Four Myths About Living Together Without Marriage

Human Events ^ | Mar 01, 2006 | Janice Shaw Crouse

[ZGuy]

In the United States, living together instead of marrying has become the norm for couples -- half of young adults aged 20-40 are cohabiting instead of getting married. Cohabitation has increased nearly 1,000% since 1980, and the marriage rate has dropped more than 40% since 1960.

Some see substituting living together for marriage as an insignificant shift in family “structure.” Those who are better informed realize that the shift has disastrous ramifications for the individuals involved, as well as for society and public policy.

The faulty reasoning leading young adults to make such a poor choice must be exposed. Here are four myths surrounding the shift.

Myth No. 1: Living Together Is a Good Way to “Test the Water”

Many couples say that they want to live together to see if they are compatible, not realizing that cohabitation is more a preparation for divorce than a way to strengthen the likelihood of a successful marriage -- the divorce rates of women who cohabit are nearly 80% higher than those who do not. In fact, studies indicate that cohabiting couples have lower marital quality and increased risk of divorce. Further, cohabiting relationships tend to be fragile and relatively short in duration; less than half of cohabiting relationships last five or more years. Typically, they last about 18 months.

Myth No. 2: Couples Don’t Really Need That “Piece of Paper”

A major problem with cohabitation is that it is a tentative arrangement that lacks stability; no one can depend upon the relationship -- not the partners, not the children, not the community, nor the society. Such relationships contribute little to those inside and certainly little to those outside the arrangement. Sometimes couples choose to live together as a substitute for marriage, indicating that, in case the relationship goes sour, they can avoid the trouble, expense and emotional trauma of a divorce. With such a weak bond between the two parties, there is little likelihood that they will work through their problems or that they will maintain the relationship under pressure.

Myth No. 3: Cohabiting Relationships Usually Lead to Marriage

During the 1970s, about 60% of cohabiting couples married each other within three years, but this proportion has since declined to less than 40%. While women today still tend to expect that “cohabitation will lead to marriage,” numerous studies of college students have found that men typically cohabit simply because it is “convenient.” In fact, there is general agreement among scholars that living together before marriage puts women at a distinct disadvantage in terms of “power.” A college professor described a survey that he conducted over a period of years in his marriage classes. He asked guys who were living with a girl, point blank, “Are you going to marry the girl that you’re living with?” The overwhelming response, he reports, was “NO!” When he asked the girls if they were going to marry the guy they were living with, their response was, “Oh, yes; we love each other and we are learning how to be together.”

Myth No. 4: Cohabiting Relationships Are More Egalitarian Than Marriage

It is common knowledge that women and children suffer more poverty after a cohabiting relationship breaks up, but it’s not so well understood that there is typically an economic imbalance in favor of the man within such relationships, too. While couples who live together say that they plan to share expenses equally, more often than not the women support the men. Studies show that women typically contribute more than 70% of the income in a cohabiting relationship. Likewise, the women tend to do more of the cleaning, cooking and laundry. If they are students, as is often the case, and facing economic or time constraints that require a reduction in class load, it is almost invariably the woman, not the man, who drops a class.

So What’s the Conclusion?

A mass of sociological evidence shows that cohabitation is an inferior alternative to the married, intact, two-parent, husband-and-wife family. Increasingly, the myths of living together without marriage are like a mirror shattered by the force of the facts that expose the reality of cohabitation.

Dr. Crouse is senior fellow of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute.

[Krodg]

Why didn't you just call this the "I Hate Women" thread??

[John O]

That's what my husband and I say --- divorce is never a consideration. Murder, sometimes! but never divorce. :)

I made my wife promise me before we got married that she would never kill me for the insurance money and that she would never leave me in the used husband lot. Unfortunately I got left in the used husband lot but it was God's decision, not hers.

[VOA]

bump

[linda_22003]

It's rough to be widowed, especially at an age when you do not really anticipate it.

I certainly wouldn't kill my husband for the insurance money, but when I pay the premium, he always asks, "Am I still worth more dead than alive?" and I cheerfully answer, "Yup!"

[buck61]

It seems I remember a Clinton saying, it takes a village to raise a child. Never thought I would see a nation raising
children, that's what we have today in America. It is a going trend, the more children the mother can provide the more money she receives and, more the tax burden for the working class in
America.

[AppyPappy]

Living Together Is a Good Way to “Test the Water”

They are completely unrelated. When you make it "official", things tend to change very rapidly.

