Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Generations and Sex - Page 9







Post#201 at 07-15-2002 12:35 PM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-15-2002, 12:35 PM #201
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

While I can understand the logic behind prenuptial agreements, I am against them.

If you really love and trust someone, why would you question their motives "in case" you get divorced? I think by doing this, you actually introduce the notion that the person you intend to marry may not be trustworthy, and this could actually lead to problems.

Prenuptial agreements seem very mercenary to me.
Now, I have a question for everyone here. How do people feel about living with a member of the opposite sex? Is it acceptable or not? What about if you are engaged or very serious with that person? There have been studies that show that living with your fiance(e) is correlated with higher divorce rates later, but does living together actually make it more likely somehow a couple will divorce, or is it possible that the correlation is due to the sort of people who would live together first are also more likely to resort to divorce as a solution?
It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski







Post#202 at 07-15-2002 03:27 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
07-15-2002, 03:27 PM #202
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

On 2002-07-15 10:35, Heliotrope wrote:

Now, I have a question for everyone here. How do people feel about living with a member of the opposite sex? Is it acceptable or not? What about if you are engaged or very serious with that person?
One must either live alone, with members of their own sex, the opposite sex or both. I would find all acceptable. It would be acceptable to live with one's intended as well. As for having sexual relations with any or all the above without benefit of clergy would be wrong in my opinion. HTH







Post#203 at 07-15-2002 04:00 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
07-15-2002, 04:00 PM #203
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-07-15 13:27, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

One must either live alone, with members of their own sex, the opposite sex or both. I would find all acceptable. It would be acceptable to live with one's intended as well. As for having sexual relations with any or all the above without benefit of clergy would be wrong in my opinion. HTH
And what role would clergy play? Scorekeeper? Olympic judge? Color commentary (blow by blow)? Manning the camcorder? You don't want a priest to pull out a condom and "sheath your dagger," do you?


_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?Edmund Burke

Anybody but Bush in '04!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-07-15 14:01 ]</font>







Post#204 at 07-16-2002 12:16 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-16-2002, 12:16 AM #204
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412


Do not be proud of the fact that your grandmother was shocked at
something which you are accustomed to seeing or hearing without being
shocked. It may be that your grandmother was an extremely
lively and vital animal, and that you are a paralytic. G.K. Chesterton

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-07-15 07:07 ]</font>
I love that quote!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-07-15 22:35 ]</font>







Post#205 at 07-16-2002 12:43 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-16-2002, 12:43 AM #205
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412


Now, I have a question for everyone here. How do people feel about living with a member of the opposite sex? Is it acceptable or not? What about if you are engaged or very serious with that person? There have been studies that show that living with your fiance(e) is correlated with higher divorce rates later, but does living together actually make it more likely somehow a couple will divorce, or is it possible that the correlation is due to the sort of people who would live together first are also more likely to resort to divorce as a solution?
There are various reasons why people live together, with members of the opposite sex or the same, so it's going to depend.

But one problem does leap to mind for romantic couples: if you live together first and marry later, then the 'new', the passionate phase, will have already worn off before the official commitment begins.

(As a bachelor, I would love to believe that the passion doesn't have to fade, but I've never heard anyone say it really doesn't fade.)

(Yes, actually making the public commitment does matter, whether it should or not.)







Post#206 at 07-16-2002 02:32 AM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-16-2002, 02:32 AM #206
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

On 2002-07-15 22:43, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

Now, I have a question for everyone here. How do people feel about living with a member of the opposite sex? Is it acceptable or not? What about if you are engaged or very serious with that person? There have been studies that show that living with your fiance(e) is correlated with higher divorce rates later, but does living together actually make it more likely somehow a couple will divorce, or is it possible that the correlation is due to the sort of people who would live together first are also more likely to resort to divorce as a solution?
There are various reasons why people live together, with members of the opposite sex or the same, so it's going to depend.

But one problem does leap to mind for romantic couples: if you live together first and marry later, then the 'new', the passionate phase, will have already worn off before the official commitment begins.

(As a bachelor, I would love to believe that the passion doesn't have to fade, but I've never heard anyone say it really doesn't fade.)

