Negative Effects of Cohabitation

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

The tug-of-war between cohabitation and marriage has been spawned by different interpretations of various twin sets of values, such as rights/needs, individualism/community, fear/hope, and freedom/love. Marriage is always looked upon as the ideal traditional relationship based on love (Waite et al., page 2) that fosters stable families and a stable society. On the other hand, cohabitation stands for liberty and independence (Civitas), where there is no restriction on adopting or changing life patterns that can be done with or without the agreement of the cohabiting partner (Waite et al., page 2).

There are many negative effects associated with cohabitation

First of all, the chances of persons living together before wedlock getting married to the same partner are very slim. A survey conducted by Columbia University discovered that only 26% of women and 19% of men ended up getting married to the person with whom they were living (Members.aol.com). This refutes the common perception that cohabitation is a stepping stone to marriage. The chances of cohabiting couples getting married are less because they fundamentally believe cohabitation is an ‘option’ to marriage and not a ‘preparation’ for marriage (Civitas). It is commonly found that males are less inclined to marry their female cohabiting partners as they look upon the relationship basically as a source of easily available sex that has no reflection on marriage plans.

Secondly, couples cohabiting before marriage suffer higher rates of divorce after marriage. A survey in 2003 found that, within 2 years, 32.4% of marriages between earlier cohabiting couples ended in divorce, as compared to just 8.3% of marriages between couples who did not cohabit before wedlock. This trend is the result of many factors. Cohabiting couples are more non-conformist, and therefore end up being less committed to marriage as a societal custom. They are used to existing with an easy exit without many obligations while cohabiting; as a consequence, they face little difficulty in severing a marriage later if they find it inadequate. The second factor is that they place greater value on being independent and having lesser responsibilities . The third factor is their pessimistic conception of marriage that causes them to quickly resort to divorce when faced with marital problems (Larson).

Thirdly, couples who cohabit before wedlock have unhappier marriages. Cohabiting couples are less happy emotionally because they are not linked to society as well as influential sources , who lend social and emotional assistance (Larson). Loss of parental support is another disadvantage to cohabiting couples. A survey of 309 newly married couples conducted by the National Council of Family Relations discovered that those couples who lived together before wedlock found their level of happiness had dropped after marriage, the most commonly cited problem being a reduction in the general standard of communication. The survey concluded that it is not feasible to use physical relationships as a proper basis on which to embark on a permanent alliance lasting the whole of a lifetime.

Fourthly, cohabiting couples have a greater tendency than married couples to indulge in sexual affairs. A 1997 survey by Ciavola that studied couples for 5 years found that the rate of sexual fidelity was more in the case of married couples as compared to cohabiting couples . Another study in 1996 that queried 1,235 women aged between 20 and 37, discovered that those who cohabited before wedlock were 3.3 times more likely to indulge in extramarital affairs after marriage as compared to those who did not cohabit before wedlock.

Fifthly, cohabiting couples have to make do with a quickly fading romance instead of an enduring relationship. A passing romance pales in comparison to a continuing alliance. Romance involves temporary favorable feelings towards another individual, whereas relationships endure the test of time as it takes effort and time to create and nurture it. In our modern offhand society, romance is impetuously conceived and quickly rejected at the first indication of disagreement or disillusionment. Romance does not tolerate commitment, especially during hard times. Good relationships are created after understanding each other and deriving pleasure from each other’s company not only where sex is concerned, but also on religious, knowledgeable, interaction, and relaxation levels.

Sixthly, a ‘trial’ marriage does not lead to a better marriage. It is commonly thought that by cohabiting, one has the advantage of a ‘trial run’ before deciding if it is worthwhile to upgrade the relationship into marriage. Such trial runs achieve exactly the opposite effect. Walter Tobish explains the concept well: “Sex is no test of love, for it is precisely the very thing that one wants to test that is destroyed by the testing.” Jennifer Roback Morse draws a comparison with the car analogy. The car is not upset or pained if the driver testing it declines to purchase it, and returns it unceremoniously to the parking lot. The analogy generates positive feelings if you are the driver, but evokes disagreeable and hurt feelings if you are the car. Laura Schlessinger, who features in the ‘Dr. Laura’ radio show, calls cohabiting the ‘ultimate female self-delusion,’ one of the ‘ten stupid things women do to mess up their lives,’ and strongly advises women to date as a safe and traditional way to ‘learn and discern’ about a potential marriage partner.

