Of Sex and Romance: Late Adolescent Relationships and Young Adult Union Formation

To better understand the social factors that influence the diverse pathways to family formation young adults experience today, this research investigates the association between opposite‐gender relationships during late adolescence and union formation in early adulthood. Using data from the first and third waves of the Add Health (n= 4,911), we show that, for both men and women, there is continuity between adolescent and adult relationship experiences. Those involved in adolescent romantic relationships at the end of high school are more likely to marry and to cohabit in early adulthood. Moreover, involvement in a nonromantic sexual relationship is positively associated with cohabitation, but not marriage. We conclude that the precursors to union formation patterns in adulthood are observable in adolescence.     

论配偶间同居义务的效力

配偶间的同居义务是配偶权的核心内容之一,关于是否确认夫妻间的同居义务,同居义务是否将导致婚内强奸的泛滥,一直困扰着理论和实务界。本文以同居义务的性质和行使的分析为基础,从同居义务的法律效力着眼,探讨了其对夫妻间侵权行为的阻却违法性效力,以及违法同居义务的法律后果等问题,指出了配偶间同居义务的特殊性,并运用利益衡量的方法就同居义务与性自由进行价值权衡,从而论证了配偶将同居义务的特殊性和正当性。     

Equal access to income and union dissolution among mainland Puerto Ricans

This study investigates the implications for union stability of different methods for providing access to income in cohabiting and marital unions among mainland Puerto Ricans. Using the Puerto Rican Maternal and Infant Health Study (N = 836), we show that union dissolution is associated with both union type and type of method. The relatively high rate of union dissolution among cohabiters is explained partially by their lower likelihood of organizing access to income under an equality principle through income pooling. Cohabiting unions that follow the equality principle, however, are as stable as marital unions that follow the equality principle. These patterns are interpreted in terms of the role of economic equality in solidifying socioemotional bonds.     

The deinstitutionalization of American marriage

This article argues that marriage has undergone a process of deinstitutionalization—a weakening of the social norms that define partners' behavior—over the past few decades. Examples are presented involving the increasing number and complexity of cohabiting unions and the emergence of same‐sex marriage. Two transitions in the meaning of marriage that occurred in the United States during the 20th century have created the social context for deinstitutionalization. The first transition, noted by Ernest Burgess, was from the institutional marriage to the companionate marriage. The second transition was to the individualized marriage in which the emphasis on personal choice and self‐development expanded. Although the practical importance of marriage has declined, its symbolic significance has remained high and may even have increased. It has become a marker of prestige and personal achievement. Examples of its symbolic significance are presented. The implications for the current state of marriage and its future direction are discussed.     

How do cohabiting couples with children spend their money?

Increasing rates of cohabitation in the United States raise important questions about how cohabitation fits in with the definition of family. Answers to this question depend in part upon the extent to which cohabitors’ behavior differs from that of other family types. Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, we compare the expenditure patterns of cohabiting‐parent (n = 1,804), married‐parent (n = 33,159), divorced single‐parent (n = 7,641), and never‐married single‐parent (n = 2,893) families. We find that cohabiting‐parent families, compared to married‐parent families, spend a greater amount on 2 adult goods (alcohol and tobacco) and a smaller amount on education. Cohabiting‐parent families also differ in their spending patterns from divorced single‐parent families and from never‐married single‐parent families. Overall, our results show that cohabiting‐parent families allocate their budgets differently than do other families.     

Intimate relationships and changing patterns of money management at the beginning of the twenty-first century

Drawing on British data from two annual sweeps of the ISSP eight years apart in 1994 and 2002, for modules focusing on 'Family and Changing Gender Roles', this paper examines the extent to which changes in women's labour market participation, changing ideologies/discourses of gender and changing forms of intimate relationships are affecting the ways in which couples organize household money, and the implications of such changes for recent theories of intimate relationships. The analysis indicates that by 2002, the type of relationship respondents had established, together with their social class position, were both independently related to the ways in which they managed money, after controlling for socio-economic and cultural or discursive factors. Our findings also provide a degree of support for the thesis of a partial decline in the male breadwinner model of gender, as indicated by small declines in the use of the relatively inegalitarian female whole wage and housekeeping allowance systems which were most likely to be used by married couples and cohabiting fathers, expressing relatively traditional ideologies/discourses of breadwinning - and a slight increase in the use of the partial pool, which was most likely to be used by childless cohabiting couples in which male partners expressed less traditional ideologies of breadwinning and women were in middle-class jobs with incomes high enough to facilitate partially separate finances. We also suggest, however, that in so far as cohabiting couples earning different amounts define equality as contributing equally to household expenditure, it is possible that rather than being associated with shifts to greater equality in access to money for personal spending and saving, the partial pool may be associated with marked inequalities, because it may enable gender inequalities generated in the labour market to be more directly transposed into inequalities within households, despite the decline of traditional discourses of male breadwinning and the increasing importance of egalitarian ideologies of co-provisioning.     

The Significance of Living Together and Importance of Marriage in Same-Sex Couples

Because marriage has been denied to same-sex couples, it is likely that the meaning and significance ascribed to non-marital cohabitation may be unique. Further, it is unclear whether same-sex couples view marriage as important to their relationships, and if they do, why. Using qualitative data from 526 individuals in cohabiting same-sex relationships across 47 states, we explored (1) the meaning and significance of cohabitation and (2) the perceived importance of legal marriage to the relationship. Participants viewed cohabitation as significant, most commonly because it indicates long-term commitment, provides emotional support, makes the couple a family, and allows them to share life together. Marriage was perceived as important to a majority (90%), most commonly because it confers financial and legal benefits, relational legitimacy, and demonstrates the same commitment as different-sex couples. Overall, findings highlight the symbolic significance of cohabitation and importance of access to legal marriage to adults in same-sex relationships.     

Living apart together

Traditionally, marriage has been the social institution for couples that have been together for a long period. Some decades ago a new social institution appeared in the Western world: non-marital cohabitation, although this was slower to be accepted in some countries than in others. Living Apart Together (LAT) relationships, are a new phenomenon which seems to have the potential of becoming the third stage in the process of social change. In contrast to couples in commuting marriages which have one household in common, couples living in LAT relationships have one household each. We discuss some data on the frequency of LAT relationships in Sweden and Norway as well as some varieties of the phenomenon. Our analysis suggests that the existence of cohabitation as a social institution, alongside marriage, is a necessary precondition for LATs to be recognised as a social institution. LAT relationships could not exist unless a preceding social institution of cohabitation also exists.