Cohabitation

Cohabitation is an arrangement where two people are not married but live together. They are often involved in a romantic or sexually intimate relationship on a long-term or permanent basis. Such arrangements have become increasingly common in Western countries since the late 20th century, being led by changing social views, especially regarding marriage, gender roles and religion.

This article is about a living arrangement. For the situation in governmental politics, see Cohabitation (government). For a non-marital romantic relationship, see Free union.

More broadly, the term cohabitation can mean any number of people living together. To "cohabit", in a broad sense, means to "coexist".[1] The origin of the term comes from the mid 16th century, from the Latin cohabitare, from co- 'together' + habitare 'dwell'.[1]

Social changes leading to increase

Percentage of births to unmarried women, selected countries, 1980 and 2007[2]

Today, cohabitation is a common pattern among people in the Western world.

In Europe, the Scandinavian countries have been the first to start this leading trend, although many countries have since followed.[3] Mediterranean Europe has traditionally been very conservative, with religion playing a strong role. Until the mid-1990s, cohabitation levels remained low in this region, but have since increased.[4]

During the past decades, in Western countries, there has been an increase in unmarried couples cohabiting. Historically, many Western countries have been influenced by Christian doctrines on sex, which opposes unmarried cohabitation. As social norms have changed, such beliefs have become less widely held by the population and some Christian denominations today view cohabitation as a precursor to marriage.[5] Pope Francis has married a cohabiting couple who had children,[6] while former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams[7] and the Archbishop of York John Sentamu have expressed tolerance of cohabitation.[8]

In recent decades high rates of participation of women in the workforce, and the widespread availability of highly effective long acting reversible contraceptives[9] has led to women making individual choices over their reproduction with decreased reliance on male partners for financial stability. All these changes favored living arrangement alternatives to marriage.[10]

In Central and Eastern Europe, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were major political changes, such as the fall of Communist governments. These societies entered a new era of increased social freedom, less rigid rules, and less authoritarian governments. They interacted with Western Europe and some became members of the European Union. As a result, the patterns of family life have started to change: marriage rates have declined, and marriage was postponed to a later age. Cohabitation and births to unmarried mothers increased, and in some countries the increase was very quick.[11]

The deinstitutionalization of marriage refers to the weakening of the social and legal norms that regulate peoples' behavior in regard to marriage.[12] The rise in cohabitation is part of other major social changes such as: higher divorce rate, older age at first marriage and childbearing, and more births outside marriage. Factors such as secularization, increased participation of women in the labor force, changing in the meaning of marriage, risk reduction, individualism, and changing views on sexuality have been cited as contributing to these social changes.[13] There has also been a change in modern sexual ethics, with a focus on consent, rather than marital status (i.e. decriminalization of adultery and fornication; criminalization of marital rape), reflecting new concepts about the role and purpose of sexual interaction, and new conceptualizations of female sexuality and of self-determination.[14] There have been objections against the legal and social regulation of female sexuality; with such regulations being often seen as violations of women's rights.[15] In addition, some individuals may feel that marriage is unnecessary or outdated, leading to couples not formalizing their relation.[16] For instance, in the European Values Study (EVS) of 2008, the percentage of respondents who agreed with the assertion that "Marriage is an outdated institution" was 37.5% in Luxembourg, 35.4% in France, 34.3% in Belgium, 31.2% in Spain, 30.5% in Austria, 29.2% in Germany, 27.7% in Switzerland, 27.2% in Bulgaria, 27.0% in the Netherlands, 25.0% in Slovenia.[17]

The fact that many couples choose to live together without formalizing their relation is also recognized by the European Union. A 2004 directive forbids EU members from denying entry or residence of partners "with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested."[18]

A reason for the more permissive and less traditional views on cohabiting would be a low sex ratio. A low sex ratio would mean there are many more women than men, resulting in differing societal values and acceptable behaviors.[19]

Reasons for cohabitation in the United States

Main article: Cohabitation in the United States

Today, cohabitation in the United States is often seen as a natural step in the dating process.[20] In fact, "cohabitation is increasingly becoming the first coresidential union formed among young adults."[21] In 1996, more than two-thirds of married couples in the US said that they lived together before getting married.[22] "In 1994, there were 3.7 million cohabiting couples in the United States."[23] This is a major increase from a few decades ago. According to Dr. Galena Rhoades, "Before 1970, living together outside marriage was uncommon, but by the late 1990s at least 50% to 60% of couples lived together premaritally.[24]

