Posted on 03/01/2006 7:09:06 AM PST by 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.
Oddly enough the courtship link, warns against such shopping lists.
Have any of these "church ladies" volunteered their own daughters? :)
Yeah, I guess those stay at home moms just ought to die or something instead of getting old.
My husband's mother has been living with the same man for 33 years. They seem to be as happy together as married folks who have been together as long.
It wouldn't work for me. I'd be insulted that the man thought I was good enough to live with but not to marry.
A friend of mine didn't realize that either, until her husband waited just long enough to file for divorce so he would come under that ten year line.
You understand that his first wife died, right? I suppose that was an "unanticipated little thing" that he had to accommodate....
Yes, and he's certainly on schedule for it, according to his plan.
Are we talking about really getting half of his or simply an amount based upon his SS (which is half)? What I mean is, let's say my dad will draw $1000 per month from SS. My mom, not having enough credits to even qualify for herself, will draw $500. In total they will receive $1500 per month. If my mom died, my dad would still receive his $1000. He would NEVER have gotten that "half" that they are paying to my mother. Right?
"I'd be insulted that the man thought I was good enough to live with but not to marry."
Yep, as my neighbor is. She isn't so happy about their arrangement, but she is happy enough not to rok the boat. I think she should force the issue as he would no doubt be happy to marry her.
I mentioned upthread that my husband's mother is in a long term live-in relationship. My husband was 7 when they all moved in together (he was 3 when they started dating). What you are doing is MUCH, MUCH better than the situation he was in.
My husband knew from early on that he was there in the household because he came with his mom. The man never tried to build a separate "father-like" relationship with him. Had my MIL died, my husband would have been shipped off to live with other relatives because the man just wasn't that invested in him. It's very sad to think about.
Excellent question. Since we'd only find that out after the wedding we'd have to mark it down as God's will and try to adopt.
(However if she knew she couldn't conceive prior to the wedding and withheld that info I'd move for an annullment as she defrauded me.)
So you're saying that women don't look for what they want in a husband? hogwash.
God bless you and keep you until next time.
All married or minors at this point. No single ones in the right age range at all among the church ladies who've volunteered their matchmaking services. If there were daughters of the right age range I'm certain that the ladies would offer an introduction.
My wife was incredibly spoiled and incredibly loved. I took a lot of grief from other guys for the way I treated her because their wives expected the same from them. I always opened doors, carried whatever needed to be carried and cared for her at all times. When our daughter was born I got up in the middle of the night for feedings etc (due to medical problems we had to bottle feed). I was a very good husband to and for my wife.
I'll let andie74 (my wife's best friend) supply any other details she may care to. Publicly or privately. I fulfilled my vows
Linda that was heartless and cruel.
I think any woman who has foregone having a job in order to raise children is entitled to retirement security.
Alimony is a separate matter and, IMO, depends upon the age of the woman. My mother is 59 and has never had a long term, full time job. If my father divorced her tomorrow, I'd hope he'd have to pay a ton in alimony. I'm 36. I just graduated from college after spending 10 years at home with children. If I hadn't gone back to school, but had continued to stay home and my husband divorced me, I think he should have to pay alimony for enough years for me to gain a skill in order to support myself.
Then I apologize; that was not my intent. You just seem so.... systematic about it, and that's what is ringing oddly.
That is soooo sad!!! My worry is that my children will be seperated if something happens to me, but my mate has assured me he will fight to keep them. I can only leave it to fate, but I am lucky he loves them. Of course I didn't date for 2 years after my divorce because I said that anyone I date is "parent potential", meaning they will be in a parental role, whether they mean to be or not. So I could not let myself get attached to someone who wouldn't love them as their own. My mate raised his son from the age of four, and adopted his nephew at the age of five, by himself. A single dad, one child adopted after becoming single. I thought to myself, he's a keeper. ;o)
"Defrauding" is not a biblically-defensible reason for divorce. Adultery, yes. Not deception.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.