time that she had married.

[35. Lee said the following at 2:11 PM on Sep 23:]

35

On "correlation does not equal causation"--you are correct in that sometimes things that correlate ALSO have a cause-and-effect relationship.

However, I remain deeply suspicious though of the implication that cohabitation causes poverty, child abuse, divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism, etc., and the implication that marriage will prevent or lessen these problems. (And yes, there IS an implication in this article that cohabitation causes these things: "Nearly all of us know someone who is cohabiting. Talking to them about the consequences is not being a moralizing busybody. It's showing deep concern and care for them because of what science reveals cohabitation does to our chances for strong, healthy, thriving long-term marriages.")

Could not an equally valid claim be that people who are poor are more likely to shack up sans marriage? After all, you certainly don't need to live together to be having sex, and if you're already having sex and having trouble footing the bills, well, two can live cheaper than one.

Could it be that people who are more likely to abuse their children or significant others or who are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol are less likely to marry in the first place?

Could it be that people who don't have moral qualms about divorce in the first place are also more likely to live together before or instead of getting married?

Marriage is NOT the be-all, end-all solution to the problems of the world. As one of my students put it as to why her parents never married, "Even if my daddy had put a ring on it, he'd have still been a no-good drunk wife-beating a****** who couldn't keep a job."

[36. Natalie said the following at 2:19 PM on Sep 23:]

36

If you're interested in seeing more from Glenn on this, you can read his article here http://bit.ly/pUQjj7.

There's also a free resource here http://bit.ly/pINYjC that references more of Glenn's sources.

Most of all, I would recommend reading his book, if you can. http://amzn.to/oLi953 (I had a chance to read it because I do work with the publisher.)

The book goes a lot further than these articles in examining and explaining his research AND - my personal favorite aspect - it also examines how marriage impacts the hearts of men and women.

As a twenty-something female who has seen plenty of hearts broken, it was refreshing to see some of the ways that marriage is designed to keep that from happening. Not to say that marriage is easy or perfect, but reading the research on what marriage ISN'T (cohabitation), made me really grateful for what it IS.

[37. Stephanie said the following at 2:28 PM on Sep 23:]

37

#21 Janine - in addition to all that has been said in response to you I would ask you to think about this -- even if you didn't fornicate, did you take physical steps that fall short of God's standard for purity before marriage? I'm not picking on you or asking you to necessarily divulge the details of your relationship, but lots of people like to draw arbitrary lines and then get as close to the line as possible while thinking God is pleased. I am not saying this was your experience, but I would bet that for many of those who lived together but didn't fornicate (which probably isn't a big number to begin with) they didn't necessarily adhere to purity in their relationship either.

[38. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:42 PM on Sep 23:]

38

Lisa Anderson says:

And when you say, "it is guaranteed you will sin along the way no questions asked," are you implying that sexual sin is inevitable? Because I don't think our response should be to throw up our hands and say, "We're doomed! We can't avoid this, so let's sign a lease and buy a king-sized mattress while we figure out this marriage thing."

I agree. That said, I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people attempt to justify their premarital sexual activities by using exactly that rationale.

David says:

The Bible says absolutely nothing (I've looked long and hard) on cohabitation. You are therefore merely leaving it 100% to science to dictate whether it is WISE or not to cohabitate before marriage. It is unhealthy to scare people into a behavioral mindset convincing them that is is the CHRISTIAN way.

David, I'm going to tell it to you straight: that was a very intellectually lazy--if not intellectually dishonest--line of reasoning.

Fact is, in ancient Israel, an unmarried woman who lived in the same house as the man was either (a) a slave or (b) a concubine. Surely you aren't going to make a Christian case for taking slaves and concubines...

If an unmarried man and woman had sex, they were considered married. (Don't believe me? Look it up: it's in the Bible you claim to have studied "long and hard".)

If that sex was not consensual, they were still considered married, and he would not be permitted to ever divorce her. (Don't believe me? Look it up: it's in the Bible you claim to have studied "long and hard".)

Moreover, the "it's not specifically in the Bible, so it must be permissible" line of reasoning is quite weak, as it is equally logical to say, "it's not specifically in the Bible, so it must NOT be permissible". My point: you need to come up with a better argument.

Scripture gives us many core principles regarding how we ought to conduct ourselves sexually, both in singleness and in marriage.

There is no credible case from Scripture--especially from a Reformed framework--for premarital cohabitation.

And don't even think of raising the issue of Abishag, the mistress with whom David--who took her at an advanced age--could not consummate due to age-related weaknesses.

(They were still considered married, as Solomon had Adonijah--one of David's SONS--put to death for trying to underhandedly make a claim to the throne for asking to have her as his wife.)

[39. Sander Buruma said the following at 3:04 PM on Sep 23:]

39

Thanks for the research and the well made article. I find this world very confusing and you help to bring much clarity. If I may ask, I would like to know why some couples are having kids together and not getting married and why some couples marry and do not want kids. To me it is linked, but in the Netherlands it is not. My head is starting to spin, I don't understand it.

[40. TB said the following at 3:27 PM on Sep 23:]

40

Can I be honest? I think that, in reality, the hard line against any and all sexual activity before marriage is one reason that a lot of Christian gals are single into their 30's and 40's these days. This may not be right, but a lot of guys - even pretty decent guys - need a little taste to get them to the point that they want to commit. It's a fine line. Too much and he's "getting the cow for free"; not enough and the incentive to get emotionally invested isn't sufficient.

I read an article some time ago about birth timing in American Colonial times (18th century). The number of births five-six months after marriages in that era is astounding.

I'm not saying any of this is a good thing. I'm just saying I think it's true.

Let the vegetable-pelting commence.

[41. Louise Mcbride from Chicago said the following at 3:37 PM on Sep 23:]

41

Actually re household chores I have heard and personally experienced the opposite: live in boyfriends do more "chores" than husbands, i.e. once a woman becomes a wife, it is her duty to "take care" of the house and the husband, despite the presence of outside job responsibilities.

I know the people on this blog do not approve of unmarried cohabitation. I respect that. But let's not get carried away, folks!

[42. Amir Larijani said the following at 3:51 PM on Sep 23:]

42

David says:

Oh, and not all Reformed Christians are WAY more conservative.

