Posted on 11/15/2009 1:22:56 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Marriage rates are at an all-time low, a fact that has ramifications for all of us. Most people have no clue about the differences between marriage and cohabitation, thus they are completely blasé about a trend that undermines one of the basic foundations of civil society. I developed the following chart to note the significant differences between the two relationships.
The number of couples in the United States who are "living together" without marriage has increased nearly 1,000 percent since 1970. Living together has become the "normative experience," with nearly 50 percent of young adults aged twenty to forty cohabiting. Moreover, the percentage of women in their late thirties who said that they had cohabited at least once reached 48 percent in 1995. And over one-third of the resulting households include children.
This trend is producing a cultural transformation that has profound ramifications for both people and public policies. As cohabitation precedes marriage, this temporary arrangement displaces marriage as the locus of sexual intimacy. Clearly, when the prevailing attitude is that having sex is "no big deal" and entails no commitment, then moving in and living together with no strings becomes that much more likely.
There are those who see no problem with this change in household arrangement and family structure. Some people argue that now that so many people enjoy affluence, the increase in cohabitation simply reflects people's indulgence, individualism, and preference for independence. Others say that marriage is unnecessary and irrelevant. They argue that the quality of relationships in a household is more important than the "piece of paper" that constitutes, in their minds, the only difference between marriage and cohabitation. Family structure, in other words, is useless in their view.
Contemporary research findings follow a general pattern regardless of nationality, age of partners, or income of the couple. Across cultures and over time, cohabitation is distinctly different from marriage, and it produces distinctly different -- and decidedly inferior --outcomes.
Sometimes couples choose to live together as a substitute for marriage even though they profess love for each other and want a permanent relationship. They explain that if the relationship goes sour, they want to avoid the trouble, expense, and emotional trauma of a divorce. The couple does not understand that without the commitment of marriage, there is little incentive or likelihood that they will work through their problems or that they will maintain the relationship under pressure. It is more likely that one or the other will "cut and run" when conflict arises, since each person's individuality is more likely stronger than their relationship together.
What research shows is that cohabitating relationships in the United States tend to be fragile and relatively short in duration: less than half of cohabiting relationships last five or more years. Typically, they last about eighteen months. Not surprisingly, partners in a cohabitating relationship are more likely to be unfaithful to each other than are married couples. Research conducted at Western Washington University found that there is less sexual fidelity between cohabiting partners, with 20 percent of the cohabiting women cheating compared with only 4 percent of the married women. The National Sex Survey (polling 3,500 people) reported that men in cohabitating relationships are 4 times more likely to be unfaithful than husbands and that women in cohabitating relationships are 8 times more likely to cheat than are wives.
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 it is a way to strengthen the likelihood of a successful marriage. A study on premarital cohabitation conducted by researchers from Yale University, Columbia University, and the Institute for Resource Development at Westinghouse revealed that the divorce rates of women who cohabitate are nearly 80 percent higher than the rates of those who do not. Reviewing the literature, University of Michigan researcher Pamela Smock concurs, concluding that contrary to common expectations, "premarital cohabitation tends to be associated with lower marital quality and to increase the risk of divorce."
As the consensus about the detrimental effects of unmarried relationships grows stronger among researchers who study family life, more people are becoming aware of the dramatic and powerful differences between marriage and cohabitation. Given the seriousness of the decline in marriage and the ramifications that are so harmful to everyone, including the larger society, it is past time for a fact-fueled revolution to overthrow the pernicious anti-marriage myths that took root in the 1960s and 1970s. The costs of continuing the current trends are simply too high.
| Marriage |
Cohabitation |
| formally "defined" and publicly acknowledged commitment |
private, informal, undefined, uncertain "arrangement" |
| pact with legal standing, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities |
limited, ambiguous commitment, without clear, binding obligations |
| all-encompassing, total commitment of fidelity and complete sharing |
tenuous, transient conditional "understanding" with partial sharing |
| two interdependent individuals in an exclusive bond |
two independent individuals jointly occupying space |
Great post.
Please add “Commitment” under Marriage and “Convenience” under Cohabitation.