(Yes, actually making the public commitment does matter, whether it should or not.)
unfortunately, it does fade :sad:

If you're lucky it will morph into deep frendship. If you can both deal with a change to a more stable but not nearly as exciting sort of interaction , that's about as much as you can hope for. Better yet if you can maintain sexual attraction in spite of the loss of romantic passion.

I think one reason there are so many divorces in this country is people have expectations of romance and passionate feelings. They marry because of it, then expect it to last. If you can get past those expectations, your marriage may last.

I have read that the feeling of "being in love" lasts about two years for most people. In evolutionary terms, this is just long enough to make a commitment and conceive one or possibly two children, but that's about it.

While living together may make sense from a practical standpoint, all too often by the time the couple finally ties the not, they are already falling out of "love," though they may love each other and it might have matured into something longer-lasting.
It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski







Post#207 at 07-16-2002 03:21 PM by Justin'79 [at Copenhagen, Danmark joined Jul 2001 #posts 698]
---
07-16-2002, 03:21 PM #207
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Copenhagen, Danmark
Posts
698

love???? yeccch.

Ok, Im still looking for my "It Girl" but have yet to find her.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chet on 2002-07-16 13:24 ]</font>







Post#208 at 07-16-2002 03:27 PM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-16-2002, 03:27 PM #208
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

On 2002-07-16 13:21, Chet wrote:
love???? yeccch.

Ok, Im still looking for my "It Girl" but have yet to find her.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chet on 2002-07-16 13:24 ]</font>
At your age Justin, you are way too young to think seriously about settling down. So that doesn't apply to you.







Post#209 at 07-16-2002 03:43 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
07-16-2002, 03:43 PM #209
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

On 2002-07-16 13:27, Heliotrope wrote:
On 2002-07-16 13:21, Chet wrote:
love???? yeccch.

Ok, Im still looking for my "It Girl" but have yet to find her.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chet on 2002-07-16 13:24 ]</font>
At your age Justin, you are way too young to think seriously about settling down. So that doesn't apply to you.


Too young?! My wife and I just celebrated our third anniversary last month; got a two-year old kid and another on the way (due January). One more after that, we quit, and get to kick 'em all out before we're 50. If I recall, Justin's only a couple of years younger than me... Dude, don't listen to these grizzled old folks. Know what you want; when you find it, go for it -- whenever that happens.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#210 at 07-16-2002 03:48 PM by DOC 62 [at Western Kentucky joined Sep 2001 #posts 85]
---
07-16-2002, 03:48 PM #210
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Western Kentucky
Posts
85

Now, I have a question for everyone here. There have been studies that show that living with your fiance(e) is correlated with higher divorce rates later, but does living together actually make it more likely somehow a couple will divorce, or is it possible that the correlation is due to the sort of people who would live together first are also more likely to resort to divorce as a solution?
The correlation is probably with attitudes towards marriage, not with living together. Those who would live together and have sex before marriage probably don't have much respect or understanding for the institution of marriage. And, yes, while sex and romance are fun, their are bigger and better thaings which can come from marriage.







Post#211 at 07-16-2002 06:12 PM by Justin'79 [at Copenhagen, Danmark joined Jul 2001 #posts 698]
---
07-16-2002, 06:12 PM #211
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Copenhagen, Danmark
Posts
698

On 2002-07-16 13:43, Justin '77 wrote:
On 2002-07-16 13:27, Heliotrope wrote:
On 2002-07-16 13:21, Chet wrote:
love???? yeccch.

Ok, Im still looking for my "It Girl" but have yet to find her.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chet on 2002-07-16 13:24 ]</font>
At your age Justin, you are way too young to think seriously about settling down. So that doesn't apply to you.


Too young?! My wife and I just celebrated our third anniversary last month; got a two-year old kid and another on the way (due January). One more after that, we quit, and get to kick 'em all out before we're 50. If I recall, Justin's only a couple of years younger than me... Dude, don't listen to these grizzled old folks. Know what you want; when you find it, go for it -- whenever that happens.

