Marriage and Cohabitation

Many sociologists refer to marriage as an institution. By this they mean that marriage is a well-established pattern of behavior that forms a fundamental part of our culture and is backed up by laws, customs, and social expectations. Sociologists have recently been discussing the "deinstitutionalization" of marriage in America. Stephanie Coontz points to the increase in divorce, single-parent families, and unwed motherhood as indicators of this deinstitutionalization of the family. Coontz also places emphasis in women's rise in the workforce. She supports the idea that the availability of economic self-sufficiency for women through the workforce makes marriage less imperative and appealing. She also believes that marriage has become less indispensable for males as well, with the rise of products and services that can take the place of a wife in fulfilling household tasks. These changes in our culture make the reinstitutionalization of marriage difficult unless the government institutes laws to make divorce harder and allow job-discrimination in the workforce, which Coontz does not support in the least bit. She writes, "Divorce rates are the products of long-term social and economic changes, not of a breakdown in values," making it very difficult to reverse historical changes and reinstitutionalize marriage.
In Harris' article, she uses research conducted by two sociologists to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for men and women. In general, based on the studies of sociologist Linda Waite, Harris argues that married people are healthier, wealthier, have better sex, and are better parents than unmarried people. The first benefit cited regards the division of labor and specialization allowed by marriage. Harris argues that this allows both members of the marriage to accomplish more. Married men statistically are in better health than unmarried men. Although marriage has less of an effect on women's health, it does provide better financial situations and the availability of better health care. Both married men and women seem to be mentally healthier and happier than single people. When it comes to the financial benefits and disadvantages of marriage, they affect the genders differently. Married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more than single men. Childless wives benefit more financially than child-bearing mothers. Mothers tend to stay home for child-rearing and earn less money in the work force, but if they remained married they tend to become more affluent than single women.

In Gerstel and Sarkisian's article, the benefits of marriage are considered, but the focus of the article is a critique of marriage. They argue that marriage takes away from community and social connections. Surveys show that married men and women have less ties to their kin than unmarried people. Married couples also detach themselves from neighbors and the surrounding community, more with childless men and women, though. Gerstel and Sarskisian attribute the isolation of married couples from their relatives and community to the greediness of marriage. Marriage requires a lot of time, emotion, and energy from both the woman and the man. Arguments are also made against the beneficial claims made by Linda Waite. They find that women's finances decrease with marriage and the onset of domestic work. Domestic violence and isolation increase in unhappy marriages. Critics also argue that only marriages with low levels of hostility reap any health benefits.

In Brown's article, she discusses the rise of cohabitation in America. The primary reason for cohabitation is to test out a relationship to see if it can withstand a successful, happy marriage. Many people also cohabit rather than marry due to a lack in income. Studies show that as the man becomes more educated and earns more money, the more likely a marriage will ensue out of cohabitation. Others cohabit due to a disinterest in the institution of marriage. Many that have previously married cohabitate after their marriage ends because they are wary about marriage after a failed attempt. Whatever the reason for cohabitation, the well-being of cohabitors tends to be lower than that of married couples. They report more psychological distress, more conflict in their unions, and less economic well-being. Children living with cohabiting parents also exhibit lower levels of well-being. The growing acception of cohabition is one of the factors leading to the decline of marriage.

Many critics of the findings on the benefits and disadvantages of marriage claim the statistics are affected by selection. Namely, they argue that marriage and cohabitation don't actually give way to the benefits, rather people that already have the economic stability, emotional and physical health are more likely to get married. I believe this is a valid argument. Like Brown said in her article, many people cohabit and remain unmarried until they amount enough economic stability to enter into a marriage. I don't disagree, however, that once in a marriage, economic status and health remain stable or even increase. There must be a certain level of economic stability and good health and emotion in order for people to get married, making a valid argument that the research cited in the articles are subject to selection.

Trends in Sexuality Among Teens

In their article, Risman and Schwartz analyze and discuss the research that shows a decline in the sexual activity of teens in the late 20th century. Research shows that the trend of sexual conservatism holds true more for whites than for blacks and for boys more than for girls. In general though, research shows that the percentages of sexually active teenagers have decreased significantly over the latter part of the 20th century indicating a trend of sexual conservatism, at least compared to the highly sexual beginning the 1900s. In correlation to the decrease of sexual activity among teenagers, the percentages of teenage pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases have decreased as well. The numbers speak for themselves as an indication of the growing trend, but why the decline in teenage sexuality? A conservative's ideal response would be the success of abstinence education, and many have claimed this, but Risman and Schwartz find this conclusion inaccurate. They account for the decline in teenage sexuality by an increased fear of pregancy and disease. The growing abstinence among boys seems to be a result of girls' growing control in relationships. Girls seem to exert more control over what sexual activity occurs. Also, casual sex is looked down upon more among girls in fear of being marked as a slut, so sexual activity is more confined to relationships. Based on my experience in high school and the beginning of college, I find it quite surprising that teenage sexuality is in decline. In high school I constantly heard stories of sexual encounters and shockingly heard about younger and younger kids engaging in some form of sexual activity. For the most part though, the sexual activity was confined to relationships like the article said.

The major trend that Thomas and England discuss in their article is the decline of dating on college campuses and the increase in "hook-ups." Traditional dating was more similar to a courting process in which the individuals got to know one another and progress into a relationship if a connection and attraction was there. Nowadays, surveys show that on college campuses this traditional form of dating rarely ever occurs. Dating is now confined more to people that are already in exclusive relationships. More college students engage in hooking up, often as a result of consuming alcohol. The study shows that in many cases multiple hook-ups eventually lead to exclusive relationships, taking the place of the traditional dating that led to relationships. Thomas and England's research has also found a change in culture that has afforded women of more sexual options. More sexual behavior on the part of the woman has become accepted. The study shows a substantial desparity between the sexual stimulation received by men and women mostly due to the fact that women perform more oral sex than men. Although a cultural change has allowed women more options for sexual activity, a double standard still exists. Women are more often labeled as slutty, easy, or promiscuous than men. When a woman hooks up too much with too many guys or has sex too easily she is labeled a slut, by men and women. However, a man is often applauded for his promiscuity by his fellow males and a bad reputation doesn't stick long in the minds of women. My experience in college definite correlates with Thomas and England's observations. Dating rarely occurs, and if it does it's often between two people that are already in a relationship. The double standard also definitely exists. Women get looked down upon for excessive promiscuity and men are applauded for their sexual endeavors with numerous women.