Effect of Cohabitation on Marriage - Essay Example

Effect of Cohabitation on Marriage Incidence of cohabitation has steadily risen in recent years in the United s. This trend is not without reason. More and more people are seeing this informal union as an ideal relationship particularly in relation and a precursor to marriage. This paper will outline the positive effects and the benefits of cohabitation on marriage. Specifically, this will argue that cohabitation can be a positive transitional stage towards formal married union. In addition other benefits, specifically on the financial side and the achievement of the degree of maturity of the relationship as outcomes of cohabitation were discussed. A number of evidences support these arguments for cohabitation and they were promptly included. Effect of Cohabitation on Marriage Formal marriage is the traditional form of union in the United States, and certainly the most common. This trend, however, is slowly being displaced as more and more adults enter into informal cohabitational unions. (Brown et al. 2005, p. 3) A number of research has shown that these cohabitational relationships are formed initially, lasting with a half-life of only about one year and the majority of the unions proceeding to marriages. (Laumann et al., p. 205) With this initial fact, the aim of this paper is to argue that cohabitation for adults have good effects on marriage, improving the odds for the eventual happy relationship which could lead to a lower risk of divorce. Fundamentally, I believe that premarital cohabitation is a good preparation for marriage before entering into a lifelong contract and acquiring shared responsibility of parenting. Advantages of Premarital Cohabitation The main advantage of premarital cohabitation is that it allows couples to learn more about each other, particularly about ones habits and idiosyncrasies and hence, mature in their relationship. According to Janell Caroll (2009), this setup allows partners to smoothen the rough spots in their relationship and see whether they would be able to take their relationship to the next level. (p. 224) In this context, one sees that cohabitation is a transitional stage – one that is between the stage of being single and marriage. It allows partners to have intimate co-residential union and other similarities to married life without the social and legal contract that bind marriage. It recognizes, wrote Thornton, Axinn and, Xie (2007), the contemporary norms about sex and living arrangements in America and provide an alternative for a single man and woman who find themselves in love and wanting to share each other’s lives more fully before marriage by starting to combine each others household. (p. 96) Then, there is also the freedom given to partners who are not yet ready to be restricted by the limits mandated by marriage laws and norms. For instance, couples still have the opportunity to define the terms of their relationship individually and precisely as they stay unmarried. (Clark and Ansay 2002, p. 239) Cohabitation also has financial benefits, particularly when compared to marriage and when taken in the context of being an alternative to formal union. Here, potentially costly legal procedures are not needed to end the relationship and that, for income-tax conscious two-earner partners, cohabitation spell savings over marriage. (Clark and Ansay, p. 239) The points raised by this paper were supported by the findings of a study by Karigoudar Ishwaran who surveyed couples in cohabitation and outlined empirical evidence which demonstrated the specific advantages that such relationship offered. To quote: Sharing of experience in cohabitation leading to a better understanding was the advantage cited by 33%, followed by appreciation of the trial period for marriage and/or compatibility that such relationship offer (21%), the flexibility and freedom of choice in such relationships (13%), the absence of legal complications if the relationship ends (11%, and the companionship enjoyed (10%). (p. 56) Critics Critics of cohabitation argue that statistics show married couples who have been into cohabitation prior to marriage are more likely to be divorced. Sussman, Steinmetz and Peterson, for instance cited a long list of studies undertaken that points to the fact that cohabitation is associated with a greater risk of marriage dissolution than those couples who did not cohabit prior to marriage. (p. 314) Bumpass and Sweet (1989) reported in their research that 57 percent of first marriages that started with cohabitation ended in divorce within ten years of first marriage, compared with 30 percent of those where the partners did not live together before marriage. (p. 620) The flaw of these kinds of findings, however, is that it may not be cohabitation itself that increase the chance of divorce but that there are partners who choose to live together may have been more likely to divorce even if they didn’t live together first. For instance, these research samples may be consisted of people: 1) who may feel that marriage is not for them or they are not happy with it; 2) they may be less traditional; 3) they are more accepting of divorce, and so forth. The point here, according to Caroll is that it is difficult to generalize people and