You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
European couples marrying less and less
2006-05-11
Marriage is on the wane all over Europe, as couples prefer “new conjugal practices” such as living together, says a French study. But although Europeans overall are marrying less, people in some countries are marrying a lot less than in others, as national differences across the continent remain marked, the study by France’s National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED) found.

The survey of 20 European countries found three main reasons for the trend: People tend to form stable, long-term relationships later in life; they are more inclined to move in together without getting married; and they are less bothered about cementing their union in marriage later on.

Moreover, the study shows that couples in Europe break up more readily than they used to. Despite experiencing relationships and cohabitation before marriage, couples are apparently no better equipped to get along once they do tie the knot. In general, the report says, a higher cohabitation rate is matched by a higher divorce rate.
And there's no relation at all in that, no whatsoever, nope, nope.
“New conjugal practices appeared in the late 1960s in Scandinavia, notably in Sweden, and then gradually spread across Europe,” notes the study’s author, France Prioux. “But although the trends are going in the same direction everywhere”, she adds, “there is still great variety in how couples live, and how long they stay together, from country to country.” In the Mediterranean region, people are traditionally more inclined to continue living with their parents for longer, a trend that is on the rise.
Because they can't get a job.
Often, they move out only when they get married, so emancipation coincides with coupledom - there is less likely to be an in-between, “singleton” period. Among women born in the mid-1960s, only 60 percent had flown the family nest by age 25 in Spain, and only two-thirds in Italy and Portugal, compared with 98 percent in Sweden. Unmarried couples who live together remain the exception in Mediterranean countries, and most marriages are what is known as “direct”: the couple does not move in together until after the wedding.

And while the proportion of cohabitations that ultimately lead to marriage has fallen dramatically in Scandinavia - less than a tenth of Swedish couples tie the knot after living together for two years - it has risen in Spain and Italy, showing that “these countries remain attached to the institution of marriage,” according to Prioux. The duration of relationships is on the decline all over Europe, but their average length still varies markedly from country to country, with the north-south divide again very much in evidence.
Of course, no mention of any correlation with government pestering of married couples, everything from "marriage taxes", to the endless imposition of extra responsibilities when children are made, making them less desireable as well.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#12  Goodbye Europe, we will kinda miss you.

Not really
Posted by: DMFD   2006-05-11 23:50  

#11  mcsegeek1 ????
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-05-11 22:29  

#10  Nearly everyone knows matrimony eventually leads to a decrease in sexual activity.

So do old age and arthritis. I suppose you could adopt tax incentives to prevent them, too ....
Posted by: lotp   2006-05-11 20:53  

#9  Unfortunately for Europe, they created a happy but fatal little illusion. Everything is great this way for a couple of generations, but it is clear it is a short quarter step from this society (with its lotus dream of no risks thanks to a mommy state) to a listless, moribund, hedonistic,and aspiritual one which lacks even the will to breed.

Someone should write a book around this premise and call it: Brave New World ... oh, wait ...
Posted by: Xbalanke   2006-05-11 17:08  

#8  Now that's SinkTrap Material Beeserkeer!

LOL!
Posted by: 6   2006-05-11 16:55  

#7  Maybe they are smarter than we give them credit for being. Nearly everyone knows matrimony eventually leads to a decrease in sexual activity.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-05-11 13:45  

#6  True true gromgoru, but thank God these things happen in cycles. After 6000 years of example after example that marriage is the bedrock of society, the civilizations that forget that are replaced with ones that remember.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-05-11 12:01  

#5  Civilizations, like individuals, have finite lifespans.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-05-11 11:14  

#4  Stability for their children is written into women's genes. It was and is necessary for the successful raising of a child. No marriage to most women means less stability. Less stability means no or fewer children. Cause and effect again. Punish marriage and you will get fewer kids to replace the older generation and your socialist utopia nose plants under the higher tax burden on the working people as the population gets older.
Goodbye Europe, we will kinda miss you.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-05-11 10:18  

#3  It has much to do with institutionalized adultery. Monogamy is out of style in Europe. But women aren't going to be marrying and having babies when their cultures sanction hubbies plowing several fields at once.

