Ringtail,
You can try and find the data that shows that de facto relationships are generally beneficial to society and should be encouraged, because I haven’t been able to find it

Eg from http://www.family.org.au/update/2004/u20040502.htm

“The Birrell researchers talk about the "ominous divide" between children born in married-couple households and lone-parent households: "Those growing up in couple families have the advantage of both higher family income and the presence of two parents. Those raised in lone-parent families must cope with the disadvantage of low family income and the absence (at least in the household) of one parent (usually the father)." Sadly, most children in de facto families also fall into the higher risk category, with many more low-income fathers and unstable parental partnerships.

The "M" word remains a taboo topic among the bureaucrats and academics who determine social policy. “

I could only add to this by stating that many of these bureaucrats and academics often declare themselves as being feminist, but with de facto relationships also comes increased poverty, increased DV, increased child abuse, increased drug taking, increased STD etc.

However as stated previously, these de facto or temporary relationships will likely occur more often, as fewer males become willing to commit to a longer term marriage when so many of the laws including Family Law and domestic violence laws view males as being automatically guilty, until they can somehow prove themselves innocent.

Those laws are now in TAS and WA, and likely in VIC shortly.

To Michael and all previous posters:

I can find something of value in all postings. I can feel the hurt and I can feel the anger - from a range of viewpoints. This is good. It is not a black and white issue. There is far more grey.

I have had extensive professional experience regarding domestic violence of women - and interestingly - the majority was mental abuse perpetrated by males (I worked in community mental health [mental health nurse] NSW for 5 years).

On a personal level, for 13 years I was bashed by my ex alcoholic husband. As a mental health professional, my shame was profound. I thought that people would denigrate me because of my theoretical knowledge base - and they did. So I "hung in there". When finally the knife came out and I went to grab a knife to kill him in retaliation, I guess it was a blessing in disguise. A shot of insight. Off to the solicitor and over the border.

My legacy is panic anxiety. But I am able to help others - although I would NEVER work in the DV field as a specialty. I think that there are far too many "battered and bruised" women with unresolved issues working in the field.

And get this. The Family Law Court ordered me to pay him maintenance until he reached 65 years of age - on the grounds that he had a disability! He did not have a disability - he was the best con artist and psychopath of all time.

I do not hate men.

Cheers\Kay

Timkins
read the posts by women who have first hand experience of DV. Erica and Kalweb have very good points to make. They know what they are talking about, as do I.

When will you realise that a hyperlink doesn't prove anything? Your links are often to conservative/religious sites expounding a particular POV and are frequently anti female.

I know what happened to me. For example I couldn't even get a hair cut without being beaten up for daring to wear my hair too short! I still have the mental and physical scars from what I suffered. I know what I saw at the women's refuge - terrified and utterly demoralised women.

I currently have a successful de facto relationship and your anti female posts prove absolutely nothing. As I stated previously it is impossible to engage you in any meaningful discussion. Read RObert's posts - he has been through very difficult times yet he is still open to talk to women. Why aren't you?

Oh come on... all you women who claim to have experienced violence and intimidation at the hands of men are clearly part of a fiendish feminist plot and are therefore manipulating the statistics. If you were real women you'd just cop it sweet while realising that you obviously deserve to be treated that way - owing to your manipulative feminine wiles and outright recalcitrance.

And clearly the worst offenders are those women who squander money that is rightfully men's on such extravagances as women's shelters and children. Think of how many guns and Harley-Davidsons this wasted money could buy, or how many pubs and brothels it could build.

You feminazis should stop bashing men and just let us do what we want, just like we imagine that it used to be in the good old days.

Oh lordy, lordy, Garra you have helped me see the light. I'm unlacing my blundstones and heading for the kitchen to beg my man to make an honest woman of me.

I promise to be good and obey my man because he always knows best - doesn't he?

Ringtail
I thought the article was on domestic violence surveys, and the misrepresentation of the true situation of domestic violence in Australia. It was not on anecdotal evidence of domestic violence, as anecdotal evidence can be easily made up, and become a part of misrepresentation of the true situation of domestic violence in Australia.

However you don’t seem to like my reference links, so could you please supply a list of web-sites that I can reference.

And also a list of the domestic violence surveys that I should unquestioningly believe, so I will not have to look through a wide variety of data before I form my opinions.

And also a list of the non-anecdotal surveys that show that cohabitation or de facto relationships are generally best for society, and do not lead to increased rates of poverty, increased rates of domestic violence, increased rates of drug taking, increased rates of child abuse, increased rates of STD’s, increased rates of abortion etc.