Marriage by definition is a legal union between a man and woman. It was a tool used to unite families and to achieve better economic standing. This is a strong contrast to the reasons that people get married in today’s society. Over time cultures and social norms have evolved to be more open and accepting of non-traditional lifestyle choices that people make when it comes to relationships and family. This evolution of change can be seen in the ways that we meet potential partners, date, establish long-term relationships, and create new families. Our expectations of what makes a marriage satisfying and fulfilling throughout life has changed drastically as women and men establish more equalitarian partnerships with each other. This creates change
Marriage: It’s one of the most desired systems on the planet, yet it is still one of the most misunderstood ideas known to mankind. The definition of being in matrimony has evolved with time, and through the years society has been seemingly reluctant to such changes. From the end of anti-miscegenation laws to the legalization of interracial marriage, society has grown to understand the importance the choice of getting married has on the individual. As of now, the right of matrimony is given to all but one group of Americans.
Cohabitation, over the last two decades has gone from being a relatively uncommon social phenomenon to a commonplace one and has achieved this prominence quite quickly. A few sets of numbers convey both the change and its rapidity. The percentage of marriages preceded by cohabitation rose from about 10% for those marrying between 1965 and 1974 to over 50% for those marrying between 1990 and 1994 (Bumpass and Lu 1999, Bumpass & Sweet 1989); the percentage is even higher for remarriages. Secondly, the percentage of women in their late 30s who report having cohabited at least once rose from 30% in 1987 to 48% in 1995. Given a mere eight year tome window, this is a striking increase. Finally, the proportion of all first unions (including both marriages and cohabitation) that begin as cohabitations rose from 46% for unions formed between 1980 and 1984 to almost 60% for those formed between 1990 and 1994 (Bumpass and Lu 1999).
Throughout the years, societies view on marriage and cohabitation has been changing, especially from the 1950s up until now. Marriage and cohabitation are in relation to social location, education, immigration and social class. In addition, these changes are influenced through socialization and their surrounding environments as people’s beliefs and expectations vary from what a defined family really is. Same-sex couples are now getting married and the divorce rate is on the rise, including non-married couples raising children. Most importantly, each individual determines who they marry or whom they share their love with through conditioning or in the course of shared similarities. People have dissimilar values, beliefs and attitudes and throughout the life course may change again, including the future generations. This paper reviews why marriage is on the decline and cohabitation is now the accepted social norm, including other aspects such as specific rights that couples have over others in the past. Religion is a powerful tool that alters minds of those who are affiliated with it. As a result, their beliefs are conditioned and marriage is valued differently than those who are not married. All in all this paper will further explain the change, continuity and
In this study, researchers wanted to know young adults’ views of marriage in the United States. In order to do so, they asked simple questions about marriage and commitment to 424 people ages 21 to 38 from various socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. The results showed that there are two major types of marital constructs, and two major arguments in the debate of marriage’s current state. The two categories of people who think of marriage are called the marriage naturalists and the marriage planners. Both groups of people have nearly opposite views on the idea of what is needed to be able to have a good, healthy marriage. The major arguments about the current state of marriage in the U.S are the marriage decline and the marriage resilience perspectives. These are also polarized, naturally.
These marital rewards include “affordable healthcare and dental insurance, the right to live in attractive residential areas, visitation rights in relation to significant others…” and so forth. These factors are what creates a stable economic security for married couples which simultaneously hinders a woman’s autonomous decision to marry. Although Card does not speak about the idea of autonomy, it can be inferred that she strictly thinks that autonomous decisions must derive from the self only. Because marriage has adopted State regulated advantages, she ultimately queries whether a woman could autonomously choose marriage since recently it has become susceptible to luring people for their general welfare and captivates them from what it has to offer. Card continually stresses that marriage is no longer bounded by love, but instead, it has become dictated by mutual benefits from the State. Not only does marriage provide financial asylums, but it also establishes counterfeit social statuses creating a false sense of belonging. This is because
As Stephanie Coontz writes, “through most of human history, marriage united not just two mates but two sets of families” (Coontz 25). American culture provides many freedoms that other cultures do not, such as the freedom to choose a partner. Thus, in American culture an importance is placed on the two individuals in many cases, rather than highlighting the socialization of the two families conjoining as a result. This negligence can be very detrimental in many cases. For example, in the Flats, where marriage is often viewed as threatening to the stability of the kin network, families may not be very supportive. Therefore, without the support of the family the marriage can be compromised in many ways. Carol Stack discusses how it is virtually impossible to break out of poverty, but that the family survives by holding very close and supportive kin networks (Domestic Networks). Therefore, each kin relies one another and because men often “present themselves as economic exploiters to women” marriage is inherently undesired and hated (Women and Men). As a result, families can encourage, start rumors, and gossip, all in an attempt to inhibit the success of he marriage (Women and Men). Therefore it is important to remember that marriage establish[es] and maintain[s] relations between groups, rather than
Both writers address shifts in attitudes on the issues of marriage, family, social politics. They both have different perspectives, one from a generalized view and one from a more intimate interview with one case. Even so, both Kuttner and Dominus demonstrate that there is still much debates around these issues and there is much to be done, what needs to be done depends on what side of the argument you are on. Our society is changing, and in despite the debates it’s just a matter of time before everyone has equal rights, and equal opportunity to be married and have a family.