Seventhly, cohabiting couples shun long-term obligations and accountability. Cohabitation is a personal adaptation built on strong positive feelings between two people. It does not involve any public obligation, or long-term promises, or formal declaration of love and obligation. It is like constructing a magnificent house but without nails; the house is bound to suddenly fall when a strong wind blows. The only commitment involved in cohabiting is a plain month-to-month rent sharing arrangement. Marriage, on the other hand, is not only a long-term love and emotional relationship but also a public phenomenon that entails legal and social obligations (Members.aol.com). Marriage means ‘I will always be here for you,’ whereas a cohabiting relationship signifies ‘I will be here only as long as the relationship meets my needs’ (Larson).

Eighthly, cohabiting couples badly lose out in the process of becoming mature. Cohabiting couples follow the often-repeated clique ‘Why buy a cow when milk is freely available?’ They desire to enjoy all the advantages that mature married people benefit from, without taking on the obligations involved. Their outlook is largely spawned by modern society that urges people to concentrate only on the present. On the other hand, marriage involves a distinct focus on the future. It is the only institution that enables people to efficiently transition from adolescence to mature adulthood. Cohabiting couples lack the will to take on obligations and live up to them; they also lack the will to postpone current pleasures in favor of a worthy goal, thereby lacking two vital components in the maturing process. This causes cohabiting couples to miss out on developing the qualities that come with maturity – belief in personal integrity, self-satisfaction, and adherence to high moral principles (Members.aol.com). Women, in particular those in their twenties and thirties, are more vulnerable. Their biological clocks have been ticking during the time they indulged in cohabitation. If that relationship breaks, they find they have wasted precious time that could otherwise have been used to locate a suitable man, get married and raise children (Larson). Joseph Barth puts it succinctly: “Marriage is our last, best chance to grow up”.

Ninthly, cohabiting couples evade taking many joint decisions that married people undertake. Married couples take unique decisions that cohabiting couples can never take. One example is having children and adapting their family life to care for them. Cohabiting couples very rarely decide to have children. Another example is the decisions married couples take regarding savings and property. These are nearly always in their joint names because they work on the principle ‘your money is our money’ (Larson). Cohabiting couples continue to have separate ownership {‘his’ or ‘hers’} for money and property (Members.aol.com). The financial union enjoyed by married couples is looked upon as one of two cornerstones meaning of marriage to people in the U.S. (Larson).

Tenthly, cohabiting couples having premarital sex run the risk of marrying unsuitable partners. Sex does not consider emotions. True love can endure the passage of time without preoccupation with sexual intimacy. By developing a mutually adequate, close sexual association, cohabiting couples lose the ability of perception without being influenced by personal emotions, and renege on the test of time, running the real risk of marrying an illusory figure.

The eleventh negative effect of cohabitation is that cohabiting couples have a shallow and substantially weaker relationship. A close physical relationship is not enough to hold together a long-term association. A lasting relationship involves much more than physical attraction; it also involves a more profound intimacy of the intellect and will that can only be fostered under the umbrella of marriage (Members.aol.com). This, according to sociologist Andrew Cherlin, is because married couples can adapt their relationship according to ‘how well it satisfies their individual emotional needs’ (Waite et al., page 6). A survey conducted by John Hopkins University found that the relationship between cohabiting couples is not only dissimilar to the relationship between married partners but also distinctly weaker (Members.aol.com). Another survey discovered that 96% of cohabiting couples break off relations before 10 years of living together (Civitas).

The twelfth negative effect is that cohabiting couples find it harder to resolve disagreements. Conflicts and disagreements cannot be solved by physical manifestations ; as a result, relationships based on physical intimacy ultimately break up. This is because cohabitation is not conducive to building a lasting relationship that involves time and works to develop qualities such as reliability, moral uprightness, frankness, and profound friendship.

The thirteenth negative effect is that cohabiting couples have inferior sex lives as compared to married people. Married couples enjoy better sex lives than cohabiting couples as the institution of marriage provides the secret ingredient that heightens sexual pleasure to both married partners. A survey of 2,000 women by British magazine ‘Top Sante’ in the U.K in 2002 discovered that 67% of those married admitted that the best sex they enjoyed was with their husbands.

The fourteenth negative effect is that cohabiting couples have a great percentage of health difficulties. Cohabiting couples tend to tolerate bad behavior such as smoking, drinking alcohol, or use of drugs by their partners. On the other hand, married couples tend to deter such bad behavior on the part of their partners (Civitas). Secondly, because of their greater promiscuity, cohabiting people are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases (Larson). This state of affairs leads to a higher incidence of depression in cohabiting couples as compared to their married counterparts (Civitas). A study found that the rates of mortality of cohabiting couples are much higher than married couples – 50% higher in the case of women, and 250% higher in the case of men (Larson).

The fifteenth negative effect is that cohabiting women are more prone to domestic violence as compared to married women. Wives do not run as great risk from physical and sexual abuse as cohabiting women (Civitas). It is widely acknowledged that domestic violence among cohabiting couples is 100% more than among married couples (Larson).

The last negative effect is that children born to cohabiting parents are less secure. In the rare cases where cohabiting couples have children, these offspring do not enjoy the security that children born in married households have. Financial security is the first problem. Cohabiting parents are generally not as well educated or financially secure as their married counterparts (Sage). Earnings of married men are 10 to 40% more than cohabiting men. Married men also tend to be more successful in their jobs after becoming fathers. Cohabiting mothers usually have no access to their partners’ earnings which makes it difficult to manage household and children expenses (Civitas). Earnings of married women without children are 4 to 10% more than salaries of cohabiting childless women (Larson). Parent security is the second problem. Nearly 15% of single-parent families are the direct result of cohabitation breakups. In contrast, even after the divorce of a married couple, their children have a greater chance of receiving financial support from their father as compared to children born to cohabiting couples that break up (Civitas). The risk of abuse is the third problem. Children born to cohabiting couples face greater risks of being abused as boyfriends frequently subject their cohabiting mate’s children to physical and sexual maltreatment (Larson). The overall result is that children born in unmarried partner households face negative influences on their emotional and educational progress (Civitas).

References

“The Facts behind Cohabitation.” Civitas. (N.d). 2007. Web.

Larson, Jeffry H. “The Verdict on Cohabitation vs. Marriage.” Marriageandfamilies.byu.edu. (N.d). 2007. Web.

Sege, Irene. “Marry, Marry? Quite Contrary.” The Boston Globe. 2007.

“Sociological Reasons.” 2005. Web.

Waite, Linda & Gallagher, Maggie. “The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier and Better Off.” The USA. Broad Way Books. 2000.

Outline

Our modern world is witnessing an increasing confrontation between marriage and cohabitation as to which of them represents the proper way of living. The practice of cohabitation is rife with negative effects. Sixteen of these have been identified below:

The chances of persons living together before wedlock getting married to the same partner are very slim.
Couples cohabiting before marriage suffer higher rates of divorce after marriage.
Couples who cohabit before wedlock have unhappier marriages.
Cohabiting couples have a greater tendency than married couples to indulge in sexual affairs.
Cohabiting couples have to make do with a quickly fading romance instead of an enduring relationship.
A ‘trial’ marriage does not lead to a better marriage.
Cohabiting couples shun long-term obligations and accountability.
Cohabiting couples badly lose out in the process of becoming mature.
Cohabiting couples evade taking many joint decisions that married people undertake.
Cohabiting couples having premarital sex run the risk of marrying unsuitable partners.
Cohabiting couples have a shallow and substantially weaker relationship.
Cohabiting couples find it harder to resolve disagreements.
Cohabiting couples have inferior sex lives as compared to married people.
Cohabiting couples have a great percentage of health difficulties.
Cohabiting women are more prone to domestic violence as compared to married women.
Children born to cohabiting parents are less secure.

Click Here To Order Now!

Negative Effects of Cohabitation

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)