`` Cleaning Up Their Act `` : Effects Of Marriage And Cohabitation On Licit And Illicit Drug Use

Modern, contemporary society’s mindset on marriage has shifted considerably over the years. Some research has noted the increase in early sexual experiences, greater acceptance of cohabitation and the increase in narcissistic tendencies, are complicating and muddying the ideals of what marriage means to people today. Research done on this subject resulted in several studies that found that spouses who did not believe that marriage would last forever, were less likely to commit to the relationship financially and were more likely to have extramarital affairs.

In this essay, “The Cohabitation Epidemic,” by Neil Clark Warren, is talking about why many people decide to live their lives in cohabitation instead of getting married right away. Older generations would look at cohabiting as being something bad or even immoral. In this century, this epidemic is something common and, notwithstanding, normal. Over the years, the U.S. Census Bureau has kept up with how this lifestyle has evolved. In 1970, they had 1 million people that were “unmarried-partner households,” and that number rose to 3.2 million in 1990. In the year 2000, they had 11 million people living in those situations.

　　First, the author states that those married couples who directly married without cohabitation have a lower divorce rate than those having cohabitation before marriage. Warren intends to prove that marriage provides stable relationship between a couple and cohabitation undermines such a relationship. The premises Warren used to support his claim are a result from one study and David and Barbara’s review. The problem here is based on the evidence Warren provided; it is difficult to conclude that marriage can hold people together and cohabitation may destroy such stable relationship between a couple. One reason is the sample size used in the study is too small compared to the millions of people who cohabit. Hasty generalization makes this premise questionably lead to the conclusion. The other premise which is the review from David and Barbara is also not trustable because no detailed evidence is provided to

With over one million American children suffering yearly from their parents getting a divorce, it is evident why couples desire to cohabit before marrying. Divorce has shown to have a terrible effect on children (Fagan and Rector, 56). For some children this can result in lifelong psychological problems. Children who use drugs and alcohol are more likely to have come from a background that involves parental conflicts, such as divorce. Since divorce increases the chances of the children effected to abuse drugs or alcohol, many couples have been taking an extra step of cohabiting before marrying to hopefully decrease their chances of divorcing. However, divorce rates have steadily increased with the rapid increase of cohabitation rates. These divorce rates have been increasing steadily because it is now easier than ever to obtain a “no-fault” divorce. Also, these rates have been increasing because women no longer have to depend on the men in their lives to support them. As mentioned before, women are just as strong in the work force as men.

This may be due to the influence a spouse can have on the health behaviours of their partners such as drinking and smoking (Monden,

A survey of 14000 adults states in ‘A Guide to Family Issues: The Marriage Advantage’ that marriage was a pertinent factor contributing to happiness and satisfaction with forty percent of the married individuals being happy as opposed to 25 percent of either single or cohabiting individuals. The same study shows that ninety eight percent of never married respondents wished to marry and out of those 88% believed that it should be a lifelong commitment. Even though, divorce rates are rising numerous researches show that young people aspire to have a lasting marriage.

The life course perspective theory is a micro theory that delves into a subject’s past to interpret present endeavors that may assist in predicting future behavior or misconduct. It could be classified as a road map to an individuals expected behavior and may provide reasoning for that individuals’ life choices, not only in relation to criminal behavior but also on ones ability to sustain relationships.

The three theories I have chosen to discuss are all extremely relevant ideas; although I prefer Erik Erikson’s stage of psychosocial development. Erik Erikson’s theory covers a person’s entire lifespan showing the many different stages throughout one’s life. A person is always

These constraints lead some cohabiting couples to marry, even though they would not have married under other circumstances. On the basis of this framework, Stanley, Rhoades, et al. (2006) argued that couples who are engaged prior to cohabitation, compared with those who are not, should report fewer problems and greater relationship stability following marriage, given that they already have made a major commitment to their partners. Several studies have provided evidence consistent with this hypothesis (Brown, 2004; Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009).

Cohabitation is defined as a man and woman living in the same household and having sexual relations while not being married. There is relatively little data on health outcomes for people who have cohabitated, although there is some evidence that cohabitating couples have lower incomes (15% of cohabitating men are jobless while 8% of married men are jobless) and there may be negative academic effects for children of cohabitating mothers (Jay, 2012). Cohabitation rates are highest among those who have never married with just over a quarter of people surveyed reporting cohabitation before their first marriage (Jay, 2012). Of these, half reported that they expected their cohabitation to end in marriage; about one quarter to one third of cohabitations end either in marriage or dissolution of the relationship within 3 years (Jay, 2012). Further, cohabitation rates are highest for those who have not completed college, accounting for all but 12% of men and women reporting that they are living with their partners (Jay, 2012). Cohabitation and marriage are two significant decisions college students will make, but very little is known about what college students think about living together before marriage. Given the nearly 50% divorce rate in the United States (Jay, 2012), understanding how young adults view cohabitation as on option for life relationships needs further investigation.

Cohabitation, which is the politically correct term for what used to be called “shacking up”, has become very common in our day. Nearly eight million opposite-sex couples live together today, compared to less than one million thirty years ago. Nearly ten percent of all opposite-sex couples are cohabiting, and over half of all first marriages are preceded by a period of cohabitation (Huang, Smock, Manning, and Bergstrom-Lynch 2011). As a result of a higher average age for young people to marry of twenty seven for men and twenty five for women, emerging adults have more time to experience a range of premarital relationships. Indeed, the courtship process now includes cohabitation as the modal pathway to marriage, a process that often begins with dating, transitions into cohabitation, and culminates

This has left us open to doubts about our most fundamental understanding of “about the parent-child bond, about marital permanence, about the link between marriage, sex and procreation. It has already dragged innumerable children and adults into the very opposite of ‘personal happiness’.” One of the negative outcomes of cohabitation is that partners are “more likely to be unfaithful than are married spouses, and are more likely to be violent toward the other partner.” And this lifestyle can become a vicious cycle because as Horn has observed “many adolescents are gaining morals from parents and peers who are participating in or accepting cohabitation.” Children born to cohabitants are considered to be children born out of wedlock. The fact that one was born

In the late 1980s, only 44% of women cohabited before their first marriage. 67% of women have cohabited before their first marriage since 2000 (Manning & Cohen, 2012). Premarital cohabitation has become the majority experience in the United States (Tach & Halpern-Meekin, 2009; Teachman, 2003). Although cohabitation has become the majority experience, premarital cohabitation is still associated with “poorer marital communication quality, lower marital satisfaction, higher levels of domestic violence, and greater probability of divorce in U.S. samples” (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002; Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006). In a study completed by Cohan & Kleinbaum (2002), researchers found that the couples who did not premarital cohabitate had more positive problem solving skills and more positive help seeking methods than couples who did cohabitate before marriage. Despite the negative consequences, there are still many reasons young couples are choosing to cohabitate.

In today’s society, adolescents have a positive opinion about cohabitation before marriage. The view of marriage as an institution has faded and cohabitation has taken a new part of this culture (Martin, Specter, Martin, & Martin, 2003). It has often been questioned whether or not premarital sexual activity causes marriages to be disrupted. According to Teachman, Premarital sex and cohabitation has not

The National Marriage Project (2000) is educating young men and women on the perils of living together, prior to marriage, in their book “Should We Live Together.” The co-directors are both Ph.D.’s, one a behavioral sciences dean at Rutgers and the other an author and social critic who writes extensively on issues of marriage, family and child wellbeing. The book focuses on the risks of cohabitating before marriage, which is not only unsafe, unprofitable, but also does not increase the chance of a marriage lasting. Not surprisingly, very few understand all these undesirable factors that so many young men and women face when they decide to attempt cohabiting.