Opinion 
 Blogs 
 National Comment 
 Vows first, for a better life together 

Vows first, for a better life together

It has been said that marriage is highly likely to be our last and best chance to grow up. But increasing numbers of couples are choosing to cohabit instead. "Thirtysomethings" who have no religious affiliation and are of an "Anglo" background are most likely to do this.

Most people know of couples who are cohabiting. Ten per cent of the population over 18 years of age is cohabiting and more than three-quarters of couples who marry cohabited beforehand, says a 2006 HILDA survey (Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia).

Perhaps none of this should surprise us given the high rates of divorce in recent times and studies that show that children of divorce marry less and divorce more than children raised in intact families. Divorce appears to have introduced increased apprehension and uncertainty where once there was a belief that lifelong commitment was reasonably achievable.

Cohabitation has increased even though many studies have concluded there is a "cohabitation effect" that generally results in poorer marital outcomes. A recent issue of the Australian journal Threshold summarised many of these findings, revealing the risk of divorce increases by 28 per cent when women have two intimate premarital relationships. Premarital cohabitation is also linked with a reduction over time in esteem for marriage and childrearing, poorer communication in marriage, lower levels of marital satisfaction and greater marital domestic aggression.

Perhaps most worrying for women is that premarital cohabitation seems to be associated with lower levels of a husband's dedication. In a 2004 Journal Of Family Issues study more than 900 respondents were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements assessing their level of dedication to their spouse. After controlling for religiosity, age and income, the level of a man's dedication was found to be "significantly lower in married couples who lived together prior to marriage than in those who did not". The poorer marital outcomes known as "the cohabitation effect" are not simply due to the characteristics of people who choose to cohabit. There appears to be something about cohabitation itself that changes the dispositions and attitudes of people and promotes worse outcomes.

On the face of the most recent evidence it appears that cohabitation is a con. If someone seriously wishes to enhance their chances of lifelong companionship and happiness then one of the clearest ways of doing so is to avoid cohabitation. Living together appears to erode the motivation and commitment that is essential for a successful marriage. In particular, cohabiting makes you more likely to become couple-focused and less likely to value having children.

This has resonances for those many women who cohabit and think this is their best way of eventually marrying and having children. Unfortunately, far too many men continue to believe that there is no requirement for any further formal commitment since those needs they regard as most urgent are already being satisfied. Such men need to realise that they are selling themselves short and letting down their partners very badly.

In contrast to cohabitation and premature sexual intimacy, there certainly seems to be value in those genuine physical expressions of affection which come through that growth in friendship and natural bonding associated with a deepening relationship.

Perhaps we need to rediscover the wonder and value of things such as courtship. There is much to be said for encouraging couples to spend time with one another in a social environment that comprises a range of commonly understood structured rituals. For too many couples, cohabitation seems to "just happen" and they are blissfully unaware of its potential for harm.

We need to construct social frameworks which more clearly signify levels of commitment and get marriage and children more firmly on the agenda. Perhaps every dad should tell his daughter "If your relationship with a bloke starts to get serious make sure that he understands that he is to ask my permission to court you". This does not mean that daughters are their father's property. But such a statement would send a strong signal about what loving a woman means, from the man who has devoted his life to her while she was growing up, to the man who would need to devote his life to her in the future. If nothing else it would give young men a reality check about what is at stake.

Chris Meney is the director of the Life, Marriage and Family Centre for the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Most of the studies that appear to show cohabitation before marriage reduces the success of marriage are comparing apples to oranges: couples who have been together for several years (married for one) with married couples who have been together only one year, for whom the gloss of a new relationship hasn't worn off. When you instead compare couples who have been living together for the same amount of time (e.g. compare a couple who has been cohabitating for 6 years, then married for 1 year with a couple who never cohabitated, but have been married for 7 years), the effect disappears: there is no real difference.
Posted by rhyme on 17/06/2008 10:24:05 AM
I completely agree with the thrust of this thoughtful article. As a society we need to try to return to a stage in which lifelong commitments are more valued and strengthened. As one who has experienced the pain and damage of divorce I believe more effort is needed to reduce this scourge and its emotional and financial fallout. If potential marriage partners saw more stable and effective marriages they might more seriously consider its benefits rather than entering into the more shallow de facto relationships well described by Chris Meney. Since my own divorce I have often wondered why pre-marital counselling is not compulsory as it seems rather strange that we require people to, as one example, train to be licensed drivers whilst we provide no compulsory guidance for people entering into a massive and lifelong emotional and financial partnership.
Posted by Commentator on 17/06/2008 5:40:07 PM
This won't be popular with the left-leaning brigade, but similar studies around the world have found similar results. Hopefully more people, over time, will see the value in 'traditional' and 'conservative' family values and marry them (no pun intended) to social commitment and justice.
Posted by Expat in Singapore on 18/06/2008 11:44:53 AM
Very interesting story, how can we construct social frame work of this country, when our lawmakers are looking towards destruction of this land. Marriage is a past knot of love. Young generation is not interested with matrimonial responsibility due to Australian neglect. How on earth you expect anyone to get married when your life is not secured. You can have a job today, and tomorrow you will be on the street. Commitment of mortgage is the most dangerous issue towards the young couples. Divorces are due to Australian lawmaker’s stupidity. Issue of economy should be balanced to suit every family, to secure their marriage. Judiciary system should be revamped entirely before we can even think of anything else. This is nothing to do with premature sexual intimacy. Now that we have 'Baby Bonus' to boost Australian population and majority if birth is by single mothers shouldn’t we reverse this and say that this bonus is only for married couples? In general our social issues are growing up, and we are heading into 'XENOPHOBIA' the same as it is now in South Africa. Our country is living in fear for many years, and this is discouraging especially young people. Looking further on many people has their eye further on. If they work all their life, and after retirement they become second class citizens. So what is the point of marriage and work? One way or the other destruction of ex-workers is colossal discrimination, the same as it was years back with immigrants when arrived here. However, who build this country, ‘Asians or Europeans?’ ‘SUMMIT 2020’ didn’t help at all, as many candidates didn’t have a chance to express their views. And simple as that an ‘ELECTION STUNT' In this story all the facts and issues should be tabled not just about marriages to see how can better life be achieved
Posted by BB-Leo on 19/06/2008 10:48:26 AM
Also interesting that "de facto" wives seem to encounter violent ends quite a deal more than de jure ones.
Posted by Felix on 25/06/2008 8:42:48 PM
Spot on article Chris. They shack up as a mark of disrespect to themselves and a calculated insult to their parents in many cases. Children come along and guess who suffers, the kids and taxpayers who have to support them. I often wonder why many Eastern European and some Asian arranged marriages with no premarital sex are so successful. It is about respect and committment and not about comparing one love affair with another to the extent that total disillusionment occurs.
Posted by jack on 2/07/2008 12:43:01 AM
People shack up because they can't see a future and rent is cheaper when two people pay for it. Haven't you noticed that the adults who marry are from families that are comfortable that can afford to provide their children with a good education and a wedding. Weddings are for the haves, it's snobbery and most of the couples getting married in churches have only been in a church once, for their christening.
Posted by disllusioned on 4/07/2008 9:51:04 AM
National Comment
Here is the place for you to vent on any national or world news and lifestyle stories on the YourGuide websites. If there is anything you see or hear that you like or don't like, tell us. Don't keep it to yourself!

22/09/2008 | Once upon a time finding a mate was easy. It was a childhood sweetheart, someone from church or if you were ugly, the other ugly person.
Yourguide to Your Toyota
100 Years of Scouting
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...