Have you heard of Mark Driscoll? John Piper? R.C. Sproul? These men are conservative, but not to the point where they lack compassion or the heart to listen, counsel and help someone out of sinful and unwise situations life throws at them.

If you are trying to make the case for cohabitation as you cite names like Driscoll, Piper, and Sproul, you are really stepping in it. None of those folks--and I DO mean NONE--would condone cohabitation.

C.S. Lewis was a habitual chain smoker most of his life. Because the Bible calls for us to live pure lives does that mean Lewis didn't?

If we were debating smoking--or social drinking, of which Lewis also did his fair share--then this would be a valid argument to raise. After all, there are vices--such as alcohol--that are Biblically permissible within moderation.

Still, with respect to cohabitation, you have yet to make a Biblical case.

Just because people commit sins, doesn't mean they necessarily want to. Paul makes this clear in Romans as well when he talks about the war between our soul and the flesh.

Please humanize your Christian walk rather than turning it into a mechanical list of deeds and actions that you try to force others to comply with.

Admonishing people to abstain from sexual immorality--which Paul did quite often--is perfectly Biblical. (It also "humanizes" the walk by acknowledging that Christians, however sanctified we may be, are going to struggle with the temptation to engage in such behavior.)

There is no such case to be made, however, from Scripture regarding cohabitation. This is because--in Scripture--couples who lived under the same roof, 100% of the time, were considered MARRIED.

Admonishing people to avoid practices that are almost 100% associated with sexual immorality, and so projects the appearance of impropriety--like, say, cohabitation--is also perfectly Biblical.

I realize that someone will come out of the woodwork and exclaim, "My husband and I cohabited for 6 months before we got married, and we have been happily married for X number of years!"

That's like saying, "I smoked pot when I was a teenager, but I turned out okay."

[43. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:30 PM on Sep 23:]

43

Lee (35): I have seen guys “man up” when marriage comes into the picture, as a present or future reality, and your student might well have been surprised at the changes marriage might have brought.

That said, I agree that some of your suggestions are likely to be true. Speaking as a guy, if a girl is willing to move in without first getting married, then she's shown herself to have certain moral values by doing so; that form of selection must surely feed into the (usually bad) outcomes.

Of course, that sort of argument doesn't make the case against cohabitation any weaker; rather, it strengthens it, as it's clearly worth avoiding such girls! Causation or not, it's wise to avoid “people who don't have moral qualms about divorce” if you don't want divorce to be a part of your future.

[44. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:31 PM on Sep 23:]

44

TB (40): What Amir said :) There is the possibility that sex defines the marriage, and the couples in Colonial times were simply adding a human ceremony to what was in fact already a marriage.

[45. Tami said the following at 4:35 PM on Sep 23:]

45

David - "Are you one of those Christians who thinks that parents should wed their daughter to a man she doesn't know only to find out that that man is not a Godly man and mistreats her?"

Absolutely, ABSOLUTELY not. I don't know where you'd even get that from (and I didn't say anything about the length of time people should date in my message at all?). But I don't think that taking time to know someone necessarily means that you will date for years to do so. Or that living together is a smart way to accomplish that.

...Or that I'm a monk in a monastery?

And I'm not sure where you're getting that I have a "mechanical list of deeds and actions that [I] try to force others to comply with," simply because I disagree with you about living together.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm not Reformed, and I don't hold to the no-holding-hands, no-kissing view. Though *most* of the Reformed people I know do. And that's why I am confused by your standpoint.

[46. Tami said the following at 4:45 PM on Sep 23:]

46

TB -- "This may not be right, but a lot of guys - even pretty decent guys - need a little taste to get them to the point that they want to commit. It's a fine line. Too much and he's 'getting the cow for free'; not enough and the incentive to get emotionally invested isn't sufficient."

OK, I don't have any carrots handy, so no veggies pelted here. :) But speaking as a woman -- there's no way to guarantee that you're dealing with a "pretty decent guy" who appreciates an affectionate girlfriend, OR a not-so-decent guy who expects the affection but is still noncommittal even while playing at commitment.

I think there are better ways of demonstrating affection than just giving a taste in order to ensure you keep a guy around. Certainly don't act cold, but don't do stuff out of fear of losing him, either.

And also I can (unfortunately) name a lot of Christian women in their 30's and 40's who gave those "tastes," and they're still not married. So there's that too.

[47. Amarette said the following at 4:49 PM on Sep 23:]

47

Not that I want to be the boring person in the mix, but shacking up can also have some pretty annoying legal consequences.

The longer you live together, the more likely you are to join together financially and legally bind property together... etc. Then were you to break up you wouldn't have spousal protections that the law provides. You also wouldn't have to the courts to help mediate, you would have to attempt to separate your belongings individually. CHAOS.

Even if you are engaged this is a bad idea. Imagine if you and your betrothed were paying off each other's debts or you were dependent on his income or you bought a house together... then your fiance dies. You have no legal protections. You have no spousal rights.

[48. Lee said the following at 8:36 PM on Sep 23:]

48

@Trevor--

Perhaps it's also worth avoiding such GUYS?

[49. Sebs - MaximizingMarriage.com said the following at 1:10 AM on Sep 24:]

49

I've read about similar conclusions to cohabitation or live-in situations. Thanks for reinforcing them. God bless on your ministry.

[50. Eric Ulm said the following at 5:50 AM on Sep 24:]

50

@ 3. Lee, 8. Sara, #12 Lydia etc.

As a published researcher, my first reaction is also often "correlation does not equal causation" but peer reviewed researchers (and their reviewers) are usually well aware of this so it makes sense to read the research and see, rather than just the quick blurb. For instance, the abstract of the first article mentioned says:

"When selection factors for cohabitation and
subsequent marital instability were included in the
statistical model, cohabitors in both cohorts continued
to exhibit poorer marital quality and greater
marital instability."

In other words, they did a lot more than just notice a correlation and infer causation. I suspect this is true of most of the other studies as well, although I haven't checked all of them.

[51. Okaley Dokaley said the following at 12:33 PM on Sep 24:]

51

can you please show what these sophisticated research are? who did them and where are they published?

[52. Ria said the following at 12:52 PM on Sep 24:]

52

Thank you Doc B (#22).

The problem with cohabitation is the lack of commitment and something outside of the couple's economic situation, feelings for each other, etc. to guide their choices and behavior. In marriage, you have vows to be loyal to when being loyal to your spouse gets hard.

