In the ever-evolving landscape of relationships, a profound shift has been taking place across the West. Gone are the days when the sacred institution of marriage was the ultimate goal for couples. Instead, an alarming trend has emerged, revealing a decline in the likelihood of couples saying "I do." The marriage decline rate has surpassed the 50% mark between 1970 and 2009, leaving sociologists, biologists, psychologists, philosophers, and even religious scholars perplexed. Yet, this societal transformation does not signify an abandonment of romantic relationships altogether. Quite the contrary, it is the normalization of premarital sex and cohabitation that has been quietly claiming the spotlight, gradually overshadowing the once-revered institution of marriage. Drawing upon insights from sociology, biology, evolution, psychology, philosophy, and religion, this essay challenges prevailing assumptions, urging readers to reconsider the costs hidden beneath the surface of these contemporary relationship dynamics.
Historical Overview
The normalization of premarital sex and nonmarital cohabitation
It's essential to understand the role of the 1960s sexual revolution in the United States to assess our current state of affairs. What was the revolution responding to, and why does this matter? It turns out that it does if we want to seriously understand why we have seen dramatic shifts in modern marriage and family. At its core, the revolution boiled up in response to the 'sexual double standard,' which refers to judging men and women differently for the same sexual behavior1. The double standard, rooted in Judeo-Christian and Western perceptions of history, goes back thousands of years and some feminists of the age took issue particularly with2:
Hebrews strictly enforced monogamy for women, while men often took concubines
Abraham took Hagar as his mistress when Sarah could not bear a child
King Solomon's seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines
Jewish women shaved their heads so that they would not prove tempting to other men
Married women were the property of their husbands
Married women were confined to the upper floors of the home and forbidden to appear in public
The most powerful and revered Greek goddesses remained lifelong virgins
Many of these norms flourished well into the 20th century in most of Europe and the United States. Over time, women ultimately rebelled against established norms in response to the sexual double standard, which feminists argued reduced women to beings who lack sexual feelings. Culturally, a woman was expected to tolerate her husband's advances only for childbearing. Feminist historical accounts of the time state that the sexual revolution needed to take place to liberate women.
Social conditions allowing for the revolution to take root
After World War II, economic prosperity spread (for some, not all), and Middle-class families had more spending power. The 'pursuit of happiness' was signaled through acquiring cookie-cutter homes, cars, television, easy access to promiscuous women in media, and the flourishing of "men's clubs" such as Hugh Hefner's playboy mansions in Chicago, which had over a million memberships. Post-war affluence, it seems, had reduced happiness to material well-being and the gratification of sexual impulses. The sexual revolution presented an opportune moment for hungry men lusting for more. It supplied the market with a repository of women that were then good and ready to exercise their sexuality, having discarded the old norms as relics of the past and symbols of oppression and control.
Streamlining the revolution and achieving sexual liberation
A prominent activist of the 1970s, Shulamith Firestone, announced that 'pregnancy is barbaric' and identified women's childbearing role as the source of female oppression. She argued that women of childbearing age were constantly caught in cycles of pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing small children, and this made women dependent upon men for their needs, thereby excluding them from everything else.
This marked the beginning of the "class division" between men and women, a war of the sexes that rages until today.
Firestone wanted to alter this reality. Activists believed that developments like the contraceptive pill, easing access to abortion, and emerging IVF technologies paved the way for women to gain control over their reproductive capacities. The pill, in particular, granted women unprecedented sexual freedom and distinguished sexual pleasure from reproduction. Women could finally maximize their opportunities for sexual satisfaction just like a man without worrying about the unpleasant consequences of indulging. At the peak of the revolution, one could find explicit sexual content from shows with full nudity, books and magazines catering to every desire, and social scenes in megacities promoting unfettered sexual pursuits.
