Chapter 7. Singlehood, Pairing, Cohabitation, Part 2.
III. Romantic Relationships (cont.)
5. Dating problems:(1) initiate: women afraid (2)¼ fem:get unwant sex pressure
(3) men: 35% hard communicate w/ dates, (4) Shyness: 1/5 men but no fem say
6. Extramarital Relationships: no dif b/ cohabit & married couples in freq.
a. college students:1 study>60% men,40% fem erotic kissing outside rel
i. sexual intercourse with someone else: 35% men, 11% fem
7. Advice break up: don’t threat to change rel;don’t see as friend until much time
1. singles are dep on parents: not differ in view parental openness and warmth
2. singles are self centered: singles value friends more than married people
3. singles have more money: actual married better off because both often work
4. singles are happier: single men exhibit more signs of stress than single fem
5. singles view singlehood as lifetime alternative: >half expect marry in 5 yrs
V. Gay/Lesb Singles: by 1980s, gay subculture placed >emphasis relationship context
1. lesbian separatists: want to create sep “fem” culture dif from hetero’s & gay’s
2. shift to moderation 1970s-mid-1980s: dev closer ties to gay community; gay
men seen as sharing more in common with them
3. Lesbian difference: tend to value the emotional quality of relationships more
than sexual components. Usually form longer lasting relationship than gay men.
VI. Cohabitation: 5% of unmarried hetero couples live together(U.S.1997),up from1960
1. blurred difference: avg. mar 7 years, since not perm>like living together
2. eventually marry: more than half of cohabiting couples (Smock 2000).
3. don’t last more than 2 years: generally, either break up or get married
4. many had previously married partner: at least one--40%
a. motivation for rel: often painful memories of marriage and children
b. result: many more cautious; majority remarriages preceded by cohabit
5. Domestic partnerships: extend health benefits: San Franciso, Levi Strauss,
Walt Disney;Sweden, Iceland, Denmark recognize domestic partnerships.
VII Cohabitation and Marriage Compared
1. Finances: pooling of resources suggests basic trust or commitment; indiv willing
to sacrifice his or her interests to the interests of the relationship
a. Cohabit couples:most no pool $;no marry partly to keep finan indep
b. When do pool finances: means usually see a future for selves; as
corporative sense emerges, do not see as unattached individuals
2. Quality of relationship: poorer than mar; <happiness, >fighting, >violence;
however, for 75% of those planning to marry, rel not qual dif than marriage
3. Mental health: sim levels of depression, which <single; other study find
>depression among cohab than married; cohab>alcoholism than single,
married, suggest when wish marry finan pressure/noncustom create> pressure
4. Econ: In cohabiting rel, man is not expected to support his partner
5. Housework: cohabiting women spend less time on housework than married
6. Society see Cohabit inferior to mar:since not symbolize lifetime commit
7. Cohab>Divorce risk: > than those no live together before marriage;could be
because higher disagreement, lower levels of commitment;char of cohabitors;
tend to be more liberal, independent than those who don’t live together first