People may live together for a number of reasons. Cohabitants could live together in order to save money, because of the convenience of living with another, or a need to find housing.[20] Lower income individuals facing financial uncertainty may delay or avoid marriage, not only because of the difficulty of paying for a wedding[25] but also because of fear of financial hardship if a marriage were to end in divorce.[26]

When given a survey of the reasons why they cohabit, most couples listed reasons such as spending more time together, convenience based reasons, and testing their relationships, while few gave the reason that they do not believe in marriage.[27] The extremely high costs of housing and tight budgets of today's economy are also factors that can lead a couple to cohabitation.[22]

Today sixty percent of all marriages are preceded by a period of cohabitation.[28] Researchers suggest that couples live together as a way of trying out marriage to test compatibility with their partners, while still having the option of ending the relationship without legal implications.[29] In 1996, "More than three-quarters of all cohabitors report plans to marry their partners, which implies that most of them viewed cohabitation as a prelude to marriage.[30] Cohabitation shares many qualities with marriage, often couples who are cohabiting share a residence, personal resources, exclude intimate relations with others and, in more than 10% of cohabiting couples, have children.[30] "Many young adults believe cohabitation is a good way to test their relationships prior to marriage.[31] Couples who have plans to marry before moving in together or who are engaged before cohabiting typically marry within two years of living together.[32] The state of cohabitation of a couple often ends either in marriage or in break-up; according to a 1996 study about 10% of cohabiting unions remained in this state more than five years.[33] According to a survey done by The National Center for Health Statistics, "over half of marriages from 1990-1994 among women began as cohabitation.[21]

Cohabitation can be an alternative to marriage in situations where marriage is not possible for financial or family reasons (such as same-sex, interracial or interreligious marriages).[32]

Cohabitation, sometimes called de facto marriage, is becoming more commonly known as a substitute for conventional marriage.[34] Common-law marriage in the United States can still be contracted in nine US states, and in two others under restriction.[35] This helps provide the surviving partner a legal basis for inheriting the decedent's belongings in the event of the death of their cohabiting partner. In today's cohabiting relationships, forty percent of households include children, giving us an idea of how cohabitation could be considered a new normative type of family dynamic.[28] As of 2012, 41% of all births in the US were to unmarried women.[36] In three states (Mississippi – 55%, Louisiana – 53%, and New Mexico – 52%) births outside marriage were in the majority; the lowest percentage of births outside marriage was in Utah, at 19%.[37] During the period 2006–2010, 58% of births outside marriage were to cohabiting parents.[38]

Contemporary objections to cohabitation

Contemporary objections to cohabiting couples include religious opposition to non-marital unions, social pressure for couples to get married, and potential effects of cohabitation on a child's development.

The rise in the number of cohabiting couples and children born out of wedlock in the Western world has made cohabitation a strong focus of sociological research.[39] The rise in cohabiting couples in the United States, from around 450,000 in 1960 to 7.5 million in 2011[40] has been accompanied by US research performed on child development within cohabiting households.[41] Opponents of cohabitation say non-marital parenting is an unsuitable environment for a child's development. One study from 2002 correlated lower numeracy skills and higher delinquency to children of cohabiting couples,[41] however, recent studies that control for factors including poverty, the educational level of parents and violence in the home show children of cohabiting couples are developmentally similar to peers of comparable married couples.[42]

Effect on children

In 2001, researchers compared teenage children living in a cohabiting household against peers in single-parent households. The results showed white and Hispanic teenagers had lower performance in school, greater risk of suspension or expulsion than peers from single-parent households, and the same rate behavioral and emotional problems.[43]

A study on the 1995 and 2002 National Survey of Family Growth found increases in both the prevalence and duration of unmarried cohabitation.[44] The study found that 40% of children in the United States would live in a cohabiting household by age 12, and children born to single mothers were more likely than those born to married mothers to live in a cohabiting household. The percentage of women ages 19–44 who had ever cohabited increased from 45% in 1995 to 54% in 2002.[44]

In 2002, 63% of women who graduate from high school were found to spend some time cohabiting, compared to only 45% of women with a four-year college degree.[44] Cohabiting couples who have children often get married. One study found that children born of parents who cohabit are 90% more likely to end up living in households with married parents than children born to single mothers. 67% of unmarried Hispanic mothers are expected to marry, while 40% of African American mothers are expected to marry.[44]

Religious views

Main article: Fornication

See also: Marriage § Marriage and religion, and Extramarital sex § Religions

Studies have found that religious affiliation correlates with cohabitation and marriage entry.[45] People frequently cite religious reasons for their opposition to cohabitation. The Roman Catholic Church and nearly all mainstream Protestant denominations around the world oppose cohabitation and consider it to be the sin of fornication.[46][47][48] However, others, such as the Anglican Church "welcome cohabiting couples in the Church and encourage them to regard cohabitation as a prelude to Christian marriage."[49]

Religion can also lead to societal pressures against cohabitation especially within highly religious communities.[50] Some couples may refrain from cohabitation because one or both partners fear disappointing or alienating conservative family members.[45] Young adults who grew up in families that oppose cohabitation have lower rates than their peers.[51] The increase in cohabitation in the United States and other developed nations has been linked to the secularization of those countries.[52] Researchers have noted that changes in the religious demographics of a society have accompanied the rise in cohabitation.[53]

Non-marital and same-sex relationships are forbidden by the Islamic law of Zina,[54] and cohabitation is against the law in many Muslim majority countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,[55] Afghanistan,[56][57] Iran,[57] Kuwait,[58] Maldives,[59] Morocco,[60] Oman,[61] Mauritania,[62] United Arab Emirates,[63][64][65] Sudan,[66] and Yemen.[67]

Effects on marriage and family life

Likelihood of split

Conflicting studies on the effect of cohabitation on subsequent marriage have been published. In countries where the majority of people disapprove of unmarried individuals living together, or a minority of the population cohabits before marriage, marriages resulting from cohabitation are more prone to divorce. But in a study on European countries, those where around half of the population cohabits before marriage, cohabitation is not selective of divorce-prone individuals, and no difference in couples that have cohabited before and after marriage is observed.[68][69] In countries such as Italy, the increased risk of marital disruption for people who experienced premarital cohabitation can be entirely attributed to the selection of the most divorce-prone into cohabitation.[70]

In 2002 the CDC found that for married couples the likelihood percentage of the relationship ending after five years is 20%, for unmarried cohabitators the likelihood percentage is 49%. After 10 years the likelihood percentage for the relationship to end is 33% for married couples and 62% for unmarried cohabitators. [71] [72] One German study found that in regions with high rates of childbirth to cohabitating parents, no negative effect is observed in cohabitation. The study states "union stability of cohabiting mothers is positively related to their prevalence."[39]

A 2004 study of 136 couples (272 individuals) from researchers at the University of Denver found differences among couples that cohabited before engagement, after engagement, or not until marriage. The longitudinal study collected survey data collected before marriage and 10 months into marriage, with findings suggesting those who cohabit before engagement are at greater risk for poor marital outcomes than those who cohabit only after engagement or at marriage.[73] A follow-up survey by the researches of over 1,000 married men and women married in the past 10 years found those who moved in with a lover before engagement or marriage reported significantly lower quality marriages and a greater possibility of a separation than other couples. [74] About 20% of those who cohabited before getting engaged had since suggested splitting – compared with only 12% of those who only moved in together after getting engaged and 10% who did not cohabit prior to marriage.[75]

The researchers from Denver suggest that relationships with pre-engagement cohabitation "may wind up sliding into marriage",[75] whereas those that only cohabit post engagement or marriage make a more clear decision. This could explain their 2006 study of 197 heterosexual couples finding that men who cohabited with their spouse before engagement were less dedicated than men who cohabited only after engagement or not at all before marriage.[76] In some heterosexual couples, women are more likely to understand cohabitation as an intermediary step preceding marriage, and men more likely to perceive it without an explicit connection to marriage.[77][78][79]