Mainstream ideas that contributed to increasing premarital sex and cohabitation
The sexual revolution did not appear in a vacuum, and it has to be understood as the social manifestation of a broader revolution - the revolution of what it means to be a 'self.' How did our highly individualistic, hypersexual, and consumerist culture formulate in just 50 years? Philosopher Charles Taylor discusses the relationship between mimesis and poiesis, referring to two different ways of thinking about the world. A mimetic view regards the world as having a given order and meaning and thus sees human beings as required to conform to it3. On the other hand, poiesis considers the world as the raw material out of which meaning and purpose are created by the individual self4. As society moved from a view of the world as possessing intrinsic meaning, it also moved away from a view of humanity as having a specific, given end. Teleology, the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena5, is therefore reduced, or worse, completely shattered.
The poietic view of reality has triumphed over the mimetic, particularly in the realm of sexuality, because technological developments like the pill, more accessible abortion, and emerging IVF technologies have weakened the authority of the natural world and persuaded human beings of their power, leading to a glorified view of the perversion of human nature. An inward focus to seek psychological happiness is the hallmark of being a modern person, referred to as expressive individualism by Taylor. It's about finding meaning by expressing our desires and going against societal, religious, or political authority6. This increasingly popular mode of thinking contributed to the destigmatization of premarital sex and cohabitation. Research has directly linked the two7.
Freudian ideas and the normalization of premarital sex
It was thought that the destigmatization of premarital sex and cohabitation would not have negative consequences. Year after year, a growing body of research began indicating that stable marriages are crucial for the well-being of adults and the proper socialization and overall well-being of children8. How is it possible that the well-being of children got sidelined so quickly? A glimpse into the ideas of Sigmund Freud (d. 1939), whose theories profoundly impacted our modern understanding of sexuality provides some clues.
According to Freud, the goal of human existence is to be happy. But Freud gave this idea of happiness a sexual turn by identifying it with genital pleasure9. If happiness is the end goal of all humans, seeking happiness through sexual gratification becomes central to being a self. This raises a question about the purpose of sex. For Freud, the purpose of procreation is subordinated to the purpose of personal pleasure. Pleasure comes first; children are happenstance products.
Interestingly, Freud differentiates between the natural, authentic self and the civilized inauthentic self, specifically in the conflict between societal order and the needs of the individual for sexual satisfaction10. He believed that if happiness depended on the fulfillment of personal sexual desires, then to the extent that such desires are curbed, the individual will be unhappy. He concluded that civilization impedes human beings from ever being truly happy.
Atheism and the evolution of sexual norms
In the Freudian perspective, religion played a significant role in the regulation of society's sexual norms. According to Freud, religion was considered a childish expression, and he assigned blame to this source of sexual regulation. Specifically, he believed religion is the carrying over of childish hopes and wishes into adulthood. Freud, of course, is one of many to have characterized religion, and by extension, religious code and instructions, in this manner. Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche have similarly identified religion with childishness and psychological impairments11. They claimed that religious belief is motivated not by rational proof but by irrational human desire. According to the body of evidence, which will be presented shortly, the Freudian ethos is guilty of being motivated by desire without regard for rational proof. But this goes well beyond Freud or Nietzsche. The rise of atheism and the pervasive loss of faith that has plagued the Western World produced an onslaught of traditional values.
Losing faith meant the loss of the moral compass that governed one's behavior and choices, in which case, morality is defined on the go.
Left to his own devices and without divine guidance, man will always take the path of least resistance, usually expressed in a swath of harmful indulgences, sexual liberty not being the most dangerous.
The Case Against Premarital Sex and Cohabitation
The Philosophical Case
What are the consequences of everyone engaging in pre-marital sex and cohabitation?
Kant's Categorical Imperative asserts that an action is morally acceptable if we are willing to see it become a universal rule12. Applying this principle to the context of premarital sex and cohabitation, we must consider the consequences that would arise if everyone were to engage in these behaviors. Freud suggests that the strongest motivating factor for human behavior is the sex drive13. When you look out into the world, however, we don't see every human being indulging in every sexual desire they might have. Following Freud's logic, if all human beings indulged in every sexual desire, personal 'happiness' would be great for everyone. However, we cannot ignore the possibility that this could lead to societal decay and, at its worst, tyranny. How?