[John O]

I know real divorced people, not the imagined victims used in online debate about the awful state of divorce

I know real divorced people too. I know quite a few guys who got royally raped. Don't know any women that got raped though. Some of the women who ended up with the kids should have been horse whipped and forcible sterilized (real bad mothers here) yet they had the kids and their ex-husbands, who would have been far better for the kids, got to pay to watch their kids get abused and or exposed to stuff they never should have been exposed to. And it doesn't seem to matter if she was the one who committed adultery, she still gets the kids etc.

Divorce should be very, very costly. Ending a marriage without cause (such as adultery, abuse, abandonment) should be extremely painful. But it should be fair. And it so seldom is. Normally the man gets raped in court and the woman gets off easy.

I'm totally behind ending no-fault divorce. The one who breaks the marriage (commits adultery, abuse or abandons) should lose everything, kids, home, cars, materials. They should leave the marriage having only the clothes on their back and maybe one change. They broke the marriage.

[John O]

we've been married for 20 years this coming September. He never made any bovine references. :)

So he made the committment. Congratulations on beating the odds and may you have many, many more happy years together

[rarestia]

But actually having that happen is a process that requires levels of self awareness and selflessness from both parties such that it is nearly as rare as a lottery win.

So it's hopeless for me to even try finding a woman in this day and age?

[John O]

but when I pay the premium, he always asks, "Am I still worth more dead than alive?" and I cheerfully answer, "Yup!"

That's priceless. I miss kidding Michele and being kidded.

[antiRepublicrat]

Yes, but they weren't married. That's the whole point.

You're missing my point. 100 unmarried and 100 married people together will have a lower 18-month (or even 5-year) divorce rate than 200 married people simply by the fact that in the former case half aren't married.

There will be more people split up in the former than the latter, but we're talking divorce rates here.

I am not disputing the general point of the article, just that sentence.

[John O]

So it's hopeless for me to even try finding a woman in this day and age?

Not at all. Of course I probably wouldn't look in a major metropolitan area (tend to be too liberal and anti-religious)

Try looking in the rural Christian areas. I know of several women who are looking to get married who are still pure and striving to be proverbs 31 type wives. Of course I can't let you know where until after I pick one out for myself (if she'll have me)

[HairOfTheDog]

Exactly. Why would a woman give her body away to a man who won't even commit to her? So it seems that the woman who chooses to shack up doesn't mind being treated (or thought of) that way.

Adult men, and women, make adult choices to live their lives the way they wish... neither is a cow. Your post reminds us in a subtle way that in your mind women are lessers and merely fools or victims of the whims of their men. The men are not bovine providing services for free in your mind, the women are.

You know I don't agree with that John. Adult men, or women, have all kinds of success and failure in their relationships. No matter which box you put them in, it's up to the people involved to make the relationship work, or not work.

[HairOfTheDog]

their ex-husbands, who would have been far better for the kids

The fathers I know who actually want custody of the kids have their kids for as much time as they wish.

That custody and support are always at the whim of some man hating court is preposterous. The vast majority of divorces never have their custody or support ordered by a court. They work it out. Those who end up in court failed to be reasonable.

[R. Scott]

I admit it. I lived with both my first and late wife before we married. Both times we wanted to find out if we were compatible before marriage. Both times we married. My first marriage lasted for almost sic months – we were only compatible in bed – but I was young.
My last marriage lasted fourteen years – we were truly in love, and compatible in all aspects.

[R. Scott]

Don't much like women?

[linda_22003]

Well, we didn't move in together until we were comfortable enough to both acknowledge we were moving in the direction of marriage (and no, I didn't make it an ultimatum; we both had to think seriously about "making the commitment"). I don't think either of us would have wanted it as a casual, open-ended arrangement. We moved in together in June of '85, were engaged at Thanksgiving, and married in September of '86. Thanks for your good wishes.

[frogjerk]

The truth is, while I sympathize with the cost of child support, most men would not choose to reverse roles with the mother. They bitch, but they'd rather write checks than deal with getting kids dressed and off to day care before work. They complain, but it's nice only to have the kids on weekends when it's play time. People whine about bad divorces, but they still do it. I can only conclude that something about the divorce looked better than the alternative.

Sadly, this is all too true.

[arizonarachel]

The other important part of marriage, perhaps the most important, is make God the focus of it. As we each draw closer to God we cannot but help drawing closer to each other.

Since my husband and I became Christians, we certainly believe this is the paramount focus of our marriage.

[BJClinton]

Well, murder is always an option. Less expensive than divorce. :)