An analysis of data from the CDC's National Survey of Family Growth data from 1988, 1995, and 2002 suggests that the positive relationship between premarital cohabitation and marital instability has weakened for more recent birth and marriage cohorts, as the total number of couples cohabiting before marriage has increased.[80]

Later CDC work found that between 2002 and 2006-2010, the number of couples in opposite-sex cohabiting relationships increased from 9.0% to 11.2% for women, and from 9.2% to 12.2% for men.[81] Drawing on the 2006–2008 data, Princeton university researchers examined whether and to what extent variation in premarital cohabitation experiences influence marital stability. They found that the relationship between cohabitation and marital instability is complex and depends in part on marriage cohort, race/ethnicity, and marriage plans. Their analyses reveal that a 'cohabitation effect' exists only for women married prior to 1996, and that, until marriage plans are considered, there is no cohabitation effect among women married since 1996.[82]

Recent research from 2011 by the Pew Research Center has found that the number of couples that cohabit before marriage has increased. 44% of adults (and more than half of 30- to 49-year-olds) say they have cohabited at some point. Nearly two-thirds of adults who ever cohabited (64%) say they thought about it as a step toward marriage. The report also notes a trend toward rising public acceptance of cohabiting couples over the years. Most Americans now say the rise in unmarried couples living together either makes no difference to society (46%) or is good for society (9%).[83]

A 2012 study found that, among cohabiting individuals, those who were engaged prior to cohabitation or had "definite plans for marriage" were linked to lower risks of marital instability among women, but the relationship was not observed with men.[84]

One study on low to moderate income couples living with minor children found that respondents who became sexually involved within the first month of their relationship were correlated to lower scores of relationship quality among women.[85] Another study found respondents to a mail-in survey self-reported higher levels of commitment in the cohabiting group, as well as lower relationship satisfaction and more negative communication.[86]

Abuse and infidelity

University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite[87] found that "16 percent of cohabiting women reported that arguments with their partners became physical during the past year, while only 5 percent of married women had similar experiences." Most cohabiting couples have a faithful relationship, but Waite's surveys also demonstrated that 20% of cohabiting women reported having secondary sex partners, compared to only 4% of married women. A 1992 study found that male members of heterosexual couples with children are less likely to be a part of the childcare but half the time they are responsible for child abuse.[88]

According to an article by Judith Treas and Deirdre Giesen, cohabiting couples are twice as likely to experience infidelity within the relationship than married couples.[89]

Fertility

Regarding cohabitation as a fertility factor, a large survey in the United States came to the result that married women had an average of 1.9 children, compared to 1.3 among those cohabiting. The corresponding numbers for men were 1.7 and 1.1, respectively. The difference of 0.6 children for both sexes was expected to decrease to between 0.2 and 0.3 over the lifetime when correcting for the confounder that married people have their children earlier in life.[90]

A study of the United States and multiple countries in Europe came to the result that women who continue to cohabit after birth have significantly lower probability of having a second child than married women in all countries except those in Eastern Europe.[91] Another study, on the contrary, came to the result that cohabiting couples in France have equal fertility as married ones.[92] Also, Russians have a higher fertility within cohabitation, while Romanians rather tend to have childless marriages.[93]

Survey data from 2003 in Romania came to the result that marriage equalized the total fertility rate among both highly educated and low educated people to approximately 1.4. Among those cohabiting, on the other hand, lower level of education increased fertility rate to 1.7, and a higher level of education decreased it to 0.7.[94] On the other hand, another study came to the result that Romanian women with little education have about equal fertility in marital and cohabiting partnerships.[95]

Financial effects

In the United States, married couples that submit a combined tax return may face a marriage penalty, where tax credits for low-income single earners are not applied to the combined income. In October 1998, Senate GOP leader Trent Lott decided to pull a bill to abolish "the marriage penalty," "which in the tax code reflects the fact that married couples who both work for wages frequently pay more in taxes than if they earned the same amount of income but weren't married. And the more equal the incomes of the couple, the steeper the marriage tax penalty." [96] The earned income tax credit (EITC) is cash welfare for low-income workers, but the problem is the EITC is not for married couples because they have to combine their wages, which again leads to "the marriage penalty." If couples do not get married then their wages do not have to combine and the EITC in a way is "paying for" low-income couples not to marry. Opponents of cohabitation believe that some cohabiting couples choose not to marry because they would suffer a tax penalty.[96]

Despite the perceived disincentive to marry that the EITC provides, cohabiting couples suffer many financial losses as their unions are not recognized with the same legal and financial benefits as those who are legally married. These financial penalties can include the costs of separate insurance policies and the costs of setting up legal protections similar to those that are automatically granted by the state upon marriage.[97]

No effect

A conflicting study, published by the National Center for Health Statistics, with a sample of 12,571 people, concludes that "those who live together after making plans to marry or getting engaged have about the same chances of divorcing as couples who never cohabited before marriage."[98]

Additionally, William Doherty, a professor in the Department of Family Social Science at the University of Minnesota has remarked that in his research he has found that "committed cohabiting relationships seem to confer many of the benefits of marriage."[99]

A 2003 study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that "The differences in measured outcomes for those from direct and indirect marriages appear to be entirely attributable to other factors." [100] The study concluded that the evidence suggests that premarital cohabitation has "little impact one way or the other" on the chances of any subsequent marriage surviving.

By region

Americas

Canada

Cohabitation is very common in Quebec. Since 1995, the majority of births in this province are outside of marriage.[101]

Canadian laws on the recognition of unmarried cohabitation for legal purposes vary significantly by province/territory; and in addition to this, federal regulations also have an impact across the country.[102][103] (see Common-law marriage#Canada) Family formation has undergone significant changes in Canada during the last decades of the 20th century, but the patterns vary widely across the country, suggesting differing cultural norms in different regions. Since the mid 1990s, births to cohabiting parents have increased, particularly in Quebec.[104] In Canada, it is difficult to obtain exact data on the percentage of births outside marriage, because data on the marital status of mothers is collected differently across the provinces and territories of Canada, and in some (such as Alberta) it is not broken down in detail in regard to whether the mother was legally married or not at the birth of her child.[105] As of 2012, the statistical category of "single mothers"(defined as never married at the time of the birth) encompassed 28.3% of mothers, the category "divorced" (i.e. mothers who were unmarried at the time of birth, but had been previously married during their lives) encompassed 1%, while for 10% of mothers the marital status was unknown ("not stated").[106] There are, however, very significant differences by province/territory; for example in 2012, 77.8% of births in Nunavut were listed to "single mothers", by contrast, less than 20% of mothers in Ontario were listed in this category.[106] Latest data from the Quebec Statistical Institute shows that as of 2015, in Quebec, 63% of children were born to unmarried women.[107] In Canada, legal issues regarding cohabitation are very complicated by the fact that family law in this regard differs by province/territory, which is very confusing to the public,[108] especially as this contrasts to criminal law which is the same across Canada, as well as to marriage and divorce law, which is also the same across the country, under the 1986 Divorce Act (Canada) (although provinces/territories have jurisdiction over some marital issues, including the solemnization of marriage, spousal and child support, and property division).[109] The marital status of Canadians also varies by province/territory: in 2011, 46.4% of the population aged 15 and over was legally married; ranging from the lowest percentage of married people being in Nunavut (29.7%), Northwest Territories (35.0%), Quebec (35.4%), and Yukon (37.6%); to highest being in Newfoundland and Labrador (52.9%), Prince Edward Island (51.7%), Ontario (50.3%) and Alberta (50.2%).[110] While today Quebec is known for liberal family formation and cohabitation, this is a recent development: during the first half of the 20th century, family life in the province was conservative and strongly dominated by Roman Catholicism; before 1968, there was no provincial divorce legislation in Quebec, and spouses could only end their marriage if they obtained a private Act of Parliament.[111] One of the explanations of the current high rates of cohabitation in Quebec is that the traditionally strong social control of the church and the Catholic doctrine over people's private relations and sexual morality has led the population to rebel against traditional and conservative social values.[112] While some provinces were early to modernize family law, in others this only happened in the 1990s and the 21st century, such as in Alberta, through the Family Law Act (Alberta) which came into force in 2005. This Act overhauled family legislation, replacing the Domestic Relations Act, the Maintenance Order Act, the Parentage and Maintenance Act, and parts of the Provincial Court Act and the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, which were seen as outdated. Also, the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act (S.A. 2002, c. A-4.5) amended 69 Alberta laws.[113] The Canadian Prairies provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have strong common-law spouses regulations, imposing rights and obligations on common-law couples.[114] Nova Scotia has also been very slow to advance family law – it was only in 1999 that this province abolished discrimination against "illegitimate" children with regard to inheritance (through section 16 of NS Intestate Succession Act amended in 1999).[115] In general, today, provinces in Western Canada give more rights to common-law spouses than those in Atlantic Canada and in Quebec. This may seem quite paradoxical, because it is the eastern provinces which have the strongest tradition of cohabitation; according to a study "unmarried cohabitation seems to be more common in Eastern Canada than in Western Canada, which might be related to internal and international migration".[116] (as of 2012, 48% of births in New Brunswick, 47.1% in Newfoundland and Labrador, and 45.2% in Nova Scotia, were listed to "single mothers", way above the national average).[106] In British Columbia, the Family Law Act came into force in 2013.[117]

United States

Public approval in the United States for cohabiting couples has risen since 1994[118][119]

  Agree

  Neither agree nor disagree

  Disagree

Cohabitation in the United States became common in the late 20th century. As of 2005, 4.85 million unmarried couples were living together, and as of 2002, about half of all women aged 15 to 44 had lived unmarried with a partner. In 2007, it is estimated that 6.4 million households were maintained by two opposite sex persons who said they were unmarried. [120] In 2012, the General Social Survey found that public disapproval of cohabitation had dropped to 20% of the population.[119]

Researchers at the National Center for Family and Marriage Research estimated in 2011 that 66% of first marriages are entered after a period of cohabitation.[121] According to the 2009 American Community Survey conducted by the Census Bureau, the proportion of 30- to 44-year-olds living together has almost doubled since 1999, from 4% to 7%. Fifty-eight percent of women aged 19 to 44 had ever cohabited in data collected in 2006-08, while in 1987 only 33% had. Cohabitation is more prevalent among those with less education. "Among women ages 19 to 44, 73% of those without a high school education have ever cohabited, compared with about half of women with some college (52%) or a college degree (47%)," note the Pew study's authors, Richard Fry and D'Vera Cohn.[122]

Before the mid-20th century, laws against cohabitation, fornication, adultery and other such behaviors were common in the US (especially in Southern and Northeastern states), but these laws have been gradually abolished or struck down by courts as unconstitutional.[123][124][125]

Cohabitation was almost impossible in the United States prior to the 1960s. Laws prevented unmarried couples from registering in hotels and it was very difficult for an unmarried couple to obtain a home mortgage. From 1960 to 1998, cohabitation moved from disreputable and difficult to normal and convenient.

— "The First Measured Century: Social disruptions". PBS.

As of April 2016, cohabitation of unmarried couples remains illegal in three states (Mississippi, Michigan, and North Carolina),[126] while as of 2020 fornication remains illegal in two states (Idaho[127] and Mississippi [128]). These laws are almost never enforced and are now believed to be unconstitutional since the legal decision Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.[129] However, these laws may have indirect effects. For example, one consequence may be that one may not claim their partner as a dependent (for a tax exemption), whereas in the other states it may be possible to do so after meeting four criteria: residency, income, support and status.[130]

In 2006, in North Carolina, Pender County Superior Court judge Benjamin G. Alford ruled that North Carolina's cohabitation law is unconstitutional.[131] However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina has never had the opportunity to rule on it, so the law's statewide constitutionality remains unclear.

On 13 December 2013, US Federal Judge Clark Waddoups ruled in Brown v. Buhman that the portions of Utah's anti-polygamy laws which prohibit multiple cohabitation were unconstitutional, but also allowed Utah to maintain its ban on multiple marriage licenses.[132][133][134] Unlawful cohabitation, where prosecutors did not need to prove that a marriage ceremony had taken place (only that a couple had lived together), had been a major tool used to prosecute polygamy in Utah since the 1882 Edmunds Act.[135]

Latin America

Cohabitation in Latin America is becoming more common. Indeed, although this is a largely Roman Catholic region, it has the highest rates of non-marital childbearing in the world (55–74% of all children in this region are born to unmarried parents).[136] In Mexico, 18.7% of all couples were cohabiting as of 2005. Among young people, the figures are much higher.[137]

