A study has found that Live-in Couples live happily as compared to married people.
How far this study is true is open to question as the results will depend on the Ethnicity,Culture , Environment and the values imbibed by the individual
It is to be noted that if you take a study in Scandinavian Countries, where Live-in Culture is vogue for quite some time(the Government is facing the music because of Live-in after effects of Orphans and anti-social behaviour of the adults that come out of these families), the results will obviously favour the findings.
Obviously those who have a Live-in relationship will be happy,without knowing what happiness and commitment is to an individual’s Emotional Growth and stability, as each of the partners have separate bank Accounts and have every thing separately;only place they are together is the bed. This, they could achieve even without sharing the roof.
One will know the consequences as they grow up.
It is unfortunate some never grow up.
The idea that that marriage has health and happiness advantages over cohabitation may be overrated, a new study has suggested.
The study has asserted that while both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period.
“Marriage has long been an important social institution, but in recent decades western societies have experienced increases in cohabitation, before or instead of marriage, and increases in children born outside of marriage,” said Dr Kelly Musick, Associate Professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University’s College of Human Ecology.
“These changes have blurred the boundaries of marriage, leading to questions about what difference marriage makes in comparison to alternatives.”
This study compared marriage to cohabitation while using a fixed-effects approach that focuses on what changes when single men and women move into marriage or cohabitation and the extent to which any effects of marriage and cohabitation persist over time.
Dr Musick drew a study sample from the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) of 2,737 single men and women, 896 of whom married or moved in with a partner over the course of 6 years.
The study focused on key areas of well-being, considering questions on happiness, levels ofdepression, health, and social ties.
The results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.
Marriage and cohabitation both resulted in less contact with parents and friends compared to remaining single – and these effects appeared to persist over time.
“We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains – likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans – cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem,” Dr Musick insisted.
“For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth.
“Compared to most industrial countries America continues to value marriage above other family forms. However our research shows that marriage is by no means unique in promoting well-being and that other forms of romantic relationships can provide many of the same benefits,” Dr Musick added.
The study has been published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.
The result of ‘Living together’ relationship is uncared for children who normally end up orphans.
Please read how animals like crocodiles and as recently proved ,take care of their offspring not to speak od Chimps.
Are we lower than these animals?
The argument over whether or not dinosaurs were doting parents has raged for decades. Until recently only birds and mammals were thought to exhibit true parental care.
However, in the 1970s naturalists discovered that crocodiles helped their young to hatch and carried them to water. Then in the 1980s scientists found that a dinosaur they had dubbed oviraptor – the egg-stealer – because its remains were found near a nest, had been trying to incubate the eggs, rather than steal them.
Subsequent discoveries of fossilised eggs and nests in America and Mongolia suggest that many dinosaurs may have cared for their young after hatching. Some laid eggs in earth nests scooped in the soil and returned to feed the young after they emerged.
Other studies suggest that some of the legs of some dinosaur young were too weak for them to roam very far from a nest, which suggests that parents brought food back for them at least in the first days after hatching.
However, the latest find suggests that parental care may have extended beyond the stage of a nest full of newly hatched young. At least some dinosaurs may have behaved more like birds in terms of parental care than today’s lizards, which rarely take part in raising or caring for their young.
- Study finds few well-being advantages to marriage over cohabitation (eurekalert.org)