Growing Evidence That Cohabitation Harms Chances of Successful Marriage

JebSanderson

Banned
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
989
Growing Evidence That Cohabitation Harms Chances of Successful Marriage
The New American
Written by Kelly Holt
Saturday, 21 April 2012 22:30

Many parents and churches have long advocated that unwed couples avoid living together before marriage. Now even secular research has shown that it can have severe drawbacks. The New York Times chimed in on the subject April 14 with an opinion piece entitled, “The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage.”

The article’s author, Meg Jay, a clinical psychologist at the University of Virginia, noted that couples have expectations that living together will increase their chances of successful marriage, and are distraught to find otherwise:

Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages — and more likely to divorce — than couples who do not. These negative outcomes are called the cohabitation effect.

The National Marriage Project — a nonpartisan, nonsectarian initiative funded by private foundations, which provides research on the state of marriage in America — recently conducted a survey about different aspects of marriage. Its key finding about cohabitation? “The number of unmarried couples has increased dramatically over the past four decades. Most younger Americans now spend some time living together outside of marriage.”

According to Jay's New York Times article, cohabitation in the United States has increased by more than 1500 percent in the last 50 years, with more than 7.5 million unmarried couples now living together, compared with 450,000 in 1960. Jay opined that cohabitation was on the rise due to the sexual revolution of the '60s, widespread access to birth control, and the appeal of sharing expenses. Now, however, she notes that couples in their 20s add to those factors the additional view of cohabitation as prophylaxis — that is, they think it will help prevent divorce.

Jay notes,


In a nationwide survey conducted in 2001 by the National Marriage Project, then at Rutgers and now at the University of Virginia, nearly half of 20-somethings agreed with the statement, “You would only marry someone if he or she agreed to live together with you first, so that you could find out whether you really get along.” About two-thirds said they believed that moving in together before marriage was a good way to avoid divorce.


Although the article cited a March 2012 report from the Department of Health and Human Services saying that “the unfavorable connection between cohabitation and divorce does seem to be lessening,” couples still don’t ask the right questions and don’t talk about why they want to live together. Men and women, not surprisingly, have different agendas. Women are more likely than men to see it as a step on the way to marriage. Men, on the other hand, tend to use cohabitation as a way to avoid commitment or test relationships.

Frighteningly, Jay wrote that “the most recent research suggests that serial cohabitators, couples with differing levels of commitment and those who use cohabitation as a test are most at risk for poor relationship quality and eventual relationship dissolution.”

Couples often “slide” into cohabitation; one of Jay’s clients — a new bride less than a year into her marriage and already considering divorce — told her that it "just happened." “We were sleeping over at each other’s places all the time. We liked to be together, so it was cheaper and more convenient. It was a quick decision but if it didn’t work out there was a quick exit.”

But getting out isn’t as easy as it is perceived to be. The high-stakes investments of time, emotion, economics, and the sharing of things such as pets make it difficult to break up, and it seems easier to just go ahead and get married.

An important point in Jay’s article is her conclusion gleaned from some of her clients that they wish they hadn’t committed so many of their younger years in relationships that would have lasted only months had they not been living together. Another significant conclusion? “Founding relationships on convenience or ambiguity can interfere with the process of claiming the people we love.”

Jay concluded her article with this statement: “I am not for or against living together, but I am for young adults knowing that, far from safeguarding against divorce and unhappiness, moving in with someone can increase your chances of making a mistake — or of spending too much time on a mistake. A mentor of mine used to say, ‘The best time to work on someone’s marriage is before he or she has one,’ and in our era, that may mean before cohabitation.”

The Barna Group, a California research company, provides information and resources on topics it claims are at the “intersection of faith and culture.” Accordingly, it has published surveys on the matter of cohabitation, finding the following:

Government statistics and a wealth of other research data have shown that cohabitation increases the likelihood of divorce, yet cohabiting is growing in popularity. Studies showing the importance and value of preparing for marriage seem to fall on deaf ears. America has become an experimental, experience-driven culture. Rather than learn from objective information and teaching based on that information, people prefer to follow their instincts and let the chips fall where they may. Given that tendency, we can expect America to retain the highest divorce rate among all developed nations of the world.

Most alarming to those in favor of chastity until marriage, these increased divorce rates will likely induce the children of divorce to repeat the patterns set by their parents, making it probable that cohabitation and divorce are here to stay.
 
Last edited:
<vent>

chastity until marriage?

1EKBE.jpg


You seriously want 1940's morality?
FYI: Chastity until marriage is fine if it's what you really want, but please don't try to 'force' it on others.
Same w/ cohabitation: You really think the world needs "studies" and articles suggesting cohabitation is harmful.
  • This movement is about freedom; Let people be free.

</vent>
 
'force' was in quotes; You are trying to suggest cohabitation is harmful.
JBS really should have thought twice before writing up something this bad, IMO.
This is a Liberty movement, don't you have something more valuable to contribute?
 
'force' was in quotes; You are trying to suggest cohabitation is harmful.
JBS really should have thought twice before writing up something this bad, IMO.

Yes, I do believe cohabitation is harmful.

This is a Liberty movement, don't you have something more valuable to contribute?