As of 2000, in Argentina 58% of births were to unmarried women.[138][139] The percentage of births outside marriage has increased throughout Latin America during the past decades, and there is also a relation to place of residence: women living in the capital city are more likely to have children outside marriage than those living in other parts of the country.[140] Recent data shows figures for non-marital childbearing to be 74% for Colombia, 69% for Peru, 68% for Chile, 66% for Brazil and 55% for Mexico.[138][141]

Asia

Nepal

In Nepal, living together is socially acceptable only after marriage.[142] However, cohabitation is an emerging trend in urban areas of Nepal. Reports have shown that there may be significant number of unmarried couples cohabiting in cities, especially in the capital, Kathmandu. Even when the unmarried couples cohabit they either prefer to remain anonymous or pose themselves as married couple.[143] Cohabitation is not recognized by the law of Nepal and there is no special provision to secure the right of cohabitants in Nepalese law.

Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, according to historian Taj ul-Islam Hashmi, "There are instances when regretful husbands, recanting or denying their pronouncements of divorce, continue to cohabit with their wives." Cohabitation after divorce is frequently punished by the salishi system of informal courts, especially in rural areas.[144]

In Bangladesh, cohabitation is considered both socially and legally unacceptable, although legal grounds are not clear. An unmarried couple will feel immense pressure to marry, will probably choose to live as if they were married and, if exposed, can be expelled from housing or university.[145]

China

In China, cohabitation has become popular among young adults. One study shows that the cohabitation rate before first marriage was over 20% for those born after 1977.[146] Another recent study shows that cohabitation increases the divorce likelihood for those married in the early-reform period, but premarital cohabitation has no effect on divorce for those married in the late-reform period in China.[147]

India

Cohabitation in India had been taboo in traditional Hindu and Muslim societies. However, this is no longer true in large cities, but is not often found in rural areas which are more conservative. Live-in relationships are legal in India. Recent Indian court rulings have ascribed some rights to long-term cohabiting partners. Female live-in partners have economic rights under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 subject to following conditions as laid by Honourable Supreme Court of India in case of D. Velusamy v D. Patchaiammal:

1. The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
2. They must be of legal age to marry.
3. They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
4. They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

Indonesia

In Indonesia, an Islamic penal code proposed in 2005 would have made cohabitation punishable by up to two years in prison.[148] The practice is still frowned upon, and many hotels and boarding houses have been raided by police for allowed unmarried couples to share a room.

Japan

In Japan, according to M. Iwasawa at the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, less than 3% of females between 25–29 are currently cohabiting, but more than one in five have had some experience of an unmarried partnership, including cohabitation. A more recent Iwasawa study has shown that there has been a recent emergence of non-marital cohabitation. Couples born in the 1950s cohort showed an incidence of cohabitation of 11.8%, where the 1960s and 1970s cohorts showed cohabitation rates of 30%, and 53.9% respectively. The split between urban and rural residence for people who had cohabited is indicates 68.8% were urban and 31.2% were rural.[149]

Philippines

In the Philippines, around 2.4 million Filipinos were cohabiting as of 2004. The 2000 census placed the percentage of cohabiting couples at 19%. The majority of individuals are between the ages of 20–24. Poverty was often the main factor in decision to cohabit.[150]

Europe

In the European Union, cohabitation is very common. In 2014, 42% of all births in the 28 EU countries were nonmarital.[151] In the following European countries the majority of births occur outside marriage: Iceland (69.9% in 2016[151]), France (59.7% in 2016[152]), Bulgaria (58.6% in 2016[153]), Slovenia (58.6% in 2016[154]), Norway (56.2% in 2016[151]), Estonia (56.1% in 2016[153]), Sweden (54.9% in 2016[151]), Denmark (54% in 2016[151]), Portugal (52.8% in 2016[155]), and the Netherlands (50.4% in 2016[153]).