A friend told me his parents married when he was 5 years old, "They wanted to be sure they could live together with children before getting married." I tried to imagine such a household. Every day the question would reign in the couples' heads: "Is this working out?" If one of them decides it isn't, what is there to prevent them from leaving, cheating, venting frustration on each other, etc? Because in cohabitation there is not a commitment holding the couple together, there is no right and wrong in the relationship, only *feelings*.
I have not talked deeply with anyone who has cohabitated, but these are just things I can imagine happening to an unmarried relationship.

[53. Joseph said the following at 9:09 PM on Sep 24:]

53

All the research I have read confirms this.

The only place I have seen otherwise was in Colombia, where the cost for the paperwork to get married is well beyond the reach of the poor and most working class, mainly because of archaic laws and corruption. The church I go to down there actually runs a program where they financially help couples to get the paperwork done. Thus most of the couples, whom none have divorced and have been together from years to decades, that I know and are fine examples of strong marriages lived together before being "officially" married.

That is why I do like the Biblical view that the marriage is solidified by sex rather than paperwork. Looking at the early church, a couple would say they were getting married, and if no one in the congregation objected, they were married and would consummate it that night. The way I see it, being one before God counts a lot more than one before the State.

Also there is no one I know of in the US that can't afford a marriage license or a wedding. Said licence is arguably too easy to obtain, and you can have a fabulous wedding for less than 2000. Want awesome catering? Find a mom and pop shop nearby that needs free advertising. You can get a lot of good food on discount. And its even cheaper if you don't want the licence to avoid marriage penalties whether in tax code or welfare issues. (Sadly, our welfare system discourages marriage, which is probably the number one thing that prevents cyclical poverty)

[54. James said the following at 9:09 PM on Sep 24:]

54

Appreciate your thoughtful posts David, I don't know exactly where you were going with post 32, but I wish the responses had been a little more thought out. I think the overall point is that even if a believer makes it past this traditional sin of living together, there are still others that I wish would be given the same emphasis.

[55. arielle said the following at 5:42 AM on Sep 25:]

55

TB:"Can I be honest? I think that, in reality, the hard line against any and all sexual activity before marriage is one reason that a lot of Christian gals are single into their 30's and 40's these days. This may not be right, but a lot of guys - even pretty decent guys - need a little taste to get them to the point that they want to commit. It's a fine line. Too much and he's "getting the cow for free"; not enough and the incentive to get emotionally invested isn't sufficient."

I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but how you could do anything sexual without any guilt or remorse and claim to be a child of God is ridiculous.

Any Christian guy that can't commit without any kind of prior sexual activity is not a guy you want to bind yourself with. I'd rather be alone than sin against God in order to get married.

Have some standards.

[56. David said the following at 4:26 PM on Sep 25:]

56

James (#54):

I think there were other David's that posted in the comments earlier. That wasn't me in post 32.

Thanks for the support too. Doesn't seem to be anyone else here that understands where I was going with all this except you. Also the blog comments section here doesn't seem to allow for long posts so that's why my comments were not as thought out. It would take multiple long blog posts for me just to cite examples, scripture, and other info just to get my whole point across.

I'm really surprised and confounded that Dobson's ministry would take this approach on such a small matter. Cohabitation is NOT the issue. Lack of marriage commitment is with cohabitation becoming an unwise side effect of that.

Statistics never saved anyone. The Gospel is what saves. When you start writing posts like Glenn did, then you wade into the waters of legalism, not getting to the root of the problem, and therefore confusing this generation on how to live their lives. No more scaring young adults with do's and do not's. I could create an endless list till the day I die on how to live and how not to live. It won't save us and it certainly won't help us live better lives! The Holy Spirit does that through supernatural power.

Fact is we won't be able to measure up by God's standard. Our very being is sinful. Focus on the heart issue and all the other small side effects will peel away like layers of an onion coming off.

Remember, we sin because we are sinners (NOT the other way around - We are sinners because we sin.)

[57. Benjamin said the following at 9:41 AM on Sep 26:]

57

David (#32):

In my own case, we were precluded from marrying by a bitter soon-to-be-ex-spouse, whose spiteful delaying tactics were facilitated by the court system. We held each other's hands, looked each other in the eye, and swore to each other that we were in this relationship with our all, and for all time. And we have behaved and lived "married" since that day three years ago.

I don't mean this to be spiteful, but ... given that there was another spouse in the picture, one of you clearly had held hands and looked into eyes and swore to someone else that you were in that relationship for all time.

So though you had sworn that in front of others, and you were still married legally, you presume that in the eyes of God this new marriage (that you "performed" privately) was the one that "counted"? That seems absolutely bizarre to me.

[58. jayme said the following at 9:44 AM on Sep 26:]

58

From the "causation" aspect, I'm guessing:
Man and Woman who don't have a biblical view of marriage + Man and Woman who don't have a relationship with God:
= more likely to co-habitate.
= more likely to abuse and tolerate abuse.
= more likely to have sex before marriage.
= more likely to have sex before marriage = more likely to have self-esteem/comparision issues.
= more likely to see marriage as "temporary" = more likely to divorce.
= more likely to see marriage as "temporary" = more likely to not combine finances and help each other financially.
= more likely to be self-centered = more likely to get out when marriage isn't meeting "needs".
= more likely to be self-centered = less likely to help the other spouse in the relationship.

I didn't get married for more money. I didn't get married for help around the house (truth be told, I do more now as a married lady than I ever did as a single - and that's okay!). A friend-of-a-friend recently asked me why she shouldn't move in with her boyfriend. I had a 3-page response, which I won't put here, but for me (besides the theological ideology of marriage and the roles of husband and wife), a wedding ring says: "I am here through thick or thin. I'm here when we can't figure out who showers first in the morning. I'm here when our sex life isn't that great. I'm here when you get laid off and can't pay a portion of the bills. I'm here when the doctor thinks it might be cancer. I'm here if the pregnancy test shows positive. I'm here. Always and forever." As a woman, marriage provides a huge sense of security - as it should. It's earthly security - it's not my eternal salvation or anything - but it's an example of God's grace while I'm in this world.

[59. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:50 AM on Sep 26:]

59

David: Having been a regular here for most of the last 4 years, I think I'm qualified to say that, for my differences with the folks at Boundless, I've not seen them so much in the "do the Biblical thing because statistics back it up" camp as much as they seem to be in the "isn't it nice when science even affirms the Biblical way of doing things?" camp.