Well having a woman in my life is not a major preoccupation of my life. Good for you. I think you are two years older than me, which would make your wife a year older than me. I think it might be kind of nice to grow up with your kids. Tha way you have a stronger relationship.
I always feel like its hard to see older parents as anything but authority figures, but younger parents you can relate to and maybe see the more human qualities in them.







Post#212 at 07-16-2002 07:40 PM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-16-2002, 07:40 PM #212
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

On 2002-07-16 16:12, Chet wrote:
On 2002-07-16 13:43, Justin '77 wrote:
On 2002-07-16 13:27, Heliotrope wrote:
On 2002-07-16 13:21, Chet wrote:
love???? yeccch.

Ok, Im still looking for my "It Girl" but have yet to find her.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chet on 2002-07-16 13:24 ]</font>
At your age Justin, you are way too young to think seriously about settling down. So that doesn't apply to you.


Too young?! My wife and I just celebrated our third anniversary last month; got a two-year old kid and another on the way (due January). One more after that, we quit, and get to kick 'em all out before we're 50. If I recall, Justin's only a couple of years younger than me... Dude, don't listen to these grizzled old folks. Know what you want; when you find it, go for it -- whenever that happens.

Well having a woman in my life is not a major preoccupation of my life. Good for you. I think you are two years older than me, which would make your wife a year older than me. I think it might be kind of nice to grow up with your kids. Tha way you have a stronger relationship.
I always feel like its hard to see older parents as anything but authority figures, but younger parents you can relate to and maybe see the more human qualities in them.
Justin '77 and Justin '79: Justin '77, you and your wife may be an exception. Especially today, with a 4T bearing down on us (if it hasnt already), young people are getting married and having kids much earlier than either first wave Xers or Boomers did...some are settling down at as young ages as the Silents did. But from what I've observed from the people I know, most people (especially guys) in their early 20s still want to stay single for awhile. The difference between them and Boomers and early Xers is that they don't want to put off having kids for as long once they *do* get married. I don't blame them one bit. As Justin '79 points out, there is a definite advantage to being young enough to be a kid with your kids sometimes, and be able to really enjoy them and still have the energy for them. However this must be balanced with maturity. So if a 22 year old says he isn't ready and doesn't want to settle down just yet, then he (or she) probably isn't ready.

Each of you is making (or has made) the correct decision if you feel in your heart that it's right for you.


It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski







Post#213 at 07-17-2002 12:14 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
07-17-2002, 12:14 AM #213
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Oh no. I hope no one thought I was advocating marriage / parenthood to the similarly-named stripling! I was merely reacting in a knee-jerk fashion to the 'not old enough' comment.

(note to self: proofread for <u>content</u> and <u>tone</u> as well as spelling) :grin:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2002-07-16 22:14 ]</font>







Post#214 at 07-17-2002 12:38 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-17-2002, 12:38 AM #214
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-07-16 00:32, Heliotrope wrote:


(As a bachelor, I would love to believe that the passion doesn't have to fade, but I've never heard anyone say it really doesn't fade.)
unfortunately, it does fade :sad:

If you're lucky it will morph into deep frendship. If you can both deal with a change to a more stable but not nearly as exciting sort of interaction , that's about as much as you can hope for. Better yet if you can maintain sexual attraction in spite of the loss of romantic passion.
I have seen a few couples (not many) where I think a little element of the passionate early stage lingered on in later years, but of course it's impossible to tell from outside. I'm not even sure if that would be a good thing or not.








Post#215 at 07-17-2002 10:50 AM by Justin'79 [at Copenhagen, Danmark joined Jul 2001 #posts 698]
---
07-17-2002, 10:50 AM #215
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Copenhagen, Danmark
Posts
698

I know a few couples that seem to be still very much in love, and they're over 50. I think one couple got hitched in the late 20s, and the other one got hitched at 22.
Theyre of the Irish-Catholic variety, but they're genuinely nice to each other.
I know you might hate this but I really think sexual attraction is very important. Because if you live with someone for a number of years its bound to get pretty silly.
I mean I have a good rapport with my ex-girlfriends, it's just that whole "sex" thing just ran out. We were buds, but not good lovers anymore.