couples who cohabited and the dynamics why their marriages have broken up later in their formal union. (p. 224) This is significant because there is no body of literature in existence that explores and posits adverse psychological, behavioral and emotional effects that cohabitation would have on people that led them to divorce later on. With this in mind, everything again boils down to preference and other variables independent of cohabitation. For instance, perhaps couples had separate lives or maintain their own life outside of the relationship or that they are not committed as partners as demonstrated by separate financial responsibilities, and so forth. (Waite 1996) These pressures take their toll on marriage and most of them are independent of the fact whether they cohabited or not. There are also fears that because cohabitation is not a formalized union couples are more free to have more sexual partners outside of the relationship. This is not the case. Andrea Sachs reported that 95% of couples in this relationship are monogamous and expected the relationship to be one. The US Census, reported that cohabiting couples in the United States increased 72% between 1990 and 2000. (cited in Caroll p, 224) There is an emerging school of thought that because cohabitation is becoming prevalent it is slowly becoming a social norm. According to Tiziana Nazio (2007), the incidence of cohabitation may no longer be primarily become a result preference or motivation but instead driven by social influence. She argued that after the process gets established, specific factors that might make cohabitation attractive to particular kinds of individuals lose their relevance and that beyond a certain threshold; cohabitation will become an increasingly accepted and appealing behavioral option to everyone, regardless of their characteristics. (p. 163) What this tells us is that cohabitation as a norm would no longer be singled out as a fundamental reason in divorce as critics point out. Conclusion My argument for cohabitation is within the context of such relationship as part of the process that leads to marriage. Here, the focus in not on cohabitation as an alternative to being single or being married (although it is a valid conception as discussed elsewhere in this paper). Instead it is within the parameters of stages not unlike dating and part of the transition process that leads one to the other. People could choose to cohabit and reap its benefits because it is part of the courtship process to determine whether the partner is suited to the other and that if the cohabitation is successful, then it is celebrated in engagement and marriage. This is not unlike being friends and then becoming lovers or a long dating process before getting married. The only difference is that there is a more intimate relationship, almost resembling marriage, because of the union and sharing of a household. For those people who argue that cohabitation is not good for marriage or that it result to poorer outcomes – that it increases the risk of divorce, for instance – it is important to underscore that as with differences in individual preferences, there is an equal diversity among people who cohabit and people who marry. There are myriads of factors why cohabitation and marriage breaks up. But what is important here is that it is more preferable when cohabitation is dissolved than when marriage is terminated. All in all, cohabitation means less commitment for partners at the same time allowing for many of the advantages of marriage. Essentially, the couple has an opportunity to live in a family environment - a setup which also provides the partnership with the scale of economy, and, at the same time offers each the advantages of the single state. The most significant, however, is that it allows people to try out a relationship and see whether such relationship will work. References Brown, S., Sanchez, S., Nock, S., and Deines, J. (2005). “Links Between Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Quality, Stability, and Divorce: A Comparison of Covenant versus Standard Marriages.” Princeton University. Retrieved 8 Jan 2010, from http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=51615. Bumpass, L.L and Sweet, J.A. (1991). “National Estimates of Cohabitation.” Demography, 12: 22-42. Caroll, J. (2009). Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity. Cengage Learning. Clark, D. and Ansay, T. (2002). Introduction to the law of the United States. Kluwer Law International. Ishwaran, K. (1983). Marriage and divorce in Canada. Taylor and Francis. Laumann, E., Gagnon, J., Michael, R., and Michaels, S. (2000). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press. Nazio, T. (2007). Cohabitation, family and society. New York: Routledge. Sachs, A. (2003). “Families: Trends: Happily Unmarried. TIME Online. Retrieved 9 Jan. 2010, from http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1004360,00.html Thornton, A., Axinn, W. and Xie, Y. (2007). Marriage and cohabitation: Population and development. University of Chicago Press. Waite, L. (1996). Social Science Finds: “Marriage Matters.” The Communitarian Network. Retrieved 8 Jan. 2010, from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/About%20Com%20Marriage%20matters.html Read More