And make no mistake, there is no Christian case, rooted in Scripture, for unmarried cohabitation, unless--of course--you are seeking to make a Christian case for concubines or slaves.

While no one here is suggesting that statistics save anyone, can you please tell us why is it such a crime to highlight those times when science supports Scripture?

Acknowledgement of such hardly requires us to subject the Bible to science; it does, however, allow one to acknowledge those instances in which empirical studies affirm the benefits of Biblical prudence.

At this point, I return to the following paragraph that earned you the rebuke:

The Bible says absolutely nothing (I've looked long and hard) on cohabitation. You are therefore merely leaving it 100% to science to dictate whether it is WISE or not to cohabitate before marriage. It is unhealthy to scare people into a behavioral mindset convincing them that is is the CHRISTIAN way.

Is there any part of that statement that you wish to modify or recant in light of what has been pointed out here?

[60. Preston said the following at 10:10 AM on Sep 26:]

60

@David#56

I think some of the commenters responding to you might actually understand what you are saying, but what they are stressing is that it won't matter if anyone wants to debate the impact/effect of cohabitation, they are saying that it shouldn't even be a factor because you shouldn't cohabit in the first place, which is what Glenn's article is trying to substantiate with statistical evidence.

Lack of marriage commitment exists in our culture now regardless of whether or not you consider cohabitation, so I agree that is in fact what needs to be addressed, but you don't do so by minimizing cohabitation's role any more than you do by dismissing the fact that young people today delay marriage longer than perhaps they should for a myriad of reasons, one of which being commitment issues.

The POINT is this, should you as a believer agree with cohabitation? Glenn's article is citing non-Bible based evidence to support the assertion that you should avoid cohabitation, so that one could show someone who wasn't going to buy a faith or moral/ethical-based explanation for why you should not. Its a demonstration of the consistency of the Word, using statistics as a tool, which is what it is meant to be used for, as explained by Doc B. in his earlier post.

I don't actually think you disagree with this either, I just think you want to stress something else you figure is more pertinent, not that you don't agree what they've been saying.

Just my two cents...

[61. Elisabeth said the following at 1:31 PM on Sep 26:]

61

Amir (#38)

I think you're mistaken about the sex=marriage idea in the Bible.

According to Exodus 22:16-17 (and Deut. 22:28-29), those who had premarital sex were not already married, because in certain situations, they were required to marry.

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife."

While I doubt there was anything we would easily recognize as marriage ceremony in the Old Testament period (Rebekah seemed to go straight from camel to tent when she became Isaac's wife), I would argue that formal community involvement was customary, serving as their "marriage ceremony."

In Rebekah's case, that included her mother and brother's permission, her own consent, and the giving and receiving of dowry items. The tent, then, was the last step in a formal process. That's why it's called "consummation."

In the New Testament period, betrothal preceded the tent by a year. At this point, the marriage process was incomplete, but still solid enough that the couple's relationship could only be dissolved by divorce. (This is well illustrated by the story of Mary and Joseph).

Betrothal probably included similar elements as OT marriage: parental consent, dowry, and consent of the bride. (It may have included giving and receiving of a cup of wine and a marriage certificate; I'm not sure exactly when these customs arose).

Heading to the tent early was a recognized way of fully formalizing their marriage, but it was frowned upon. (Again, think Mary and Joseph). Usually, the marriage formalities were completed with a community-wide feast -- and then the tent!

I think it's important to clarify this point, lest people think some sort of formal marriage ceremony is simply a modern invention.

[62. Elaine said the following at 1:45 PM on Sep 26:]

62

1. http://www.lhj.com/relationships/can-this-marriage-be-saved/dysfunctional-relationships/living-together-was-so-much-easier-than-being-married/"

http://www.lhj.com/relationships/can-this-marriage-be-saved/dysfunctional-relationships/i-want-to-feel-closer-to-him/

Above are two stories of couples who live together before marriage and problems they face afterward. The problems were there when they live together. These stories were published in the Ladies Home Journal Can this Marriage be saved where they presented stories of persons who seek counseling for problems in their marriages. They have been doing this for over 60 years. It is not a Christian magazine and they too always mentioned problems that living together outside of marriage causes. So it is not alone Christian’s who recognized the problems causes.

In No. 1, the men and women used to make separate decision when living together and find it hard to combine decision when marry. For example, when to watch a movie, which movie to see or should we stay in together.’ In marriage you start off making decision together.

In No. 2, the man and woman were in long distance relationship for four year. It was only when she mentioned either get they breakup or get marriage did he marry her. When they marry, they did not share bedroom, bank accounts, did not eat dinner together. The separateness they use before they marriage where hard to share off.

These cases are listed under dysfunctional relationships.

[63. Jim H said the following at 1:55 PM on Sep 26:]

63

David #20 said:

The Bible says absolutely nothing (I've looked long and hard) on cohabitation...

What about Paul's command in 1 Cor 6:18-20 (NIV)?
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Paul did not just say avoid sexual immorality, but to FLEE from it.
I don’t think cohabitation falls within the spirit of this command. While I suppose it is theoretically possible for a couple to co-habitate in purity prior to marriage (separate bedrooms and strict physical boundaries), I think it is foolish to flirt with sin like that. I know that I would almost certainly succumb to temptation and any man who could endure this without succumbing to temptation either has enormous, almost super-human willpower, or needs to have a physical. It is just not wise to put yourself in this position and flirting with sin like that is foolish for the vast majority of people.

[64. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:26 PM on Sep 26:]

64

Elisabeth:

If a couple in ancient Israel had sex, there were a few possibilities:

(a) it was a whoremonger-prostitute or man-concubine relationship. (the former merited a death sentence, the latter was in practice by certain rich people; this was never viewed favorably in Scripture. Think Solomon...)

(b) it was some sort of extra-marital affair (penalty: death for both offenders)

(c) it was a married couple doing what God ordained married couples to do (think Song of Solomon)

(d) it was a consensual relationship of singles that constituted an act of marriage.

(e) it was some sort of non-consensual relationship (molestation/rape)

(f) it was same-sex (penalty: death)

If it was (d) the man was required to pay the bride price, and she was his wife. In ancient Israel, this was a horrible disgrace, because--even when they have the ceremony--the scandalous nature of the activities reflects badly on the families involved.