Post#216 at 07-17-2002 11:29 AM by Ricercar71 [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 1,038]
---
07-17-2002, 11:29 AM #216
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
1,038

I think a sense of humor is critical for relationships to last. With a few shared laughs, backrubs and all else that may follow becomes far easier. The best thing for many couples to do, i think, is to lighten up.

Of course, there are situations where the chips are laid down in dire situations and you learn if the couple is really "there for each other." But it's a good idea to avoid these situations as much as possible since they are usually not very happy or silly moments.

Anyhow, about living together... For me that would have been good thing to do financially. On the other hand, I think there is a Romantic Spirit in all of us who wants to culminate in a ceremony the beginning of a new life together. It's harder to celebrate the beginning of a new life together when it's already showing signs of wear and tear from the usual hassles of cohabitation.

I wanted our marriage to mean more, to have more of an impact, so I (perhaps righly, perhaps wrongly) insisted that we not live together until after the vows. I wanted a buildup of anticipation during the engagement, as well as a chance for quiet reflection on our own before the vows. It's harder to quietly reflect if you're in the same flat--with the future bride flipping out over the wedding plans and the future groom rubbing his head in disbelief at how nutty things can get pre-wedding.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jcarson71 on 2002-07-17 09:30 ]</font>







Post#217 at 07-17-2002 11:32 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-17-2002, 11:32 AM #217
Guest



"I mean I have a good rapport with my ex-girlfriends, it's just that whole "sex" thing just ran out."

Yeah, kinda like an old wornout shoe, huh? People, and relationships, are a lot like shoes, ya know. Ya try em' on, see it they fit, use em' for a while and then just pitch em' like yesterday's news.

Ya gotta wonder, though, how'd those folks who've been wearin' that same old shoes keep them from wearin' out? Are they geeks, or somethin'?









Post#218 at 07-17-2002 11:42 AM by Justin'79 [at Copenhagen, Danmark joined Jul 2001 #posts 698]
---
07-17-2002, 11:42 AM #218
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Copenhagen, Danmark
Posts
698

Well I think its hard to fake sex.
(You women may disagree here).
Its just such an intimate act, that I think if youre hiding your feelings they will surface somehow when youre in that very vulnerable state.
And so in that way, sex is the warning sign.
Most of us are adults here. I hope this doesn't bother you as far as content.







Post#219 at 07-17-2002 12:28 PM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
07-17-2002, 12:28 PM #219
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

On 2002-07-17 08:50, Chet wrote:
I know a few couples that seem to be still very much in love, and they're over 50. I think one couple got hitched in the late 20s, and the other one got hitched at 22.
Theyre of the Irish-Catholic variety, but they're genuinely nice to each other.
I know you might hate this but I really think sexual attraction is very important. Because if you live with someone for a number of years its bound to get pretty silly.
I mean I have a good rapport with my ex-girlfriends, it's just that whole "sex" thing just ran out. We were buds, but not good lovers anymore.
That's funny... I thought it was that you didn't get along generationally with them :smile:







Post#220 at 07-17-2002 01:38 PM by Justin'79 [at Copenhagen, Danmark joined Jul 2001 #posts 698]
---
07-17-2002, 01:38 PM #220
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Copenhagen, Danmark
Posts
698

Number 2,

It would be silly to just say that. But I would say that the girls that I dated that were born in 1981 and 82 seemed to be on a much different wavelength than the ones I dated that were born in 1980 and 1979.
I saw those girls as my peers, but the younger ones were a bit different.
It doesn't really matter.







Post#221 at 07-17-2002 04:13 PM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-17-2002, 04:13 PM #221
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

Chet: why "Chet"?








Post#222 at 07-17-2002 05:43 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
07-17-2002, 05:43 PM #222
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Should we live together? from Rutgers University's The National Marriage Project.







Post#223 at 07-17-2002 05:46 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
07-17-2002, 05:46 PM #223
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Katherine Kersten: The risks of cohabitation
Published Jul 17, 2002 in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune quoted for educational purpose only:

Everyone knows that American family structure is changing. In recent decades, large increases in divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing have dramatically altered the social landscape. But a related social change has received little attention. That's the extraordinary rise in cohabitation, in which an unmarried man and woman share a household as sexual partners.