Freud believed that only those males who were aggressive enough and sufficiently resourced would be the dominant figures in a sexual laissez-faire civilization. In The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, Carl Trueman asks us to imagine a society where there was an equal opportunity to indulge in every sexual desire. The dominant males would have exclusive sexual access to the females. The less dominant males would be driven away and doomed to sexual frustration. Of course, women would function as nothing more than instruments for the sexual gratification of the strongest males. Interestingly, this presents a paradox when objectively assessing the sexual revolution. Men seemed to benefit more than women, gaining increased access to sexually active partners and experiencing reduced stigma surrounding sexuality in the media and popular culture. Even feminists like Julie Baird acknowledge that the destigmatization of sex for women has had a flipside, leading to a sense of entitlement among men regarding sexual relations with women14.
Why is divorcing sex from its procreative and unitive purposes harmful?
Edward Feser applies Natural Law Theory (NLT) to sexual ethics by identifying the purpose behind human sexual faculties. According to Natural Law Theory, the authority of legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards15. Things have forms, which might be understood as 'natures' or 'essences.' In other words, there is a 'human nature' that all humans have. Goodness, then, is the actualization of the form or essence. A particular action, or the usage of a specific object, would be moral if that action or use is strictly in line with the object's essence and does not frustrate its primary function. Feser argues that what is good for humans in the sexual context can only be defined by the purpose of their sexual faculties. Any usage of one's sexual faculties in a manner that frustrates their primary ends would be unethical. Feser says that humans exercise rational capacities to form abstract concepts, put them together into judgments, reason from one judgment to another in accordance with logic, and then choose between alternative courses of action in light of what the intellect knows about them. Why is this relevant to the sexual context? This rational course of thinking presents the methodology that should have been used to assess the sexual issues underlying the revolution and come up with a logical solution. The primary function of sex is both procreative and unitive. Any usage of sex that impedes those two functions would be considered immoral. We argue that premarital sex and cohabitation get in the way of fulfilling the primary function of sex and, therefore, should be regarded as immoral.
Procreative Ends
What is the procreative end of sex and why is it harmful if we as a society divorce sex from its procreative end? From a purely biological perspective, sex as a process exists for the sake of procreation16. This is true even though people have sexual relations for reasons other than procreation because, according to NLT, it is about the purpose of nature and not individual human beings. Pleasure is not the end of sex; instead, it has its distinct natural purpose: incentivizing humans to procreate. Feser says emphasizing pleasure when trying to understand the biological significance of sex would be to put the cart before the horse. Pleasure is secondary, not primary. A natural question arises here. Why does nature make it very difficult to indulge in sex without procreation? Why are the two linked?
As discussed earlier, for Freud, the purpose of procreation is subordinated to the purpose of pleasure. If this were the case, one might ask why nature did not give humans a natural shut-off valve during the peak time when humans are sexually active. It takes significant effort to develop contraceptive measures, the most recent being birth control pills, which come with a slew of complications that directly intervene with natural human biology. As we said earlier, our modern reality is now viewed as something that can be manipulated according to our wills and desires, not something we need to conform to.
Nature has put a relatively heavy burden on women who are bound to become pregnant somewhat frequently without contraceptives17 So how does nature ordain the provision of mother and children? NLT suggests this is secured through the father of the children. Naturally, fathers have a strong incentive to look after their biological children, and they are protective of their wives. One might argue that this protective factor is not natural in many fathers, but that's not the case if all else is equal. If a man has addictions or is an alcoholic, his natural protective factor is impeded. This does not mean it was never there because, as we see in many cases, some men can 'clean up their act' because the protective factor is so strong and they are willing to clean up. Regardless, Feser's argument goes on with the father having to devote his day laboring to provide for the family unit, and when nature takes its course, this means there will be many children. The father's commitment is necessarily going to be long-term18. Therefore, divorcing sex from its procreative end results in the breakdown of the basic social unit, the family, thereby impeding the flourishing of a healthy civilization. In consequentialist terms, divorcing sex from its procreative ends goes against what is morally good.
Unitive Ends
Now, what is the unitive end of sex, and why is it harmful if we as a society divorce sex from its unitive end? As social creatures, to love and be loved is a central part of life. Earlier, we discussed the distinctly human ability to conceptualize, which is important because humans are the only species that conceptualize their incompleteness and idealize what they think will remedy it19. Feser says that human sexual psychology is 'directed at' or 'points to' something beyond itself, particularly toward what alone can complete the human, emotionally and physiologically. The human soul is directed to another soul, and the nature of this psychological 'other-directedness' is complex.
C.S. Lewis distinguishes Eros from Venus. Venus is a sexual desire which can be felt for and satisfied by any number of people20. Eros is the longing associated with being in love with someone, and no one other than that one person can fulfill it. As Lewis noted, sexual desire can and very often does exist without being in love with someone. Feser says arranged marriages were common for much of human history, unions for love can settle into a routine if not adequately attended to, and some people do not have erotic temperaments in the first place. Like sexual desire, longing to fall in love is natural to humans. Falling in love functions to channel the potentially unruly sexual desires within a constructive direction that the stability of the family requires. Feser clarifies that moral law, fear of shame, and sensitivity to a spouse's feelings can maintain the family's stability, but these can be less effective. The longing associated with being in love with someone, in particular, is more likely to maintain the stability of the family.
In terms of its natural function, sexual desire tells humans that they are incomplete, moving them toward that procreative action whose natural end—the raising of new human beings—requires the stability of marital union for its success21. Falling in love focuses that desire onto a single person with whom such a union can be made.
NLT suggests that falling in love is the perfection of sexual desire and that mere sexual desire is a deficient form of falling in love, or pair bonding, an evolved trait that plays a critical role in reproduction and individual and species survival22.
Therefore, divorcing sex from its unitive end results in a deficient form of pair bonding, resulting in the breakdown of the family.
We argue that the unitive end of sex also promotes long-term child-rearing, intending to form independent, distinctively rational persons. Children are utterly dependent on their parents for basic needs as well as biological, moral, and cultural needs, which require education and socialization from both parents. If husband and wife have focused their desire on one another exclusively, this ensures the stability of the family in which parents can effectively raise their children. In other words, the human need to belong and know one's roots is central to the unitive end of sex.
The Biological Case
The attachment system in humans appears to be regulated in part by oxytocin23. Oxytocin plays an essential function in reproduction, bonding, and social behavior, strengthening the family. For example, studies have shown that men in committed relationships exposed to oxytocin view their partners as more attractive and stand further away when interacting with an attractive female stranger24. Research has also consistently shown that men generally make more of an effort to provide emotional and financial support to their biological children compared to children from their partners' previous sexual encounters25. The primary hormone driving sexual arousal in men is testosterone. Research has confirmed that single men have higher testosterone levels than married men and that men experience steep declines in testosterone levels after they enter long-term relationships and become fathers, particularly when they spend more time with their children26. We argue that at the biological level, humans have safeguards in place to protect the family unit and maintain sexual desire in a constructive direction.
Historical data demonstrates the public health repercussions of unrestrained sexual pursuits of the sexual revolution, which we argue resulted from people overriding their biological systems. STDs like Gonorrhea and syphilis had reached epidemic proportions by the mid-1970s. The number of reported rapes increased each year: in 1958, there were 3,680 arrests for forcible rape; by 1968, there were 12,659 arrests; by 1975, there were 17,524 arrests, and by 1985, the number of arrests hit a peak of 32,98227.
The Psychological Case
Long-lasting, pair bonds, such as those between spouses, parents, and their children, play a critical role in human health.
Pair bonds serve as protective factors against stress, depression, anxiety, and health problems such as cardiovascular disease, asthma, and infectious diseases.
On the other hand, the inability to form and maintain these pair bonds can lead to many psychological disorders28. Therefore, positive social relationships are instrumental to human health.
Pair bonding hormones lead men and women to develop attachment in a sexual relationship. When the pair bond is disrupted, such as in the case of a breakup, both suffer emotionally and mentally, even after moving on to newer relationships. People are often amazed at their psychological conditions and don't realize the psychological toll a breakup takes on them. Relative to women, men generally report having more sexual partners, more permissive sexual attitudes, and value sex more strongly as a physical act that gives pleasure. Women are more likely to hold 'pragmatic' love attitudes, which include a stronger preference for long-term, exclusive relationships. Both men and women who get rejected experience depression, loss of self-esteem, and rumination29.
In a worst-case scenario, if a woman engages with someone sexually who does not possess good qualities, then she will have a tough time leaving the relationship after pair bonding has taken place, even in the presence of domestic abuse. One of the paradoxes in domestic violence literature pertains to women who cannot leave their abusers or who leave and then return to their abusers an average of 7 times before finally breaking free. Care providers treating victims often hear statements like 'I know what he's done to me, but I still love him,' 'I don't know why, but I want him back,' or even 'This doesn't make sense. He's got a new girlfriend and he's abusing her too…but I'm jealous!' As loved ones will often note, the situation doesn't make sense from the outside, but it does make sense from the woman's psychological state.
Prudence and Justice
Men and women are interested in sex, but the consequences of premarital sex affect them differently. Women's hormonal makeup renders them more vulnerable to a greater attachment to their partners and offspring. If the man leaves her, she will likely suffer the challenges of child-rearing alone and struggle with feelings of loneliness and abandonment. A woman should avoid premarital sex and cohabitation at any cost in the interest of prudence. A man, on the other hand, since he doesn't struggle with any scarcity of sperm, prefers quantity. But there is something critical to be said about any intimate relationship. A sexual encounter, even when casual, leaves permanent marks on us and imparts lingering feelings that will never go away. Having sex with a woman, whether casual or in a premarital or cohabitation relationship, creates a debt of sorts in which the man must find a way to fulfill certain expectations of the woman since he's the one responsible for engendering those feelings in the first place. But since premarital sex, by definition, involves no such expectations, a man should refrain from sex outside of marriage in the interest of justice.
The Sociological Case
What impact do premarital sex and cohabitation have on the family and society?
Between 1960 and 2009, the number of cohabiting couples in the United States increased by more than 15 fold30.
More than 60 percent of first marriages are now preceded by living together, compared to virtually none 50 years ago31.
For many, cohabitation can be a test trial for marriage, a better option than living alone, or just an alternative to marriage. Cohabitation is more common among those who have experienced parental divorce or high levels of marital discord during childhood32. Over 40 percent of cohabiting households contain children, which continues to increase. The mainstream belief that living together before marriage is the best way to know whether you are compatible is widespread today; however, the data on the effects of cohabitation does not confirm this.
A substantial body of evidence indicates that cohabitation before marriage is more likely to lead to divorce33.
One explanation for the higher risk of divorce experienced by marriages preceded by cohabitation is the selectivity factor, which theorizes that people who cohabit before marriage possess different characteristics than those who do not, and these characteristics are tied positively to the risk of divorce34. These characteristics are less commitment to marriage as a permanent institution, acceptance of divorce as an appropriate means to end a poor relationship, an emphasis on individualism, and poor relationship skills35. Another explanation is the Cohabitation Experience of Impermanence, which is the cohabitors' perception that romantic relationships are impermanent and disposable36. Cohabitation is characterized as a less formal relationship than marriage, and as a result, the transition from cohabitation to marriage introduces unanticipated challenges that lead to higher divorce rates37. Concerning women, a study from 2003 found that it was not the experience of premarital cohabitation but rather premarital sex with other men that was associated with a woman’s higher risk of divorce38. The implication is that the breakups of prior premarital sex relationships may impart expectations about the impermanence of relationships to cohabiters39.
Marriage is a wealth-generating institution; married couples create more economic assets on average than their single or cohabiting counterparts40. A 2002 study of older adults found that individuals who had been continuously married throughout adulthood had significantly higher levels of wealth than those who were not continuously married41. Compared to those continuously married, those who never married reduce their wealth by 75 percent42. Data shows that men earn between 10-20 percent more than single men with similar education and job histories43. Higher earnings can be attributed to the likelihood of healthy and productive behavior in men within a marriage bond. It has been widely accepted that marriage is the institution that connects the father to his children by binding him to their mother and thus creating a unit.
The birth rate in the US has been on the decline for decades. In the mid-1800s, more than 75 percent of all households contained children under the age of 1844. In 2009, only 33 percent of households included children45. The percentage of children who grow up in fragile—typically fatherless—families has grown enormously over the past five decades. This has been attributed to increases in divorce, nonmarital childbearing, and unmarried cohabitation46. There is a growing body of research that indicates that stable marriages are crucial, not just for the well-being of adults, but for the proper socialization and overall well-being of children. A central purpose of the institution of marriage is to ensure the responsible and long-term involvement of both biological parents in the nurturing of the next generation, which is a laborious task47.
The trend toward single-parent families is probably the most important of the recent family trends that have affected children and adolescents. In 1960, only 9 percent of all children lived in single-parent families, by 2009, the amount had risen to 25 percent48. Research shows that children in such families have negative life outcomes—including abuse, depression, school failure, and delinquency—at two to three times the rate of children in married, two-parent families49. Prominent reasons are that cohabiting couples have a much higher breakup rate than married couples, a lower level of household income, and a higher level of child abuse and domestic violence.
The Religious Case
Although this essay does not attempt to propound a religious argument against premarital sex and cohabitation per se, we decided that it would still be best to highlight the prevailing religious narrative concerning the subject and detail religious positions, especially from Abrahamic perspectives, on the matter. Religious thought, even from a secular standpoint, reflects the collective human experience and age-old wisdom, and including it, alongside all other perspectives, still bears merit. The engagement in sexual activities before marriage, whether premarital sex, cohabitation, or otherwise, is considered fornication and is thus shunned as a major sin by the great religions. The Torah is clear: ‘It is forbidden for a man to have sexual relations with a married woman, not his wife.’50 In at least 25 verses of the New Testament, a clear prohibition on fornication is leveled. In the Mormon Law of Chastity, it states unequivocally: ‘The Lord has only one standard of morality—total chastity for both men and women before marriage and complete fidelity afterward.’51 In the Quran, the Islamic tradition prohibits extramarital affairs in the loudest words: "And do not go near fornication, for indeed, it is ever a shameful deed and an evil way.”52
Particularly relevant in the Islamic tradition is the emphasis on rights and responsibilities. The man has a right to exclusive sexual access to his female partner and is therefore responsible for her financial well-being. The woman has a right to protection and fidelity from her partner; in return, she is responsible for providing him with love, tenderness, and affection. The child has a right to be raised by both parents and therefore is responsible for offering them respect and obedience. Men and women have a right to know their lineage, and parents are responsible for raising their children.
Both parents and children have a right to build functional family units that achieve the purpose of bonding, socializing, and initiation into society, and therefore are all responsible for maintaining and sustaining such units.
Men and women in the Islamic context have a right to live honorably without stigma and taboo and therefore are responsible for avoiding the behavior that brings stigma and taboo. Nuclear family units have a right to feel connected to larger family bonds and extended relatives, bringing support and identity. Consequently, they build healthy relationships with wider relatives and maintain kinship ties. We argue that none of the aforementioned conditions can be met outside the legitimate family unit, where man and woman marry and beget children they raise together.
Addressing Refutations
The following are common refutations against a traditional approach to marriage and, specifically, abstaining from sex before getting married. People will claim that spouses must learn about one another more intimately before committing to a relationship officially. In particular, people worry about sexual compatibility. A subsequent concern is that without ensuring sexual compatibility, the couple is doomed to a marriage where either or both spouses are not content with their intimate lives, which is critical for a healthy and successful marriage. This aspect is pivotal for fostering a healthy and successful marriage, and its absence may ultimately lead to dissatisfaction and, in some instances, even divorce.
A quick assessment of popular culture makes it seem like most Americans are engaging in premarital sex. According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), between 2017-19, it was reported that over 89% of never-married women and 93% of men between the ages of 15-49 have engaged in one form of premarital sex or another53. First, we ought to acknowledge the direct impact of a hyper-sexual culture which sets the attitudes, practices, and standards of what is normal. Our modern culture is very accepting, even celebratory, of sexual curiosity and promiscuity as central to human identity. Second, one of the most dominant cultural values in America is autonomy. With increased sexual liberty, American autonomy is linked with ensuring every individual has the freedom to satisfy their desires.
Modern conceptions of love, then, are directly impacted by these evolving notions of pleasure, happiness, and autonomy. Sexual compatibility refers to being on the same page about expectations, boundaries, and desires. The premodern understanding was that it also has a symbiotic relationship with trust, bonding, intimacy, and vulnerability. Sex stripped from these foundations leads to sexual frustration, distance, and disharmony between a couple.
When people use the term 'sexual incompatibility,' they are referring to sexual differences they have not yet figured out how to manage.
Couples bridge all types of differences from parenting, finances, in-laws, and even sex through the course of the relationship, and this involves trust, receiving accurate information, and counseling throughout the marriage. If a couple disagrees on parenting, for example, they won't describe those differences as parenting incompatibilities. But there is a tendency to magnify sexual differences in the modern age and turn them into full-blown incompatibility, which implies permanence. It takes time, steadfast commitment (the underlying factor in any successful marriage), and patience to work through differences. Unmarried couples have to go through the same process, so there's no justification for starting before fully committing to your spouse. Having presented this perspective, we contend that the emphasis on premarital sexual relations didn't stabilize marriages. In America, divorce rates are now in the vicinity of 50%. According to the CDC54, the top 20 countries in divorce rates start with Russia and end with Hungary, without a single Muslim country on the list. Clearly, sexual openness has not contributed to more stable marriages; therefore, the alleged sexual compatibility played little role in keeping couples together.
Another common refutation is that it is financially wise to delay marriage so that individuals can complete their education and obtain a job to be then able to afford a household. In our current economy, it is improbable for most Americans to get an entry-level job that will afford the total cost of maintaining a household. On top of that, our current culture has tied sexual expression and exploration so tightly to individual identity (thanks to Freud) that most people believe they should not have to deny and repress their natural passions. In fact, why should an individual settle and inhibit themselves for one person when there are so many possibilities? The hopeless outlook on most individuals' economic status has only further normalized premarital sex because it has become unrealistic and boring to wait until marriage.
Before addressing the issue pragmatically, it's critical to start with the foundational understanding that morality is never compromised for convenience. On top of that, Freud was wrong to magnify sex to such an unprecedented level in human beings. The expectations imposed on people to get married are flawed and shouldn't be this way. Modern marriage is falsely reserved for people who are already financially secure, experienced, and have clear visions for their path in life. There is nothing inherently wrong with an individual possessing the above traits, but these are not definitive, nor are they prerequisites. Marriage is about the shared journey towards a unified goal. A journey implies growth, experience, and time to mature, an undertaking a couple should go through together. In other words, the claim that it's unrealistic to wait to have sex until marriage is flawed in the assumption that marriage is unattainable. Modernity has made marriage untenable by unrealistically raising our expectations, decreasing the likelihood of stability, imposing unfettered sexual liberty for the masses, and then blaming the supposed rigidity of a timeless institution that has allowed for generations to continue. But whether one can financially support a marriage should have no bearing on their moral choices. Either premarital sex is wrong, or it's not. If it's wrong, there is no amount of financial restraint on marriage that should make it okay.