If it was (e), he had to pay the bride price, AND he would NEVER be allowed to divorce her.

(If it was (e) and she was married or betrothed, he's a dead man. If she didn't scream, she's also dead.)

To say that the practice of "heading to the tent" was "frowned upon" in ancient Israel would be a gross understatement, as (a) the father would be severely dishonored, and (b) her wedding day would be looked upon scandalously.

To make a long story short, cohabitation would take this a hundred steps farther; not only would it be "frowned upon", it was unquestionably verboten.

What we cannot afford to do is look at the Scriptures with modern, Western eyes. Things that are commonplace today--cohabitation--were considered catastrophically dishonorable in ancient Israel.

Even "one night stands" were bad news: a woman who could not prove virginity ran the risk of death by stoning for "playing the whore". The man, on the other hand, if caught, would be on the hook for taking care of a new wife.

That's not to say that promiscuity didn't go on back then--it did. That said, the price for said behavior was Biblically high.

Many of the younger Israelites tried to get around that, by going to the Canaanite festivals, which included sex with temple prostitutes. To those young, virile Israelite men, it allowed for getting some no-strings-attached sex. Sadly, this also constituted idol worship, and was a major issue about which the prophets railed at Israel.

Bottom line: sexual sin--while forgivable--is very serious business.

[65. James said the following at 2:47 PM on Sep 26:]

65

Jim (63)
I think you've made David's point... there is no specific example found. That leaves stretching verses further than they probably should be. Of course it would be profoundly unwise and I would never recommend/approve of cohabitation. But I think we need to be careful about making the leap from unwise and foolish decisions being equatable to sinful actions.

[66. Jim H said the following at 3:31 PM on Sep 26:]

66

James #65,
The Bible does not speak highly of foolishness (see Proverbs). Whether or not foolishness is a sin in and of itself I would have to do some more research.

Another verse that comes to mind is Ephesians 5:3.

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

In my view, two unwed Christians living together also violates the spirit of this verse. Again Paul says "NOT EVEN A HINT..."

Taking all this verses into consideration and giving it some more thought, I believe that unwed Christians living together is a sin.

[67. Tami said the following at 4:14 PM on Sep 26:]

67

Again -- when has "not wise" become equatable to "not entirely sinful, so it's within the realm of acceptability so don't judge"? We've been given an entire book of the Bible (Proverbs) that warns us AWAY from foolish things -- especially in the realm of sexuality -- and we're called to be discerning.

Additionally, cohabitation isn't something we'd label unwise like "jumping off a bridge into a river" or "driving over the speed limit" or "drinking a double shot of espresso before bedtime." This is a lifestyle choice that has a profound effect on how we choose to live before God, and with profound and lasting consequences.

As Amir and I have both stated, there may be RARE cases where living together prior to marriage is not impure. I'm not prepared to label EVERY case sin, but at the same time, I'm not entirely prepared to divorce a lack of wisdom (foolishness) from sin. I don't think this is a legalistic stance, nor do I think it's stretching biblical truth too far.

[68. TB said the following at 8:22 PM on Sep 26:]

68

Re: #61

"Betrothal probably included similar elements as OT marriage: parental consent, dowry, and consent of the bride. (It may have included giving and receiving of a cup of wine and a marriage certificate; I'm not sure exactly when these customs arose)."

I think the "consent of the bride" part is pretty pollyannish and revisionary. I don't recall Rachel and Leah's father consulting them.

[69. James said the following at 8:59 PM on Sep 26:]

69

Jim,
We're really not that far apart, did I say foolishness was a good thing?

I do think getting into the spirit and what we perceive to be the intended meaning of scripture does a disservice to it. It's too sacred and important to do that. We should examine it carefully and evaluate it based on what is there, not what we imagine to be there, or what would be easier or more convenient.

And I shouldn't have to put so many qualifiers in front of my statements, just because I go a little against the grain doesn't mean I'm endorsing the exact opposite view.

[70. Jim H said the following at 12:05 AM on Sep 27:]

70

James
I agree that Scripture is absolutely sacred and must be treated with the utmost respect. But since Scripture does not provide explicit prescriptions for every conceivable situation and does indeed provide general principles which can be discerned, I think it is a cop out to suggest that everything must necessarily have an explicit Scripture reference. For example, I am not aware of any verses that say “you shall not have an abortion.” Yet Scripture is replete with references to the sanctity and personhood of unborn life.

Getting back to the topic at hand - with clear commands from Scripture to “flee from immorality” and to avoid “ANY HINT of sexual immorality,” it is irresponsible to NOT take a hard stand on unwed Christian cohabitation.

[71. Elisabeth said the following at 1:58 AM on Sep 27:]

71

TB, (#68)

I agree that we want to avoid revisionism. But isn't it possible to be revisionist in a negative way as well? Is there any historical reason to assume that ancient culture was always harsh and "backwards"?

It's quite possible that individual fathers gave their daughters little to no say in who they married. It's also possible that Laban, who was quite the manipulator, was one of them.

However, there are also Biblical examples where the woman clearly did have a say:

Gen 24:58 "And they called Rebekah and said to her, 'Will you go with this man?' She said, 'I will go.'"

Num 36:6 "This is what the LORD commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, 'Let them marry whom they think best, only they shall marry within the clan of the tribe of their father.'"

[72. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:29 AM on Sep 27:]

72

Elisabeth is correct on this: while fathers did give their daughters away in marriage, the dynamics worked out such that the fathers usually worked with their daughters--and the families involved--to arrive at a situation that was good for everyone.

The concept of arranged marriages tends to get a bad rap.

In an arranged marriage paradigm, the onus is on the families to work together. The end result is generally pretty favorable. This approach also carries many advantages that today's American singles do not have.

(For example, if your family is working to secure an "arrangement", both families are going to be examining each other closely.)

In Biblical times, the arranged marriage dynamic was not far-removed from what we have today in cultures that have arranged marriages.

As for Laban, I think he gets too much heat; he was merely looking out for the interests of his older daughter, who--in getting passed over for her younger sister--was otherwise being humiliated.

Besides, Jacob--whose name meant "deceiver"--was simply getting some comeuppance.

Moral of the story: watch the alcohol intake. You never know what you'll wake up with...

