Growing Evidence That Cohabitation Harms Chances of Successful Marriage

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Why I don't really have anything against the premise of the article, RPF seems like an odd place to put it. There are much more pressing issues to discuss at the moment.

 

[Voluntary Man]

Thank you for your post. Sincerely.



The goal of marriage isn't to avoid divorce. It's to have a better life for the people involved.

Plenty of people have worthwhile relationships without ever being married.

that's kind of like saying "the goal of business isn't to avoid bankruptcy."

i hope you would agree that divorce is an undesirable end to a marriage, much as bankruptcy is an undesirable end to a business. of course, divorce is preferable to murder, so it does have its place. however, if you can select a mate and conduct a relationship with the most desirable outcome in mind, who wouldn't do that?

of course marriage isn't for everyone, but neither should divorce simply be accepted as the inevitable outcome of marriage. i assume that you don't accept fatal traffic accidents as an inevitable outcome of driving?

sure, it can happen to anyone, but by taking proper precautions, you can, at least, reduce the odds of the highway fatalities, bankruptcies, and divorces happening to you.

 

[osan]

Growing Evidence That Cohabitation Harms Chances of Successful Marriage
http://thenewamerican.com

Offered as a universal truth, I would have to call this article nonsense. I can accept that this is the case for some couples, but to assert that cohabitation is a root cause across so broad a spectrum of a large population such as that of the USA is simplistic to the point of utter ridicule. Humans are not quite so simple in their makeup; there is enormous diversity in the psychological makeup of people. Add to that the widely differing cultural factors - morality, religion, world views, and so forth.

Such attempts at reducing human experience to single-dimensional terms usually fail pretty badly. I suspect that a truly comprehensive analytical study of why couples succeed or fail would be a monumentally tough endeavor, perhaps even impossibly so. That anyone gives a hoot about this question I find perplexing - as if knowing the answer would change anything. Young people rarely listen.

 

[Voluntary Man]

why is the OP banned?

 

[LimitedGovernment]

that's kind of like saying "the goal of business isn't to avoid bankruptcy."

i hope you would agree that divorce is an undesirable end to a marriage, much as bankruptcy is an undesirable end to a business. of course, divorce is preferable to murder, so it does have its place. however, if you can select a mate and conduct a relationship with the most desirable outcome in mind, who wouldn't do that?

of course marriage isn't for everyone, but neither should divorce simply be accepted as the inevitable outcome of marriage. i assume that you don't accept fatal traffic accidents as an inevitable outcome of driving?

sure, it can happen to anyone, but by taking proper precautions, you can, at least, reduce the odds of the highway fatalities, bankruptcies, and divorces happening to you.

Business and marriage really aren't comparable, because business is an activity - not a legally recognized relationship. Regardless, I can follow your analogy and maintain my point:

People would only keep a business running if it was making them money. They shouldn't be criticized for closing their enterprise when it doesn't work out. Likewise, they shouldn't avoid getting a job to earn money in order to wait until they have a business idea that they can establish an operation based on.


No one said that divorce should be an inevitable outcome.


Not cohabiting isn't comparable to not texting while driving.

 

[Voluntary Man]

Business and marriage really aren't comparable, because business is an activity - not a legally recognized relationship. Regardless, I can follow your analogy and maintain my point:

People would only keep a business running if it was making them money. They shouldn't be criticized for closing their enterprise when it doesn't work out. Likewise, they shouldn't avoid getting a job to earn money in order to wait until they have a business idea that they can establish an operation based on.


No one said that divorce should be an inevitable outcome.