Since 1960, cohabitation has increased by over 1,000 percent. Today, about a quarter of unmarried women between 25 and 39 are living with a male partner, and about half report having done so at some time. Recognizing this trend, government and private business have begun to provide cohabiting couples with benefits formerly reserved for married couples, like pensions and health insurance.
What accounts for the phenomenal increase in cohabitation? The sexual revolution has destigmatized extramarital sex, and high divorce rates have fueled skepticism about marriage. Today, young people increasingly think of cohabitation as a "no strings attached" way to assess the compatibility of a potential mate. In a recent survey, over 60 percent of high school seniors agreed that cohabitation is a good way to find out how a couple get along before marriage.


But there's growing evidence that cohabitation is not an effective way to prepare for marriage, and actually raises the risk of divorce. In June, the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University released a review of recent research on the issue. The report is entitled "Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know about Cohabitation Before Marriage" (http://marriage.rutgers.edu).


Among the report's findings is this: Couples who cohabit before marriage are much more likely to divorce after marriage than those who don't. In fact, the increased hazard of divorce may be as high as 46 percent. (This does not hold true of engaged couples who cohabit for a short time after setting a wedding date.) Cohabiting couples who don't marry also break up at a rate that greatly exceeds the nation's divorce rate.


It's not hard to see why. Compared with married couples, cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and poorer relationships with parents. Annual rates of depression among cohabitors are more than three times higher than among married couples. By almost every measure, married couples are better off than cohabitors: On average, they live longer, have better physical and mental health, and are more productive in the labor force.


Cohabitation also poses special risks to women and children. (In 2000, 41 percent of unmarried-couple households included a child under 18.) Female cohabitors are victims of domestic violence far more often than married women, and children in unmarried households are at much greater risk for physical and sexual abuse than those in intact families. Indeed, the most unsafe of all family environments is that in which the mother is living with someone other than her children's biological father.

What explains these differences between married and cohabiting couples? Partly, it's ``selection effect'': As a group, people who choose to cohabit differ in certain ways from those who don't. On average, for example, cohabitors are less religious and have lower incomes. In addition, however, the act of cohabitation seems to change people's attitudes toward marriage in ways that make a stable marriage less likely. Cohabitation is governed by an ethic of low commitment. As a result, cohabiting couples are less likely than married couples to sacrifice for each other, or to develop vital skills of communication and conflict resolution.
For contemporary Americans, cohabitation's fundamental attraction is its embrace of a hallmark quality of our age: self-absorption. By definition, cohabitation is more about ``me'' than ``we.'' Each partner is free to leave the moment he or she no longer feels happy or fulfilled. A cohabiting couple do not promise to stand by one another ``for richer, for poorer'' or ``in sickness and in health.'' On the contrary, cohabitation's great attraction is that it preserves the ability to walk out on a partner when times get tough, without legal or social penalty.


Our society's growing acceptance of cohabitation as a substitute for marriage is deeply troubling. For despite recent developments, marriage remains the most stable of all family forms. Over millennia, it has proven to be the best vehicle for the transmission of norms and culture from one generation to the next.


The institutionalization of cohabitation will inevitably weaken marriage, because it will prompt young people to view wedlock as just one of many equally acceptable lifestyle choices. The truth is quite different, as we are beginning to discover.


_ Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow of the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis.







Post#224 at 07-17-2002 06:16 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
07-17-2002, 06:16 PM #224
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

On 2002-07-17 15:46, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Katherine Kersten: The risks of cohabitation
Published Jul 17, 2002 in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune quoted for educational purpose only:

Everyone knows that American family structure is changing. In recent decades, large increases in divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing have dramatically altered the social landscape. But a related social change has received little attention. That's the extraordinary rise in cohabitation, in which an unmarried man and woman share a household as sexual partners.