[73. Peter said the following at 9:43 AM on Sep 27:]

73

Yet Scripture is replete with references to the sanctity and personhood of unborn life.

Well ... that's not really true. There are a couple of references to God's creative work in the womb. Hardly "replete", and only with much stretching does it have anything to do with the sanctity or personhood of unborn life.

Abortion may indeed be wrong, and I personally think it should be illegal, but the twisting of Scripture necessary to claim that it addresses the issue directly bothers me.

[74. TB said the following at 11:30 AM on Sep 27:]

74

"Backwards"? That's your assessment, not mine. I'm just saying that all evidence is that the USUAL practice in ancient times was not to greatly credit the opinion of the woman.

[75. TB said the following at 11:55 AM on Sep 27:]

75

Re: Arielle:

"Any Christian guy that can't commit without any kind of prior sexual activity is not a guy you want to bind yourself with."

I really don't disagree with you on the merits. All other things being equal, prefer the more righteous man. Definitely.

But there are some issues.

1) All other things are NOT equal. Women tend to want what they want -- attractive male qualities. Ever notice that the attractive musician at church gets more attention than the quiet guy in the back row? Is that because the musician is more righteous? Doubtful. I submit to you that the number of fully righteous men that women also readily find very attractive is quite small -- much too small for every Christian woman to have one.

2) A lot of the guys who have technically been "righteous" have been so due to lack of options. Sometimes the men themselves don't even realize this. But the number of 25-year-old male virgins who are also truly attractive, alpha males capable of having a woman whenever they'd like (think Tim Tebow) is exceedingly small. A lot of guys don't get a lot of attention from women, aren't tempted much, and then turn that into a virtue in their own mind.

3) People are always changing. Sometimes for the bad, but also sometimes for the good. And it simply is not true that men who are not truly righteous at age 25 cannot become good and loyal husbands. I know a lot of guys who were variously dissolute at age 25, and who needed some "coaxing" into marriage, who are now outstanding husbands and fathers. Their wives are very happy.

So. Life is complicated. Some large portion of the many Christian women who would like to be married cannot have one of the very few men who are both attractive and truly righteous at the outset. There are, of course, some righteous but unattractive men available. And there are other, generally decent, men out there who will likely make good husbands eventually but need to be drawn into it.

That's the situation. I'm not suggesting it's easy; there are traps everywhere. But I think making decisions about this stuff is harder than you're making it out to be, especially as a woman ages. It's easy to be picky and idealistic at 21. When 30 starts creeping up at you, it may be a different story.

[76. Kelly-1 said the following at 1:21 PM on Sep 27:]

76

#75 TB said:

But the number of 25-year-old male virgins who are also truly attractive, alpha males capable of having a woman whenever they'd like is exceedingly small.

I date attractive "Christian" men from time to time. I don't expect them to be virgins. I don't think it's possible. He's not going to be age ~30 and unmarried and still with normal "male" drives. And if he is, well, he must be so in tune with God's will that I could never be an appropriate helpmeet for him. (i.e. different levels of spirituality, his would be far greater than mine.)

For women, it's different. We can suppress that drive. Double standard, I know, but that's how God made us.

My aunt married an attractive Christian virgin at age 35. He turned out to be not interested in intimacy at all. It's caused both of them a lot of pain and left them childless.

[77. Jim H said the following at 1:24 PM on Sep 27:]

77

Peter said #73

...but the twisting of Scripture necessary to claim that it addresses the issue directly bothers me

Thank you for reinforcing my point. I said clearly there is no single verse which directly addresses abortion. But you are wrong about scant Biblical support of personhood in the womb which makes abortion equivalent to murder.

Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Isaiah 49:1 (ESV)
Listen to me, O coastlands,
and give attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.

Luke 1:15 (concerning John the Baptist)

And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

Galatians 1:15 (Paul speaking)
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace.

Genesis 25:3 (ESV)
Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”

[78. James said the following at 2:10 PM on Sep 27:]

78

Jim, while I would go with you on the pro-life belief, legal positions are another matter entirely. That's even further out of bounds than the moral issue we were discussing.

[79. Jim H said the following at 6:02 PM on Sep 27:]

79

James,
I think the general principle is that regardless of what the culture values or doesn't value, regardless of what is legal or illegal, we need to develop a Christian worldview that is Biblically based and be obedient. The Bible does not have specific guidance for every situation but that does not relieve us of the responsibility of using general principles from the Bible to arrive at an answer. The Bible speaks to some things clearly such as adultery, theft, false statements, etc. while other topics such as abortion, co-habitation, embryonic stem cell research, etc. are not explicitly addressed. In those cases we must exercise careful diligence in applying general principles from the Bible to arrive at the answer.

So regardless of whether or not co-habitation is becoming more normalized in society, Christians should not be engaging in that behavior.

Regardless of whether or not abortion is illegal, Christians should oppose it as much as they can within the law and not practice it themselves.

[80. James said the following at 12:11 AM on Sep 28:]

80

Well Jim, that's simply where you and I part ways. I am not prepared to extend scripture to the point you do. I would say that mankind's attempts to arrive at answers outside of scripture does not have a very good track record. Not to be too dramatic but your wording on those other issues troubles me.

I wake up in the morning and I try and think about Christ, and what I can do to be Christ like during my day..how to extend that to others, etc. No politics, no modern traditions... it's incredibly refreshing to strip away all of that and just get back to basics, to get back to what scripture says, not the current trends.

I've enjoyed our back and forth, and look forward to more of the same.

[81. Jim H said the following at 6:49 PM on Sep 28:]

81

James,
I, too, have enjoyed our exchange. One of the key disconnects may be what kinds of things fall under the category of charity and what kinds of things call for a hard stand (and the explicitness of Scripture on a topic when making a hard stand). I do believe there is a big place for charity in our Christian walk. Paul gives an overview of the kinds of things that fall under charity in Romans 14 (NIV).

2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

One example of charity I practice is alcohol consumption. I don’t believe it is sinful to have a glass of wine with dinner but there are some Christians who view any alcohol consumption as a sin. Therefore, I would never drink in their presence.

However, there are some things that are so important, such as protecting the innocent unborn babies and being salt and light in the way we live (i.e. the command to avoid any hint of sexual immorality as it pertains to unwed Christian co-habitation), that it calls for a hard stand. And I still hold to the belief that it is a cop out to not diligently search the Scriptures and come to a conclusion, even if there is not explicit Scripture reference to that exact situation. Charity is for non essentials (eating, drinking, which days are special, etc.) but matters of life, purity, the Gospel, etc. require a hard stand.

[82. DNP said the following at 4:31 PM on Sep 29:]

82

76.Kelly-1 said the following at 1:21 PM on Sep 27:

“I date attractive "Christian" men from time to time. I don't expect them to be virgins. I don't think it's possible. He's not going to be age ~30 and unmarried and still with normal "male" drives. And if he is, well, he must be so in tune with God's will that I could never be an appropriate helpmeet for him. (i.e. different levels of spirituality, his would be far greater than mine.) “

You think?!

“For women, it's different. We can suppress that drive. Double standard, I know, but that's how God made us.”

Different women have different libidos. Some are low and some are high. It is not so much of a double standard you wrote about but a stereotype.

“My aunt married an attractive Christian virgin at age 35. He turned out to be not interested in intimacy at all. It's caused both of them a lot of pain and left them childless.”

Likewise I have heard mirrored stories where the woman was not interested in intimacy at all. It happens both ways. That's life!

[83. Prickly Pete said the following at 10:43 PM on Sep 29:]

83

Kelly (#76):

Your comments really made me a bit sad. If your experience with men is such that you think it is virtually impossible for a 30 year old Christian man to be a virgin ... I don't know, I feel for you, and I hope your experience is not the norm.

And if he is, well, he must be so in tune with God's will that I could never be an appropriate helpmeet for him.

I am not quite sure what you mean by that part. God designed sex for marriage, and it is pretty easy to see that in the Bible; I don't think it takes all that much special spiritual insight or super-human self control to want to save it for that.

Don't buy into our culture's lie that everyone has to have sex, or that men are nothing more than dogs that have to hop on any pretty thing that walks by.

[84. Tony said the following at 8:31 AM on Sep 30:]

84

Just to dispel rumors that "Attractive Men" who are Christians aren't pure, I can honestly say with no ego that I never did anything sexually with a women until I was married at 25. My wife was also a virgin.

I was pursued by Christian (and non Christian women) constantly too. Everyone has the chance to sin sexually. Most people just fall into it either by putting themselves in dumb, risky situations or not fully understandingthe spiritual implications of the action.

This whole "Well I shouldn't expect purity from anyone over 20" is garbage. Also, the main way to stop sexually sinning is for PARENTS TO STOP ALLOWING YOUR CHILDREN TO DATE FROM AGE 12! It's ruining not only sexual morals but also physicological/mental/spiritual development.

[85. HAP said the following at 10:38 AM on Sep 30:]

85

#76 Kelly-1

Your post made me sad. I know of men and women who have also suffered like your aunt, however, my husband who is very attractive was a virgin at 26 when we married. I do not believe he nor I are on the low end concerning sexual desire. I don't think super spiritual is true either. I would say it was only by the grace of God. We work with youth and are constantly telling them IT IS POSSIBLE. I really believe that.

[86. Kelly-1 said the following at 12:47 PM on Sep 30:]

86

Sorry, everyone, if my post made you sad. My personal experiences have led me to these conclusions. And please keep in mind I was referring to the "alpha males" who could have pretty much any girl they wanted.

83. Prickly Pete said :
"I am not quite sure what you mean by that part."

Again, based on my experiences, I believe that it's a huge effort for a man to remain chaste his whole life, AND be very attractive, AND not have married by his mid-20's. (Unless he's Jesus.)

Me? I'm a sinner. Not sexually, but in other ways, and I could never compare myself to a guy who is on fire for God so much that he can put all distractions/temptations of this world out of his head and focus on serving.

I KNOW there are men here in their 30's who are virgins. I applaud you for that. But I also think that if you could have had any girl you wanted, you would have been married in your 20's. Same as me. In my early-mid 20's, I was not a good prospect for marriage. I had so much to learn, so much growing to do. I wasn't a "desirable girl" - and when you're not that, it's much easier to remain a virgin.

Since I started dating a lot, the troubles of experience have become so apparent to me. I look attractive; there's an assumption that I have 'fallen into sin' just like they have.

And you know, that's okay, I understand why. I understand that there are reasons why he didn't get married in his 20's, just like there are reasons that I didn't. We're all fallen humans who fall short and only by the grace of God are we given endless chances.

I hope this makes sense.

Is there a 30+ alpha-male here who can prove me wrong? ;)

[87. TB said the following at 2:10 PM on Sep 30:]

87

"But I also think that if you could have had any girl you wanted, you would have been married in your 20's."

Yep. This is correct. An alpha male who was devout enough to insist on no premarital sexual activity would have no difficulty pursuing and capturing the heart of a woman. If a man is in his '30's and has not found a wife, he is either not a virgin, or not an alpha. No alpha would go twelve sexless years.

[88. Corwin said the following at 3:41 PM on Sep 30:]

88

@Kelly-1 (86) and TB:

I am in my 30s, play in the NBA, am worth millions, get hit on every night by beautiful women, and am still a virgin.

...Okay, so maybe only one of those is true. :P

You do have a point, and frankly I've come to a similar realization about attractive women my age (I'm actually in my late 20s). While I don't expect that everyone has had sex, there is a reasonably high probability that I will not be marrying a virgin.

Statistically, 86% of fundamentalist protestant woman have had sex by 22 and only 17% of married woman from those faiths didn't have sex until marriage (unless I am reading these stats wrong: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf )

But the fact that everyone is doing it does not make it okay. I would have questions for someone who has had premarital sex and would want to know that they are repentant.

Also, don't make the mistake of concluding that men who remain pure into their late 20s/30s are unattractive, not sexual, or too spiritual for you. Sure I may not have had as many sexual opportunities as the attractive guys, but I still had enough (living in a university residence, girls often came home with beer goggles that worked in my favour and believe me, at times it was tempting).

I have worked very hard and intentionally to not put myself in situations where opportunities to sin present themselves. Dismissing the work I've done by telling me I'm just ugly or lacking sex drive is insulting. Excusing other men's bad choices by blaming their good looks is dangerous -- it tells attractive young men to just stop trying.