Not cohabiting isn't comparable to not texting while driving.

you're being evasive.

what it boils down to is this: cohabitation is a "better deal" for males than for females (yes, I'm intentionally using the immature descriptor for adult humans), because it's cheaper than dating, and provides easier and more frequent access to sex. for females, it "promises" a segue to marriage (yes, i know I'm generalizing).

the problem, of course, as the article (and my observation) suggests is that a person is more likely to marry a cohabitant, and to miss out on other potential (and possibly more suitable) mates, while cohabitating. resulting marriages are often the result of complacency.

although i can certainly understand why young people, especially males, mindlessly defend cohabitation, as if it were completely unrelated to marriage, because they just see it as a form of dating (a cheaper and more "productive" form), you probably shouldn't even be casually dating someone you know you wouldn't marry; it will just lead to pain, suffering, fractured families, child support, abortion, weekend fatherhood, child support, wage garnishments......

lie to yourselves all you want. reality is hard, but reality is real.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

you're being evasive. what it boils down to is this: cohabitation is a "better deal" for males than for females (yes, I'm intentionally using the immature descriptor for adult humans), because it's cheaper than dating, and provides easier and more frequent access to sex. for females, it provides a segue to marriage (yes, i know I'm generalizing). the problem, of course, as the article (and my observation) suggests is that a person is more likely to marry a cohabitant, and to miss out on other potential (and possibly more suitable) mates, while cohabitating. resulting marriages are often the result of complacency. although i can certainly understand why young people, especially males, mindlessly defend cohabitation, as if it were completely unrelated to marriage, because they just see it as a form of dating (a cheaper and more "productive" form), you probably shouldn't even be casually dating someone you know you wouldn't marry; it will just lead to pain, suffering, fractured families, child support, weekend fatherhood, child support, wage garnishments......

lie to yourselves all you want. reality is hard, but reality is real.

This post came totally out of left field for me. It doesn't seem like you read my previous posts. Moreover, I don't see how you linked the post you quoted to these assumptions and conclusions.

 

[Voluntary Man]

This post came totally out of left field for me. It doesn't seem like you read my previous posts. Moreover, I don't see how you linked the post you quoted to these assumptions and conclusions.

it's entirely possible that my post was only partly a response to yours (i have a tendency to do that). if i unfairly lumped you in with others, i apologize.

having said that, i can agree with you that the title of the article slightly misrepresents the body, and makes it appear that if a 60 year married couple had cohabitated prior to marriage, they may have divorced after 6 years. but the body of the article is clear that, as i think you might agree, cohabitation increases the likelihood of marrying someone with whom the odds of a 60 year marriage are not good.

my analogy was simply to suggest that many of us are more careful about entering the highway or a business than entering a marriage (justifications for cohabitation aside).

 

[The Free Hornet]

It is common knowledge that cohabitation leads to unhappier marriages and more divorce. Why is that is under debate? Those that deny these facts deny reality.

When a study is referenced and there are comments regarding its results being "common knowledge", I come to the inescapable conclusion that someone missed the point.

First, the point of a study is to gather facts in support of or to contradict a hypothesis. This is true whether or not that hypothesis is "common knowledge". You will neither learn nor refine "common knowledge" without the facts and data to establish it. You can learn myth and superstition or be guided by religion or tradition (which may have been guided by someone else's pursuit of "common knowledge" in a semi-rigorous fashion eons ago). Rather than calling something "common knowledge", state plainly this, "I have no point."

"Why is that is under debate?" Read the link! Read the links off the link! What don't you see? The numbers!

When you actually READ the fucking studies, what you find is bet-hedging, wishy-washy non statements.

The belief that living together before mar-
riage is a useful way “to find out whether you
really get along,” and thus avoid a bad marriage
and an eventual divorce, is now widespread
among young people. But the available data
on the effects of cohabitation fail to confirm
this belief. In fact, a substantial body of evi-
dence indicates that those who live together
before marriage are more likely to break up
after marriage. This evidence is controversial,
because it is difficult to distinguish the “selec-
tion effect” from the “experience of cohabita-
tion effect.” The selection effect refers to the
fact that people who cohabit before marriage
have different characteristics from those who
do not, and it may be these characteristics, and
not the experience of cohabitation, that leads
to marital instability. There is some empirical
support for both positions. What can be said
for certain is that no evidence has yet been
found that those who cohabit before marriage
have stronger marriages than those who do
not.