Exactly, it's a liberty movement. So what gives you the right to suggest I can't post this story or have my own view on this matter? What gives you the right to decide this isn't "valuable" enough to post?

Do you have anything of value to contribute to this thread or are you just going to troll?
 
Thank you for confirming you actually want 1940's morality.
My valuable contribution is to re-affirm that I'm glad free-thinking people will be able to notice this article has serious flaws.
  • People should get to know each other before they get married.
 
Thank you for confirming you actually want 1940's morality.

No, I want Biblical 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?

My valuable contribution is to re-affirm that I'm glad free-thinking people will be able to notice this article has serious flaws.

So I'm not a free-thinking person because I believe in a certain set of morals and values?

What flaws are there in this? Apart of course from that you don't like it.

[*]People should get to know each other before they get married.

Of course people should get to know each other before they get married, but that doesn't mean living with them or sleeping with them. You should know that you are compatible with the person you're marrying on a moral, theological, ideological and emotional level.
 
The research said that cohabitants expected getting married would fix their relationship issues because they are idiots and think legal contracts have any effect on the real world.

Whereas people who don't live together first simply don't know that their marriage is awful, but also tend bring a much stronger sense of commitment.

You can be plenty committed without getting married though. The problem is the perception that getting married will force you and your partner to be more committed to each other. This is a terrible reason to get married.
 
....
So I'm not a free-thinking person because I believe in a certain set of morals and values?....
I never said you were not free to share your views; I did seriously question what good could possibly come from your effort.

....What flaws are there in this?....

The American divorce rate has been steadily climbing for ~45 to 50 years (hasn't it?)
That rising divorce rate is (probably) caused, or made worse, by at least 3 or 4 major "changes in society."
How many of those (probable) causes can you list here?
 
Last edited:
I don't believe in "marriage" exactly but I would never live with a girl I wasn't absolutely sure about.

Sharing a home, finances, possessions, family etc. makes it a very daunting task to split up, and it is easy to get sucked into trying to make it work for the wrong reasons without realizing it until you are to miserable and apathetic to do anything about it.

Not sure where people are getting morality out of this article as I don't see this as an issue of morals, more of an issue of limiting your liability so that should you realize things aren't working you do not have to turn your life upside down to rectify the situation. Maybe you guys think the article is insinuating sex ?
 
Last edited:
On one hand, this article seems to be based more on conjecture and gender stereotypes than hard data based on statistics. On the other hand, I think it's wrong to shame people who *do* prefer a traditional courtship model by suggesting they're uptight, prudish, or stuck in the past. Nor should we read into such beliefs any desire to use force to ensure conformity from others. I'm sure Ron and Carol Paul had a very traditional courtship, but I'm equally sure neither of them would want to use the force of law to punish people who choose other arrangements.
 
i really enjoy having sex with a girl that im not married to, and then spending the night and having her make my breakfest, with out being married to her
 
Some of us have no desire to ever marry. We're agnostics, what would be the reason for us to get married? We have no god to profess our faith to one another before. If we were to get married, it wouldn't be for us - it would be because of outside pressures to do so, (how can that possible be good for a relationship?) We've co-habitated for several years now and we're happy this way. So I suppose co-habitating hurts marriage, because it further proves the uselessness of the legal process of "marriage."

I don't feel that I need to pay for a marriage license or have a wedding ceremony. This does not mean I lack morals - it just means I don't adhere to this arbitrary man-made rule, simply because it is tradition. I see no connection between morality and marriage, or between morality and religious faith.

ETA: I don't think most people who come in contact with us, really know whether we are a married couple or not; nor has anyone asked as far as I can recall.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do believe cohabitation is harmful.



Exactly, it's a liberty movement. So what gives you the right to suggest I can't post this story or have my own view on this matter? What gives you the right to decide this isn't "valuable" enough to post?

Do you have anything of value to contribute to this thread or are you just going to troll?

+rep! It's actually against liberty to suggest that someone can't believe in "1940s morality" and support liberty. Being a Christian Ron Paul probably agrees with the OP study. He's just not going to force that belief on anyone through the government.
 
Thank you for confirming you actually want 1940's morality.
My valuable contribution is to re-affirm that I'm glad free-thinking people will be able to notice this article has serious flaws.
  • People should get to know each other before they get married.

You don't have to sleep with someone in order to get to know the person. Further sometimes sex clouds obvious faults. You know the person isn't right for you, but they are just soooooo good in bed.

And as far as "1940s morality" is concerned.....divorce rates were much lower then. A connection maybe?
 
Last edited:
Traditional courtships result in pretty high divorce rates too.

From the 2012 CDC report linked in the OP:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf
One of the factors related to the likelihood of divorce from a first marriage is whether or not a person lives with a partner before marrying. It has been well documented that women and men who cohabit with their future spouse before first marriage are more likely to divorce than those who do not cohabit with their spouse before first marriage (12–14).

So a report put out by the CDC under the Obama administration says that couples who cohabit first are more likely to get divorced. Again this the Obama administration, not the Bush administration or some future (God help us) Santorum administration. Why would a socially liberal administration go out of its way to write a report making cohabitation look bad?
 
Back
Top