Since 1960, cohabitation has increased by over 1,000 percent. Today, about a quarter of unmarried women between 25 and 39 are living with a male partner, and about half report having done so at some time. Recognizing this trend, government and private business have begun to provide cohabiting couples with benefits formerly reserved for married couples, like pensions and health insurance.
What accounts for the phenomenal increase in cohabitation? The sexual revolution has destigmatized extramarital sex, and high divorce rates have fueled skepticism about marriage. Today, young people increasingly think of cohabitation as a "no strings attached" way to assess the compatibility of a potential mate. In a recent survey, over 60 percent of high school seniors agreed that cohabitation is a good way to find out how a couple get along before marriage.


But there's growing evidence that cohabitation is not an effective way to prepare for marriage, and actually raises the risk of divorce. In June, the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University released a review of recent research on the issue. The report is entitled "Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know about Cohabitation Before Marriage" (http://marriage.rutgers.edu).


Among the report's findings is this: Couples who cohabit before marriage are much more likely to divorce after marriage than those who don't. In fact, the increased hazard of divorce may be as high as 46 percent. (This does not hold true of engaged couples who cohabit for a short time after setting a wedding date.) Cohabiting couples who don't marry also break up at a rate that greatly exceeds the nation's divorce rate.


It's not hard to see why. Compared with married couples, cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and poorer relationships with parents. Annual rates of depression among cohabitors are more than three times higher than among married couples. By almost every measure, married couples are better off than cohabitors: On average, they live longer, have better physical and mental health, and are more productive in the labor force.


Cohabitation also poses special risks to women and children. (In 2000, 41 percent of unmarried-couple households included a child under 18.) Female cohabitors are victims of domestic violence far more often than married women, and children in unmarried households are at much greater risk for physical and sexual abuse than those in intact families. Indeed, the most unsafe of all family environments is that in which the mother is living with someone other than her children's biological father.

What explains these differences between married and cohabiting couples? Partly, it's ``selection effect'': As a group, people who choose to cohabit differ in certain ways from those who don't. On average, for example, cohabitors are less religious and have lower incomes. In addition, however, the act of cohabitation seems to change people's attitudes toward marriage in ways that make a stable marriage less likely. Cohabitation is governed by an ethic of low commitment. As a result, cohabiting couples are less likely than married couples to sacrifice for each other, or to develop vital skills of communication and conflict resolution.
For contemporary Americans, cohabitation's fundamental attraction is its embrace of a hallmark quality of our age: self-absorption. By definition, cohabitation is more about ``me'' than ``we.'' Each partner is free to leave the moment he or she no longer feels happy or fulfilled. A cohabiting couple do not promise to stand by one another ``for richer, for poorer'' or ``in sickness and in health.'' On the contrary, cohabitation's great attraction is that it preserves the ability to walk out on a partner when times get tough, without legal or social penalty.


Our society's growing acceptance of cohabitation as a substitute for marriage is deeply troubling. For despite recent developments, marriage remains the most stable of all family forms. Over millennia, it has proven to be the best vehicle for the transmission of norms and culture from one generation to the next.


The institutionalization of cohabitation will inevitably weaken marriage, because it will prompt young people to view wedlock as just one of many equally acceptable lifestyle choices. The truth is quite different, as we are beginning to discover.


_ Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow of the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis.
Thank you for the excellent article, Virgil. Do I feel vindicated, or what? I hate to say that I told them so, but I TOLD THEM SO!!! :grin:







Post#225 at 07-17-2002 09:03 PM by Justin'79 [at Copenhagen, Danmark joined Jul 2001 #posts 698]
---
07-17-2002, 09:03 PM #225
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Copenhagen, Danmark
Posts
698

On 2002-07-17 16:05, Xer of Evil wrote:
Justin, I thought that you were looking for a 35-year-old woman ... or was that just an excuse to hit on me? :smile:

And what do you mean by "faking sex?" Faking the emotion, or the big "O", or something else?

XoE
Oh I was talking about the big "O". It was my attempt to make a little joke.
Chet is the older brother in Weird Science, the 1985 film about two nerds that build a perfect woman (Kelly LeBrock) that I watched every weekend in the summer of 1986.

Do I prefer 35 year old women?
Yes I think so. I cannot help it. But its a harmless preference I think.
-----------------------------------------