People often question me about my strict rules of courting, according to which a man explains his plan for the marriage to the woman, and then evaluates her for the role over some period of time. The goal being to see if the woman will listen to the man’s plan, grow her skills to work that plan, and then take steps to work on that plan. I advocate for no physical contact during that evaluation period so that the man is able to avoid being influenced by non-rational factors.

So why do I have this system? Well many reasons, but one the reasons is to do no harm to women or children. I have never had sex with a woman who regretted it. I have never murdered an unborn child. I have never divorced a woman. I have never been the cause of a fatherless child. It doesn’t really matter to me if women pretend to be OK with premarital sex, breakups and divorce. My view is that it’s not good for them and for children (unborn and born) and I am not going to inflict harm on women and children.

So that’s one reason why I have this system. I would say that people who reject a rigorous, disciplined, structured view of relationships are vastly more likely cause harm to women and children (and men, in the case of no-fault divorce or false accusations of rape or false paternity claims). I guess I am open to any other system that causes less harm (although I have other reasons for choosing chastity/courting as my approach to relationships). But I don’t find that my detractors want to prevent harm to others. So, I stick with what I have.

So in this post, I wanted to present a few reasons why we need to be careful to marry well, and select the right person for the job. This just reinforces why I would adopt these rules – because marriage matters, and when it comes to marriage, we don’t rely on our feelings, we rely on facts and we rely on self-control.

Smoking

Here’s a story from the left-leaning Globe and Mail.

Excerpt:

Each year, Canadian taxpayers spend almost four and a half billion dollars on health care for smoking related illnesses. Governments, at all levels, have implemented policies designed to reduce tobacco consumption in the hope of lowering the excess burden placed on the health care system by smokers. So, it should be of interest to note that whether or not a person smokes has a lot to do with whether or not they are married.

New research published this month, finds that Canadian men and women who are married are significantly less likely to smoke than their unmarried counterparts, and consume less alcohol as well. Divorced men and women not only smoke more than married men and women, but they smoke even more than unmarried men and women.

Thirty-eight per cent of divorced men smoke, compared to 30 per cent of single men and 20 per cent of married men.

Thirty-two per cent of divorced women smoke, compared to 26 per cent of single women and 15 per cent of married women.

Husbands and wives, it seems, discourage each other from behaving in a way that is bad for their health suggesting that the more people who are married, and stay that way, the healthier we will be as a population.

You can read the abstract from the study here. It was published in the “Review of Economics of the Household” journal.

Domestic violence

Here’s a publication from the Heritage Foundation think tank that shows that marriage is the safest arrangement for women and children. They use mainstream sources like the U.S. Department of Justice.

Excerpt:

The institution that most strongly protects mothers and children from domestic abuse and violent crime is marriage. Analysis of ten years worth of findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has conducted since 1973, demonstrates that mothers who are or ever have been married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who never marry.

Specifically, data from the NCVS survey show that:

• Married women with children suffer far less abuse than single mothers. In fact, the rate of spousal, boyfriend, or domestic partner abuse is twice as high among mothers who have never been married as it is among mothers who have ever married (including those separated or divorced).
• Married women with children are far less likely to suffer from violent crime in general or at the hands of intimate acquaintances or strangers. Mothers who have never married–including those who are single and living either alone or with a boyfriend and those who are cohabiting with their child’s father–are more than twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than are mothers who have ever married.

Other social science surveys demonstrate that marriage is the safest place for children as well. For example:

• Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.2

Without question, marriage is the safest place for a mother and her children to live, both at home and in the larger community. Nevertheless, current government policy is either indifferent to or actively hostile to the institution of marriage. The welfare system, for example, can penalize low-income parents who decide to marry. Such hostility toward marriage is poor public policy; government instead should foster healthy and enduring marriages, which would have many benefits for mothers and children, including reducing domestic violence.

Now it’s important to keep in mind that women commit domestic violence at about the same rate as men, but the Heritage Foundation paper doesn’t mention men. However, I think it’s reasonable to think that marriage is safer for men as well.

Poverty

Here’s another publication from the Heritage Foundation that shows that marriage is better for keeping kids out of poverty.

Here’s the abstract:

Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware that its principal cause is the absence of married fathers in the home. Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet it continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result. Since marital decline drives up child poverty and welfare dependence, and since the poor aspire to healthy marriage but lack the norms, understanding, and skills to achieve it, it is reasonable for government to take active steps to strengthen marriage. Just as government discourages youth from dropping out of school, it should provide information that will help people to form and maintain healthy marriages and delay childbearing until they are married and economically stable. In particular, clarifying the severe shortcomings of the “child first, marriage later” philosophy to potential parents in lower-income communities should be a priority.

Again, the paper uses mainstream from neutral sources like the U.S. Census.