As my son says: “Seems that the only folks who want to get married are the gays!’
Easy - cohabitation includes sex.
Cohabitation has devastated Scandinavia, et. al., but the courts have been influenced by feminism in no small way —men are the enemy, and “protection” of women is an act of liberation.
So men see a failed marriage as not only involving a loss of face and romance, but a good way to ruin’s one’s whole life.
So while women are protected, are they really happy?
I love when Judge Judy gets a couple fighting over stuff and they aren't married...she tells them I didn't go to law school to figure out who paid what....If you want the court to settle this for you get married first...then you have a legal contract and the courts can get involved.....:O)
LOL!
Sometimes couples choose to live together as a substitute for marriage even though they profess love for each other and want a permanent relationship. They explain that if the relationship goes sour, they want to avoid the trouble, expense, and emotional trauma of a divorce. The couple does not understand that without the commitment of marriage, there is little incentive or likelihood that they will work through their problems or that they will maintain the relationship under pressure. It is more likely that one or the other will "cut and run" when conflict arises, since each person's individuality is more likely stronger than their relationship together.
Basically, it is impossible to keep a committment which is never made.
That is the very thought I have had but wasn't able to put into words. I remember reading somewhere in a book long ago that women "sabotage" themselves by living with a man prior to marriage, then wondering why they aren't married. Women have nothing to gain from this arrangement whatsoever but it gets easier to repeat this habit after doing it once. I still remember calling it what it was: shacking up. That phrase denotes it as being impermanent, which is exactly what cohabitation amounts to: not lasting; fleeting; temporary living arrangement. It cheapens those who practice it and devalues what should be highly prized. It is an American travesty and a shame on our society. Just seems as if no one is bothered these days.
I'll tell you costs too high ... divorce!
As a guy, you felt like you were raped, robbed, and kicked in the fact with glass covered boots.
When everything you worked for and built for 17 years gets cut down the middle + 30% (for her side) ... cohabitation looks damn good to me.
Think what you want, but that little marriage license means she has you by the short and curlies and she makes the rules (with the government's backing) when she wants out.
I think you need ADAM - American Divorce Association for Men, I think makes the acronym.
all I have to say on the subject is:
Why buy the cow, if you can get the milk for free.
Because it's worth it.
Right on! I f you have a set of nuts in the US, you are the enemy. You have to rights...and people thought that slavery was repealed! Any man with a career and or assets knows that if and when he says I Do, he will end up saying “ I did what”...in front of a judge as he is stripped down to his ankles.
That's the male perspective. The female version is
You don't have to buy the whole pig, if all you want is a little sausage.
As a female, I agree with you....the guy always gets it in the end...don’t know why any man would want to marry in todays world. I’ll put on my flame suit also...:O)
“As a female, I agree with you....the guy always gets it in the end...don’t know why any man would want to marry in todays world. I’ll put on my flame suit also...:O)”
Yes, in general. But there are good women to marry...they just happen not to be born in this country. Instead they are born and raised in a society where divorce is still rare and looked at as a failure by their family (regardless of the particular circumstances).
“No-fault” divorce was a revenue enhancer for bottom-feeding lawyers which also means that there’s no enforceable marriage contract anyway. When a person decides they’re getting a divorce, it’s going to happen. If the other party objects, the threat of a contested divorce and its expense, stress and often false allegations, makes those objections go away. I don’t blame a man especially for avoiding marriage.
Why buy the cow, if you can get the milk for free.
That’s the male perspective.
The female version is
You don’t have to buy the whole pig, if all you want is a little sausage.
___________________________________________________________
You have summarized the state of romance today. Well done.
For every action there is a reaction;
Marriage laws were designed to provide estate inheritance protection for women and children.
Divorce laws were designed to provide the same protection if the marriage died before the husband or the wife.
With the sexual revolution, birth control etc., men rutted without reservation and women followed suit.
Decades later, marriage is a necessity only for trophy wives and boy toys, who want security post mortem.
Reality for couples of similar ages; Divorce often costs more and consumes more time than most marriages.
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.