http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/SOOU2001.pdf

Here is a study - it is a PDF (warning may contain SCIENCE!):

Premarital cohabitation provides information which allows for a
more precise estimate of match quality with the prospective spouse. Therefore, marriages with
prior cohabitation will be more stable on average. Demonstrating this is not easy, however. A
simple comparison of couples who cohabited with those who did not shows that the former have
higher divorce rates. By using several indirect tests and a more direct bivariate probit model, we
demonstrated that this is due to self-selection. Cohabitors have characteristics that increase the
probability of divorce. This overcompensates the stabilizing effect of a trial marriage.
The secular increase in divorce rates in most industrialized countries, therefore, cannot be
explained by the growing prevalence of premarital cohabitation. On the contrary, according to
our results cohabitation is a counteracting factor. Divorce rates would be even higher if trial
marriages had not become a common demographic phenomenon.

http://www.sowi.uni-mannheim.de/lehrstuehle/lessm/papers/kohab.pdf

Readily Available Cohabitation Facts

Living together is considered to be more stressful than being married.

Just over 50% of first cohabiting couples ever get married.

In the United States and in the UK, couples who live together are at a greater risk for divorce than non-cohabiting couples.

Couples who lived together before marriage tend to divorce early in their marriage. If their marriage last seven years, then their risk for divorce is the same as couples who didn't cohabit before marriage.

Cohabitation Facts Rarely Mentioned

In France and Germany cohabiting couples have a slightly lower risk of divorce.

If cohabitation is limited to a person's future spouse, there is no elevated risk of divorce.

In the U.S., cohabiting couples taking premarital education courses or counseling are not at a higher risk for divorce.

http://marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm

Nobody told those Germans or Frenchies about our "common knowledge".

 

[donnay]

I think getting a government sanctioned marriage certificate is far worse that living with someone.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Cohabitation IS marriage.

To suggest otherwise is to say that nobody outside of a specific faith can be married.

 

[Voluntary Man]

I think getting a government sanctioned marriage certificate is far worse that living with someone.

i didn't understand this thread to be a judgment against the virtue of cohabitation, but against the wisdom of it.

in my opinion, a license/certificate doesn't make a marriage (ICE, apparently, agrees with me). in fact, if you're shacking up, especially if you have children in common, i consider you married, regardless of how you define your relationship. so, by my standard, the divorce rate is MUCH higher among cohabiters.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Cohabitation IS marriage.

To suggest otherwise is to say that nobody outside of a specific faith can be married.

Despite my annoying post above, I think you have the winning point (assuming cohabitaion includes sex and joint maintenance of the household whether financially or with labor). This explains why some speak out against cohabitation: it is a loophole to their control of institutional marriage. Long before people were against interracial marriage, they were against mixed races holding hands together. Just as anti-sodomy laws preceded the anti-gay marriage movement. The goal posts move and fabrications like the OP's article are the squeaking as statists lose control.

 

[jmdrake]

Cohabitation IS marriage.

To suggest otherwise is to say that nobody outside of a specific faith can be married.

So people who aren't religious and have a formal marriage ceremony aren't married? The above post makes no sense. Marriage is a contract. You can fulfill the contract without state involvement, but if you don't sit down and do a contract, "count the costs" so to speak....well...you're not doing yourself or your loved one any favors. People have tried cohabitating without any kind of contract, then "life happens" even to the best and often they wish they had done something different. Take Stieg Larson for instance. The guy who wrote "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? When he died did his girlfriend and the love of his life get his money? Nope. It went to his estranged family. If he was "married" that wouldn't have been a problem. If the term "marriage" was offensive to him, he could have just gotten "contracted". Get a will, durable power of attorney, durable power of attorney for healthcare etc and map out all of the defaults that the marriage contract would have done for him. Of course all of that implies some kind of a commitment. And if you are that committed why not express that commitment in front of your friends and family?