@TB:

You also have a point that men can change and become more righteous. But it's rare from what I've seen. If a man is selfish enough to demand "a taste" from you knowing that it violates your values, that’s a pretty deep character flaw that will likely follow him for the rest of his life.

It’s not a sexual problem, that's a lack of respect for you and your values problem -- which will creep into all areas of your marriage.

Finally, if you have to choose between attractiveness and righteous (which I believe is a false dichotomy), remember that attractiveness usually fades in a hurry while character is slower to change. Sacrificing character for attraction will likely leave you with neither.

[89. Corwin said the following at 4:48 PM on Sep 30:]

89

If a man is in his '30's and has not found a wife, he is either not a virgin, or not an alpha. No alpha would go twelve sexless years.

Wow, it sounds like being an alpha means you are basically an animal incapable of keeping your pants up. Is it that unbelievable that a man would pass up good opportunities for marriage or sex to pursue other goals?

And if it is, why would anyone want as a husband an alpha who can't delay their own physical gratification in the interest of higher things? I mean, wouldn't it then also be unrealistic to expect these alpha husbands to not mess around with other women when their wives become pregnant and unattractive?

[90. TB said the following at 6:35 PM on Sep 30:]

90

"Wow, it sounds like being an alpha means you are basically an animal incapable of keeping your pants up."

I think this takes a view of sex that is unrealistic. Sex is not food or water, but it's an extremely strong internal drive for men. It goes to the core of what a man is, and it is a rare man indeed that can go through his 20's without sex and suffer no ill effects. It was St. Paul himself who said that the gift of celibacy was not given to many, and that therefore it is better to marry than to burn with lust.

Stereotypes don't arise from nothing. There's a reason that so many women look at a male virgin in his 30's as sort of a weirdo. It's not the usual design; not how a man was meant to function. It leaves a mark.

Also, I didn't say there were NO righteous AND attractive men. I said the supply of men satisfying both those criteria was LIMITED. Once that supply is exhausted, you're left with men who are attractive but not righteous; or righteous but not attractive. It's simple math.

[91. HAP said the following at 4:35 AM on Oct 1:]

91

Kelly-1

Thanks for your reply to let everyone know a little better where you are coming from. I've got to be quick so I hope I make sense. :)

Believe me just because I put a ring on my husbands finger doesn't mean women have stopped making themselves available to him! He could still have nearly have any woman he wanted. But I trust his integrity. If he would have confided in me while we were dating that he wasn't sexually pure that wouldn't have changed what I knew about his current walk with the Lord and character in the face of temptation. I would have still married him without hesitation. Am I thrilled to be his one and only? Definitely! I thank him for waiting for marriage every so often. The bond we share is indescribable. Being married to 'Jesus' doesn't sound to bad to me. I wanted to marry a man who could lead me spiritually.

My brother-in-law who is a virgin is getting married in a few weeks to a woman with a difficult past and a ten year old son. If you asked him if he feels cheated, I'm sure he would laugh in your face. He is confident that she is his best choice for a wife for him and we are very happy for them.

May God bless you in whatever relationship you may be blessed with and may you serve God whole heartedly together!

[92. Benjamin said the following at 9:30 AM on Oct 1:]

92

Also, I didn't say there were NO righteous AND attractive men. I said the supply of men satisfying both those criteria was LIMITED. Once that supply is exhausted, you're left with men who are attractive but not righteous; or righteous but not attractive. It's simple math.

Even if that were true, who cares?! Of righteousness and attractiveness, one matters immensely and the other matters very little.

I personally want to be like Jesus. And if that means I can't be an "alpha" or will be seen as a "weirdo" like our Lord who did not have sex for his whole life, so be it.

[93. Trevor Dolby said the following at 12:20 PM on Oct 1:]

93

Kelly-1: It's not only your personal experiences but those of many other people as well, and you're spot on with what you're writing.

The one thing that jumped out at me from your comment 76 is that you apply high standards to yourself, and extend grace to those you meet. I hope it doesn't sound patronising to say I applaud that sentiment.

[94. TB said the following at 10:14 PM on Oct 1:]

94

Benjamin (#92) - I would suggest that women care. That has been my observation.

[95. Benjamin said the following at 2:16 PM on Oct 2:]

95

TB (#94):

I would suggest that women care. That has been my observation.

Then might I commend simply keeping in mind what is truly important and not bothering with those women are overly obsessed with things that are not? There are others out there with more wisdom.

[96. arielle said the following at 8:05 PM on Oct 2:]

96

Amen @ 95. There's also a huge realm of attractiveness, and you should always be attracted to whoever you marry. That said, I've found many many men to be much more attractive as I got to know them and saw the Spirit pulsing so strongly within them that it definitely causes me to rethink a guy I had dismissed (mentally, not in real life).

[97. TB said the following at 10:46 AM on Oct 3:]

97

Well, again you have a math problem. Men who want to get married have to actually find women who want them. And the number of reasonably attractive women who don't care about a man's attractiveness (by conventional standards) is, I would argue, quite small.

It's nice that Arielle is sweet enough to give a second look to guys she'd previously dismissed. But note that she did, in fact, "dismiss" them on superficial grounds.

Most women won't give the second look.

[98. Trevor Dolby said the following at 10:38 AM on Oct 4:]

98

TB's right: women do care, and it's by no means certain that they're “wrong” or lack “wisdom” because they care.

After all, improving attractiveness is much easier than improving righteousness, so godly men shouldn't be too discouraged by the news that women would rather have both. A few simple things can make a huge difference, as many women have suggested elsewhere, and a lot of the things aren't that hard to do.

For example, most guys can iron clothes, shave, and shower, and yet that can already make a guy stand out. Add a wardrobe that excludes randomly offensive t-shirts, some willingness to be on time and keep commitments, a haircut, and some general knowledge that allows for conversation, and you're not doing too badly.

Granted, this isn't going to make an ugly guy into Brad Pitt, but it's at least showing some willingness. Not all guys do this stuff: I've heard girls complain loads of times about guys who dance with them having clearly not showered, so it's actually not as hard as it might seem to beat the average!

In fact, I suspect this is why women demand that guys make at least some effort: it's really not that hard, and if a guy won't make the effort when he's trying to win a girl, then he's unlikely to improve after marriage.

Now for the caveats: this is not intended to imply that any particular commenter doesn't already do all of the above, nor that doing all of the above guarantees success. These are general observations only.