Another refutation arising from our post-modern era is based on the no-harm principle, which holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to others. Since there are tools for individuals to have protected sex and not worry about sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), the claim is that there is no reason to hold back. This argument is faulty for several reasons:
First, even consensual premarital sex is not a victimless act because when a man or woman vents their sexual energy in futile relationships, leaving them in a compromised situation emotionally, mentally, and even physiologically, it hinders them from building a stable family in the long term. Second, there is no such thing as safe sex. No matter how advanced technology becomes, there are always consequences: unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and unexpected emotional attachments.
Third, individuals can claim that they are made of steel, but ultimately humans are emotional beings. Sex cultivates something in the heart. Feelings, expectations, and aspirations will build up over time, and once a breakup happens, it leaves a person scarred. Perhaps someone who is used to burying their feelings will believe they're not hurt as a result of a breakup. Research shows that women tend to develop an emotional attachment more than men. When this happens, they are more prone to feeling used, depressed, regretful, or embarrassed after the relationship ends. This is not a harmless encounter. Some people claim that men and women can engage in casual sex with no emotional attachment and this is celebrated as a triumph. The research behind such claims is limited in that it dismisses established biological differences and actively seeks to overcome them, placing the burden entirely on women to get with the program. Through pop culture and media, women are encouraged to take a more casual attitude toward sexual intimacy and the successful, strong, truly modern woman will have fully embraced this new sexual liberation. Despite the biological case of why women have a harder time with breakups, women are being asked to overcome these hindrances to casual pleasure. On the other hand, the Islamic perspective is such that it prioritizes the well-being of both men and women. Even if men have a reduced (not eliminated) impact from casual sex, which does not imply that it is healthy, engaging in casual sex cannot possibly be conducive to well-being because ultimately, one cannot reduce casual sex to pleasure without reducing the person that they’re retrieving pleasure from to an object.
Lastly, cohabitation, in particular, may ultimately lead to unwanted pregnancies that will either ruin a woman's future by forcing her into single motherhood or lead her to abortion, which can emotionally scar her indefinitely.
Conclusion
The emotional bonds between sexual partners are among the most powerful driving forces of human behavior and disruption of established pair bonds has devastating consequences for mental health and the stability of families55. Using Natural Law Theory, we argued that premarital sex and cohabitation can neither be used as proper modes of expressing affection nor a medium to fulfilling the need for companionship since they are not considered to be moral acts in the first place. Neither are they advantageous in a pragmatic sense since they have adverse effects on the family and by extension, all of society. And for those who may acknowledge the value of marriage, but engage in cohabitation as a means to buttress the relationship, we argue that premarital sex and cohabitation are not better ways of ‘testing’ marriage because they significantly increase the risk of divorce and lead to disrupted cycles of pair-bond formation. This is based on the cohabitation experience of impermanence, which refers to the way that the experience of cohabitation teaches people that romantic relationships are impermanent and disposable.
The essay attempted to make a case against premarital sex and cohabitation using biology, psychology, sociology, as well as religious teachings. The essay also endeavored to address some of the most commonly used refutations against postponing sex until after marriage, and the culture of modesty in general.
A question worth exploring further is why female sexual liberation was the appropriate response to unfettered male sexual liberty. In society’s misguided response to the sexual double standard, the infidelity crisis has worsened and in an attempt to sexually liberate females, marriages and families have been doomed to failure. Perhaps the primary reason sexual liberation for all has been accepted and celebrated is because of the increasing value Americans place on autonomy, individualism, and self-expression. Thinkers like Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey have opened the door to the abnormal magnification of sex to human identity.