 

[JSaindon]

Studies like this have no merit. Divorce rate has been high forever. Not one common denominator is the answer. Another useless study. There are many reasons couples decide to live together. Mine had nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is not taken seriously anymore, that is the main cause of failure. I'm 30 and still haven't decided on getting married. Rushing to that decision is most likely the leading cause of divorce. Has nothing to do with living together before-hand.

I could do a study and say the more the lower class grows, the higher the rate of divorce.....but its hogwash, just like this study. You can't perform a study like this based on one scenario out of thousands of possible scenarios. It is just misleading and comes off as propaganda.

 

[pcosmar]

Please don't tell my wife this shit.

We lived together for 7 years before we got "officially" married.

Bullshit study is bullshit.

edit,,
Looks like Marrying Sam is still in business too.. (curiosity, I had to check)
http://www.marryingsam.com/

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

So people who aren't religious and have a formal marriage ceremony aren't married? The above post makes no sense. Marriage is a contract. You can fulfill the contract without state involvement, but if you don't sit down and do a contract, "count the costs" so to speak....well...you're not doing yourself or your loved one any favors. People have tried cohabitating without any kind of contract, then "life happens" even to the best and often they wish they had done something different. Take Stieg Larson for instance. The guy who wrote "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? When he died did his girlfriend and the love of his life get his money? Nope. It went to his estranged family. If he was "married" that wouldn't have been a problem. If the term "marriage" was offensive to him, he could have just gotten "contracted". Get a will, durable power of attorney, durable power of attorney for healthcare etc and map out all of the defaults that the marriage contract would have done for him. Of course all of that implies some kind of a commitment. And if you are that committed why not express that commitment in front of your friends and family?

I was saying that the idea of marriage as only a religious one is garbage.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

it's entirely possible that my post was only partly a response to yours (i have a tendency to do that). if i unfairly lumped you in with others, i apologize.

having said that, i can agree with you that the title of the article slightly misrepresents the body, and makes it appear that if a 60 year married couple had cohabitated prior to marriage, they may have divorced after 6 years. but the body of the article is clear that, as i think you might agree, cohabitation increases the likelihood of marrying someone with whom the odds of a 60 year marriage are not good.

my analogy was simply to suggest that many of us are more careful about entering the highway or a business than entering a marriage (justifications for cohabitation aside).

Thanks for the fair reply. I disagree that the article provides reason to conclude that cohabitation increases the likelihood of long-term successful marriage. I do agree that it shows some correlation between the two, which - in the presence of other information in the same direction - could be a part of a case for that conclusion.

Cohabitation IS marriage.

To suggest otherwise is to say that nobody outside of a specific faith can be married.

I agree that a domestic partnership is essentially marriage. The only point I'd disagree from is that people who make a contract about the partnership have a different kind of domestic partnership that's closer to people's understanding of marriage. (Which obviously is a point that is very important to other people.)

 

[Kelly.]

No, I want Biblical morality.

just like alqueda wants islamic morality??

And what's wrong with me wanting to live a certain way? Or am I only allowed to live by your set of values?

nothing, its when you start telling others how to live their life that i have a problem with.

 

[idiom]

Cohabitation IS marriage.

To suggest otherwise is to say that nobody outside of a specific faith can be married.

This is correct.

In New Zealand this is legally true. If you were cohabiting and you break-up the other person gets half your stuff. Etc. Basically a full divorce procedure.

Cohabitation is just a de facto marriage. One can enter all sorts of de facto legal arrangements. As long as business partners are on the same side they don't need a written contract. It just helps a lot when things go south.


In fact a lot of business arrangements I have been involved with would have been insulted if I had asked for a contract. It would imply that I didn't trust their word, or that I might not live up to mine.

When you get married how extensive is the pre-nuptial agreement you require? Your standard courthouse document is only the mid-point on the spectrum of how legally married you can be.

Do you think maybe your partner might be unfaithful unless he/she sign a contract saying he/she is married to you?

I really love this clip: