2003-01-20|2:59 a.m.
Most women�s magazines SUCK. There is no other more eloquent way to put it. They litter their covers with �How To..� titles to please men by losing weight, wearing the right clothes and makeup, and adhering to lame sex advice. �Dos and Don�ts� columns are absurd because they forget that its actually pretty cool if a girl just goes ahead and wears whatever the hell she wants to wear. Today, MM and I picked up Cosmopolitan and at random opened a page that gave a list of things that were �skanky.� The list was pretty funny. And one of the things listed� the song �I�m a Slave 4 U.� Let me just say right now and admit to you all upfront:
I really like this song and its video. And yes, this is a Britney Spears song. ::gasp::
I am not going to drone with some argument about mainstream pop vs. singer-songwriters. I�ve come to a solid conclusion that there is plenty of music to listen to, so do so if you want. And shut up about it already.
Ok, so, with that said. Cosmo can line bird�s cage for all that I care. I�m not skanky because I like a song with a simple catchy beat and sexy delivery. I am skanky however if I think my whole life should be devoted to pleasing a man. Don�t get me wrong, I want to have the ability to please a man. But, I am hoping for something more symbiotic than that. And that is going to come from me being happy, healthy, and smarter. So, if you want a better (though not perfect) women�s magazine, pick up a copy of Jane. It gives helpful, non-threatening, open advice about how to achieve those things. Plus, every once in awhile, it will have a pretty amazing story about things like the Juarez killings, AIDS in Africa, and child abuse.
But, I digress. I have a particular case in point that I want to get off my chest. In the most recent issue of Glamour, there is a spread about marriage. In a column called �3 habits of forever couples,� the second point reads:
�THEY WAIT. Married couples who lived together before getting hitched have been found in several studies to have even higher divorce rates-- up to 50% higher. �Cohabiting is like clinging to the edge of the boat, instead of plunging in,� describes Atlanta family therapist Frank Pittman, MD, author of Grow Up! �It�s a sign of distrust of the institution of marriage.� Our advice: if marriage is what you want, you should at least discus it before shacking up.�
Ok. I have heard this argument/so-called study many times before. I want to point out a few problems I have with this:
-There are other variables that this study is not thinking of. It isn�t simply that co-habiting for a period of time before marriage causes a greater chance of failure. People who feel that they have to get married before living together (like people that marry before having sex) could adhere to dogmas than the other group. People who won�t fornicate because of the pressures of their peer group are much more likely to stay in marriages despite their quality (or lack of) because they are also pressured by the stigma of divorce within that same peer group. Put simply, if you care about what people think about one thing, you much more likely to care about what they think for other related things.
- The reason that people move in together as opposed to getting married first and doing the same thing is it is EXPENSIVE to get married. The average marriage ceremony costs thousands of dollars.
- It isn�t that people are afraid of commitment so much as they are wanting to make the right decision. Marriage is not only a legally binding union, it is socially important. Most people see marriage, along with owning a home and having kids, as some sorta rite of passage in life. We want to do things right. So, see if living with someone is possible. And not to sound too callous, but you test drive the car before buying it if you are a smart consumer.
- And my biggest complaint is that this argument is illogical. It claims that living with someone causes a greater chance of divorce later on, where marrying before co-habiting will lessen that chance. I think that they are messing up the causal relationship. The fact that people would marry right away might mean that they feel that certain about their union and are willing to seal the deal early on. If two people choose to live together first they might be unsure and willing to see if a more permanent union is even possible. With these very likely possibilities, it isn�t that co-habituation causes anything. Co-habituation could be an indication of how people feel about a situation rather than the independent variable in a casual relationship.
But, it�s all about making decisions. And what is right for a Jewish German girl who grew up in the Bronx in the 60�s and likes bowling and theater might or might not be right for the Muslim Sudanese boy who grew up in Seattle in the 80�s and likes rap music and kung-fu movies. So, shut up about that sorta thing. We have almost a 50% divorce rate now. And from a site I just read, ��since the turn of the century, the divorce rate increased 10 fold.� But the thing is, this isn�t because people live together now before marrying. And it isn�t because we are more afraid of commitment. And it isn�t because magic is gone. These things are the same as the generations before us. People are always going to get along and then not and then will and then not. Nice cycle, huh? It�s just that our choices have changed. Women have more rights. Fewer and fewer people feel the need to be married to please peer groups. Marriage is expensive and you can now share medical benefits with most companies just for living with a person of same or opposite gender for a period of time. All sorts of things are at play. But, one thing remains: people.
So, get off our backs Cosmo, Glam, and you other silly women�s interest (in diets, men�s desires, and getting married) magazines.
Oh, and by the way, I know that I am buying those magazines from time to time to be able to actually read them and complain about them. But, hey, I won�t lie, I want to lose weight, please men, and look pretty. So, the hypocrisy starts here. Get it?