All these articles about not enough babies and the fall of marriage are skirting the edge of truth. It's not that complicated. Women have the urge to marry and have babies-IF doing so doesn't put their familial security in danger. When vows of monogamy are kept, women have incentive to have children. When there is no intention to keep vows of monogamy, women understand that the financial, social and emotional consequences will be too high to both them and their offspring.

So Putin can offer money, and laws can change in Italy, and so on and so on and so on, and a few more babies will be born, but the basic problem remains. This is just one more instance of Europe in moral crisis.
Posted by: Jules   2006-05-11 09:52  

#2  This is the inevitable consequence of the family model being shifted from "husband, wife, child" to "state, woman, child".

Since its violent bursting upon the scene July 14, 1789, leftism has always at its core had certain pricnciples - the release of the ages old proscription against envy, animosity towards the spiritual, and iconoclasm against institutions both for its own sake and to prevent loyalty to an entity outside the state. Outside of violent revolution, though, for decades it never really succeeded. Most democratic societies did not go for nanny state socialism.

However, as women gained the vote across the west, they acted on their most ancient and strongest impulse - fear of abandonment, or, put another way, ironclad ascertainment of means to raise their progeny. Even in Western society with its strong marriage institution men were historically unreliable in a certain small percentage of cases, so in order to eliminate even this small possibility, women voted for politicians and policies who would advance the elimination of this insecurity. The rise in west of socialism, divorce, and the nanny state can be tied, temporally at least, to universal suffrage. I suspect there is causality there as well.

Please note I am NOT suggesting that women not be allowed to vote or that ALL women vote this way. Nor am I suggesting that there aren't men who fall under the spell of these notions. Just recounting the history.

Once the women so inclined saw that they could effect these changes through legislation and the courts to get to their Holy Grail of never having to worry about anything, ever, then came the unscrupulous men who would exploit this impulse for their own advancement - elected officials and magistrates, both.

Add to this the rise and perfection in Gramscian techniques of taking down good and decent western institutions like religion and the family made possible by the 20th century explosion of mass media and state controlled education industries, and you end up with the situation at hand.

Unfortunately for Europe, they created a happy but fatal little illusion. Everything is great this way for a couple of generations, but it is clear it is a short quarter step from this society (with its lotus dream of no risks thanks to a mommy state) to a listless, moribund, hedonistic,and aspiritual one which lacks even the will to breed. Extinction is probably inevitable.

Americans take note - which political party wants the the U.S., in almost every way, to become more like Europe? Do you want the U.S. to go extinct as well? If you do, vote for that party that thinks that Europe has it all figured out.
Posted by: no mo uro   2006-05-11 07:01  

#1  Its a bunch of factors, from TV saying "GOD IS A LIE/FAKE" to Secular, Blame-free and Consequence-free FREE LOVE/POLYAMORY, to Socialism telling males they are not needed for anything anymore except to be a glorified sperm donor. Men no longer need to marry or take care of anyone becuz the Gummermint or Third Party(s)is going to do it ALL for them. We Male Brutes are taking care of ourselves, numero uno - God gave men the gene of universal competition, innovation, and progressivity, but FEW IFF ANY of us don't have to do any of that anymnore. Instead of depending on many warrior-leader, competitive, innovative males to achieve same, a Govt. and Society must now depend on "the Few" or "a Few" to do all the UNIVERSALLY-ECON VITAL things many men used to do as routine or nary a thought. Females can try to do what a man does but that bears serious LT risks of Govt and Society NOT having enuff capable progenitors for either self-supporting tax revenues, or effective or victorious self-defense against enemies, aka SURVIVAL AND CONTINUITY. Neutralist or pro-Androgynous intellectuals may not publicly care or claim such concepts don't matter, but it does - iff they truly knew what they were doing, all these nations in Europe or Asia WON'T be demographically dying or sufferring. They care now, right, now that demographic regression or destruction/extinction looms, ergo their answewr is MORE FAILED OR PROHIBITIVE STRATIFICATION AND SOCIALISM, NOT LESS.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-05-11 01:24  

00:00