Marriage was once for the sole purpose of procreation and financially intensives. Living up to the roles that society had placed on married couples, more so women, is no longer the goal in marriage. Being emotional satisfied, having a fulfilled sex life and earning money is more important in marriage (Cherlin, 2013). Couples no longer feel the obligation to put the needs of their partner in front of their own needs. In the 1960’s and later it was the woman’s job to ensure that the house was clean, the children were bathed and dinner was prepared before the husband came home work. However, once more and more women began to enter the workplace and gain more independence, a desire for self-development and shared roles in the household lead way the individualistic marriage that is present in today’s society (Cherlin,
Living apart can be a strain, resulting in infidelity or a change in what was once a common direction. The couple can become estranged. It is obvious that living apart can tear a marriage apart. By living apart, families miss out on help received from kin and friends of the partner (Hao 269). Marriage also institutionalizes the obligations of both parents to raise children (269). Thus, although a legal document legitimizes the relationship, it is probably more dangerous for a relationship not to live together than to cohabit without the marriage license. There is no evidence that cohabitation is detrimental to a relationship. In fact, it is probably beneficial to the relationship..
Prior to the 1900s, marriage was illustrated as authoritative, and sexual repression; conversely, the reformation in the family of the twentieth century depicts marriage as an “emotional gratification” (Cherlin, 2008). Marriage was suppose to “provide romance, emotional growth, and sexual fulfillment” within the private family (Sawyer, S.C., Whalstorm, C.M., Williams, B.K., 2006). This exposition will briefly provide an observational summary of the influential transformations within the family sector. The changes reflect a myriad of decades, where marriages have been faced with decisive and vital quandary within the family due to societal and economical challenges.
Is marriage really important? There is a lot of controversy over marriage and whether it is eminent. Some people believe it is and some people believe it is not. These opposing opinions cause this controversy. “On Not Saying ‘I do’” by Dorian Solot explains that marriage is not needed to sustain a relationship or a necessity to keep it healthy and happy. Solot believes that when a couple gets married things change. In “For Better, For Worse”, Stephanie Coontz expresses that marriage is not what is traditional in society because it has changed and is no longer considered as a dictator for people’s lives. The differences between these two essays are the author’s writing style and ideas.
In the essay “I Wish They’d Do It Right”, Doe’s son does not believe in the concept of marriage; instead, he wants to cohabitate with his current girlfriend. However, the author, Jane Doe, argued alongside her son that “living together out of wedlock can be economically impractical as well as socially awkward” (222) after her son and his girlfriend finally had a child. Doe believed it is socially awkward because she had trouble introducing her son’s girlfriend to her friends and family. Likewise, she continued to argue with her son that there are some consequences to consider if he is to cohabitate with his girlfriend. The economic disadvantages of cohabitation can be particularly living in a much more expensive house without their marriage
It is not a new thought that today’s young Americans are facing issues, problems and difficult decisions that past generations never had to question. In a world of technology, media, and a rough economy, many young adults in America are influenced by a tidal wave of opinions and life choices without much relevant advice from older generations. The Generation Y, or Millennial, group are coming of age in a confusing and mixed-message society. One of these messages that bombard young Americans is the choice of premarital cohabitation. Premarital cohabitation, or living together without being married (Jose, O’Leary & Moyer, 2010), has increased significantly in the past couple of decades and is now a “natural” life choice before taking the plunge into marriage. Kennedy and Bumpass (2008) state that, “The increase in cohabitation is well documented,such that nearly two thirds of newlyweds have cohabited prior to their first marriage”(as cited in Harvey, 2011, p. 10), this is a striking contrast compared with statistics of our grandparents, or even parents, generations. It is such an increasing social behavior that people in society consider cohabitation “necessary” before entering into marriage. Even more, young Americans who choose not to cohabitate, for many different reasons, are looked upon as being “old-fashioned”, “naive”, or “unintelligent”. This pressure for young people to cohabitate before marriage is a serious “modern-day” challenge; especially when given research that states, “... most empirical studies find that couples who cohabited prior to marriage experience significantly higher odds of marital dissolution than their counterparts who did not cohabit before marriage”, stated by Jose (2010) and colleagues (as c...
Bruce Wydick argued that, “cohabitation may be narrowly defined as an intimate sexual union between two unmarried partners who share the same living quarter for a sustained period of time’’ (2). In other words, people who want to experience what being in a relationship truly is, tend to live under one roof and be more familiar with one-another. Couples are on the right path to set a committed relationship where the discussion about marriage is considered as the next step. However, many people doubt the fact as to live or not together with their future partners. Some of them think about it as an effective way to have a chance to get to know a potential husband/spouse. Meanwhile, others completely deny the idea due to their disagreements with certain religious beliefs. Wydick suggested that, “the increase in premarital cohabitation is a product of a general movement within western society away from traditional ideas about marriage, divorce, birth control, abortion, women’s rights, and a host of other related issues” (4). Consequently, now people are more open-minded, meaning that they accept the idea of pre-cohabitation mainly as a social institution. People should live together before they get married because they have a chance to test their partnership and avoid the problems that may arise in the future.