Paper On Healthy Sexuality Topic, See Description

8

Premarital Cohabitation Cautions and Concerns

Few developments have been as dramatic as the rise of premarital cohab- itation—couples not married to each other but living together as sexual partners who share a household. According to recent surveys, the num- ber of unmarried cohabiting couples has increased more than twelvefold between 1960 and 2006 (Poponoe and Whitehead 2007:19). In 2000, Simmons and O’Connell reported that four out ten unmarried-couple households included one or more children under age 18 (Poponoe and Whitehead 2002). It appears that today a majority of young adults cohabit before marriage, and nearly half of all out-of-wedlock births are born to cohabiting mothers (Heuveline and Timberlake 2004:1215; Bumpass and Lu 2000).

In addition to the fact that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, a majority of couples who cohabit split up before marriage. As might be expected, people who cohabited before their first marriage have a greater propensity to cohabit with another person after they divorce (Wu 1995). Those who lived together before marriage had a 50 percent higher hazard rate of divorcing after marriage than couples who had not cohabited.

Our goal in this chapter is to develop a Christian perspective on the topic. We draw on existing research, mainly self-reported responses to

Balswick, Judith K., and Jack O. Balswick. Authentic Human Sexuality : An Integrated Christian Approach, InterVarsity Press, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316493. Created from liberty on 2017-11-14 06:52:04.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

 

 

1 6 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

survey research questionnaires or interviews, to address the question “Why do people choose to cohabit?” We then examine the effect of this trend and give a response to cohabitation that is informed by both biblical and social-scientific literature.

Why cOhaBitatiOn? The best way to address this question is to ask, Is cohabiting an alterna- tive to being single or an alternative to being married? Premarital cohabita- tion is actually not a new idea. As early as 1966 anthropologist Margaret Mead tried to address the situation by propos ing a two-step plan for single adults. The first step would be a “trial mar riage,” in which the couple would determine whether they were compatible. The second step would be taken by couples who wanted to legalize the union when they had children. Taking it a step further, Scriven (1968) proposed a three-stage plan whereby a relationship progressed from sexual satisfaction, to social security, to sensible spawning. Cadwallader (1966) believed that cohabit- ing would free couples from feeling “trapped for life.” He liked the idea that couples could establish contracts for stated periods of time and peri- odically renew them as they saw fit.

These views stretched trial marriage about as far as it could go, even- tually leading to the concept of premarital cohabitation. It has only been within the past forty years that cohabitation has become popu lar among the middle classes, having originated among lower-class and disadvan- taged youth.

By examining cohabitation in sixteen industrial societies, Heuveline and Timberlake (2004) identify several conceptually distinct statuses given to cohabitation with respect to family formation. In some societies, cohabitation is marginal since it is culturally rejected or even penalized. In more accepting cultures it can be viewed as a prelude to marriage status, where legal marriage is expected before childbearing. A similar status is referred to as a stage in the marriage process. McRae (1997) suggests that cohabitation serves as a type of marriage preparation, as the stage that occurs between courtship (mate selection) and marriage. In this case, co- habiting gives the couple a chance to test the degree of compatibility in the relationship. If the partners conclude that their personalities “fit,” they proceed to marriage.

Cohabitation is usully viewed as an alternative for persons who want a

Balswick, Judith K., and Jack O. Balswick. Authentic Human Sexuality : An Integrated Christian Approach, InterVarsity Press, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316493. Created from liberty on 2017-11-14 06:52:04.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

 

 

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 6 5

sexual and compansionship living arrangement, but are not ready to form a family. In more accepting cultures, cohabitation is distinquished from marriage as an alternative to marriage. Last, in cultures with high ac- ceptance, cohabitation is indistinguishable from marriage. For instance, in places like Northern European countries and New Zealand, cohabitation is viewed as if the couple is married (Heuveline and Timberlake 2004).

The above types of cohabitiation can be depicted as ranging on a con- tinuum from the least to the most acceptable status in a modern societies. Given the state of cohabitation in North America, cohabitation is viewed by some as an alternative to single life and for others an alternative to be- ing married.

Based on a study of 1,293 Canadian adolescents, Manning, Longmore and Giordano (2007) report that for most, cohabitation has become part of the pathway toward marriage. As such, most youth “are not replacing marriage with cohabitation, but instead cohabit and then marry” (p. 559). Based on their study of cohabitation in the United States, King and Scott (2005:271) suggest that “older cohabitors are more likely to view their re- lationship as an alternative to marriage, whereas younger cohabitors tend to view their relationship as a prelude to it.” In general, the more accepting a society’s attitude toward cohabitation, the more cohabitation is defined as an alternative to marriage.

Many couples admittedly decide to cohabit for the conven ience and companionship of being in an exclusive sexual relationship with a chosen partner, whether there is or is not an intention to marry. By its very na- ture, a cohabiting relationship is one in which commitment is ambiguous. Smock (2000) finds that cohabiting men and women differ in the way they conceptualize commitment. She finds that women perceive cohabita- tion as a step prior to marriage, whereas men are inclined to view cohabi- tation as a step prior to making a commitment.

Marriage researcher and Christian therapist Scott Stanley (2005) de- scribes cohabiting as “relationship inertia,” in which cohabitors are “slid- ing” rather than “deciding” on a marital partner. He found that men who live with women they eventually marry are not as committed to the union as those who did not live with their mates before marriage.

The partner’s and/or couple’s view and understanding of their unique cohabitation agreement is certainly an important factor in the eventual outcome of marriage or no marriage. Given the present state of knowl-

Balswick, Judith K., and Jack O. Balswick. Authentic Human Sexuality : An Integrated Christian Approach, InterVarsity Press, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316493. Created from liberty on 2017-11-14 06:52:04.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .