The State Of Marriage, By Stephanie Coontz
Coontz, a marriage historian I know from conferences for the Council of Contemporary Families, and whose work I've referenced in my column, lays out the results of the data in the LAT:
Today, the average age of first marriage is almost 27 for women and 29 for men, up from 20 and 22 in 1960.This does not mean marriage is an endangered institution. True, there are more divorced people in the population than in 1960, but divorce rates have been falling for 30 years. It also appears that more individuals than in the past will remain unmarried all their lives -- perhaps 15%, compared with the historical norm of 10%. But with more people marrying for the first time as late as their 60s, we can't even be sure of that. As gays and lesbians gain marriage rights, the proportion of married young adults may rise.
Still, the last half-century has seen a momentous change in the role that marriage plays in organizing lives. Marriage used to be almost mandatory, one of the first things people did when they left home. It was not a decision that required much deliberation or even deep knowledge of one's prospective partner. In the 1950s, the average bride and groom had known each other for only six months.
Interviewing men and women who married in the 1950s and 1960s, I was struck by the similarities in how they explained their decision to marry: "It was time to settle down"; "I was 23 and people were starting to wonder"; "You just did it, that's all." Alternatively, many "had" to marry: almost half of teenage brides were pregnant at the time of their wedding.
Fifty years ago, getting married was a step young people took on the road to becoming economically secure, emotionally responsible and socially respectable. Today, it is more often the reward couples give themselves when they have achieved those goals. The vast majority of new marriages are between couples who have already cohabited. But many cohabiting couples refuse to marry until they are convinced that each partner has demonstrated his or her economic and emotional reliability.
There are many positive aspects to people's more deliberative approach to marriage. Every year that a woman postpones marriage, up until her early 30s lowers her chance of divorce. Largely because individuals no longer feel forced to enter or stay in a bad marriage, domestic violence rates within marriage have fallen by more than 30% over the last three decades.
I've seen with friends of mine that the most successful marriages often seem to be people who had that "starter" marriage, got divorced, got mature, and then married a person they really seem to be making it work with. The other group is college-educated people who got married in their 20s, had kids, and are still together.
Nearly on topic via Reynolds.
Crid at January 22, 2012 7:29 AM
Goddess offers up a paradox:
So the deciding factor REMAINS a mature commitment to marriage... In our "progressive" age young people have to stumble through "starter marriages" before they grow up and learn what 20-year-olds once understood from observing stable marriages.
Unfortunately for us all, lots of the "starter marriages" produce - and damage - children. Which you've documented in other threads...
So it comes back to simply being a grown up, getting over yourself... and in the "bad old days" people got there earlier, without wasting decades (and our culture's resources) in childish self-indulgence.
Can someone explain where the "progress" is in this story?
Ben David at January 22, 2012 9:17 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/the-state-of-ma.html#comment-2927861">comment from Ben DavidUnfortunately for us all, lots of the "starter marriages" produce - and damage - children.
Always amazing when people weigh in on something they know nothing about. A "starter marriage" is a marriage that lasts five years or less and is relatively low cost to the participants in that it produces no children.
Amy Alkon
at January 22, 2012 9:55 AM
Ben David, I'd say falling divorce rates for the past 30 years, and falling domestic violence rates, would count as "progress" wouldn't you?
So progress compared to the 50s, maybe not... but certainly compared to 1982!
NicoleK at January 22, 2012 10:16 AM
More good news: I've seen with friends that the most successful cohabitations are between people who had a "starter" cohabitation, broke up (with all its attendant pain), got mature, and then co-habitated with a person they really are making it work with.
Andre Friedmann at January 22, 2012 10:56 AM
It looks like Amy's definition of a starter marriage is the technically correct one though it certainly does not match with usage I have encountered - basically any first relatively short marriage is a starter marriage.
Of marriages of people I know, I can only think of two that met the formal definition. Both of those were extremely short - one less than a month, the other only a few months. The few month one has not remarried some 10 years later.
The other short term marriages have all involved kids. Later marriages of mixed results.
One thing that is not mentioned here that I find interesting is now the people & their kids I know who are getting married for the first time are either doing it real young (18-22) or much older (34-40 (for men) 32-37 (for women)) with a small bump around 25 of the met at collage crowd. So while the average age of a man getting married today is 29, relatively few are actually getting married around 19.
The Former Banker at January 22, 2012 11:32 AM
After I posted the last message I remembered that the couple of week marriage was a second marriage...so I guess Only know personally of one starter marriage by the technical definition.
The Former Banker at January 22, 2012 11:39 AM
"and in the "bad old days" people got there earlier,..."
Sorry - not demonstrated. This was Utopia by comparison, right?
"Ben David, I'd say falling divorce rates for the past 30 years, and falling domestic violence rates, would count as "progress" wouldn't you?"
Cherry-pick much? This is missing the single-motherhood burst. Link?
Radwaste at January 22, 2012 1:06 PM
"A 'starter marriage' is a marriage that lasts five years or less and is relatively low cost to the participants in that it produces no children."
That precisely describes my first marriage. And yes, dealing with the outcome of that made me a better mate, and my second marriage is now coming up on 19 years. (We've now been married longer than my mother and father were... I just realized that... wow.) However, like Banker, I suspect that the percentage of failed marriages that fit this definition is actually rather low.
Cousin Dave at January 23, 2012 7:01 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/the-state-of-ma.html#comment-2929071">comment from Cousin Dave"And yes, dealing with the outcome of that made me a better mate, and my second marriage is now coming up on 19 years"
Gave you (your comment), Cousin Dave, as a reply to @JamesTaranto on Twitter, who it seems thinks people should just tough it out in misery because they promised "til death do us part." Some of Taranto's tweets:
Some of my replies:
Agree? Disagree? With whom?
Amy Alkon
at January 23, 2012 7:15 AM
Every time this comes up I remember this quote:
"Only a race of limited lifespan could believe that love is forever."
Well -- I could have made it...
Radwaste at January 23, 2012 5:39 PM
Leave a comment