While couples of all ages cohabit, the phenomenon is much more common among younger people. In late 2005, 21% of families in Finland consisted of cohabiting couples (all age groups). Of couples with children, 18% were cohabiting.[156] Of ages 18 and above in 2003, 13.4% were cohabiting.[157] Generally, cohabitation amongst Finns is most common for people under 30. Legal obstacles for cohabitation were removed in 1926 in a reform of the Criminal Code, while the phenomenon was socially accepted much later on. In France, 17.5% of couples were cohabiting as of 1999.[137]

Britain

Main article: Cohabitation in the United Kingdom

In Britain today, nearly half of babies are born to people who are not married (in the United Kingdom 47.3% in 2011;[158] in Scotland in 2012 the proportion was 51.3%[159]). It is estimated that by 2016, the majority of births in the UK will be to unmarried parents.[160]

The Victorian era of the late 19th century is famous for the Victorian standards of personal morality. Historians generally agree that the middle classes held high personal moral standards and rejected cohabitation. They have debated whether the working classes followed suit. Moralists in the late 19th century such as Henry Mayhew decried high levels of cohabitation without marriage and illegitimate births in London slums. However new research using computerized matching of data files shows that the rates of cohabitation were quite low—under 5% -- for the working class and the urban poor.[161]

Falling marriage rates and increased births outside marriage have become a political issue, with questions of whether the government should promote marriage or focus on the status of a parent rather than a spouse; the Conservative Party support the former whilst Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats support the latter.[162] There are also differences between England and Wales and Scotland, with the latter being more accepting of cohabitation.[163][164]

Bulgaria

In Bulgaria, there has been a rapid increase in cohabitation after the fall of Communism. The transition from communism to market economy had a great impact on the demographic behavior of the population. After the fall of Communism, the legal and social pressure to get married has declined, and the population has started to experience new life styles.[16] As of 2014, 58.8% of children were born to unmarried mothers.[165]

Czech Republic

The marriage rates in Czech Republic have fallen dramatically during the past decades. In the 1970s to 1980s, about 96–97% of women married; in 2000 it was estimated that only 75% of women would ever marry.[166] The age at first marriage for women has increased from being in the range of 21.4–21.8 years in the 1970s and 1980s,[166] to being 29.6 in 2011.[167] In the early 1990s, predictions were made by some Czech demographers that cohabitation would increase during the next decades; and indeed, there has been a marked increase in the number of people who live in non-marital couple relations.[168] In 2016, 48.6% of births were to unmarried women.[153]

Germany

As in other western societies, patterns of family life have been changing in Germany during the past decades. This has not created a moral panic, but has been seen more as an ongoing social evolution.[169] Cohabitation, divorce rates, lone parents, and people's reluctance to marry or to have children have increased.[169] However, with regards to family formation and long term cohabitation instead of marriage, there are very strong differences between the regions of former West Germany and East Germany (which was formally Communist). Significantly more children are born out of wedlock in eastern Germany than in western Germany. In 2012, in eastern Germany 61.6% of births were to unmarried women, while in western Germany only 28.4% were.[170] A longitudinal survey found that union stability was significantly higher for cohabiting mothers in eastern Germany than western Germany, due to differences in German society.[39]

Greece

In Greece, family dynamics remain conservative. The principal form of partnership is marriage, and extramarital childbearing and long term cohabitation are not widespread. For instance, in 2016 only 9.4% of births were outside marriage, which is the lowest percentage among the European Union member states.[171] Religion in Greece plays a very important role in society; it was only in 1983 that civil marriage was introduced in the country. The new laws modernized family law, abolished dowry, and provided for equal rights for "illegitimate" children.[172][173][174] According to a 2008 study: "Greek society still remains conservative and birthing outside marriage, although protected by law, remains in many ways socially unacceptable."[175] Despite this, there have been further legal changes providing for a modern "western" outlook on family life, including Law 3719/2008 dealing with family issues, including Article 14 of the law, which reduced the separation period (necessary before a divorce in certain circumstances) from four years to two years.[176]

Hungary

The literature on second demographic transition argues as well that highly educated women are more prone to engage in cohabitation, although the reasons are different: they are less concerned with respecting the societal norms.[177] Some scholars argued that cohabitation is very similar to being single in the sense of not giving up independence and personal autonomy.[178]

In Hungary, cohabitation was an uncommon phenomenon until the late 1980s and it was largely confined to the divorced or widowed individuals.[179] Among the ethnic groups, Gypsy/Roma tended to have higher rates of cohabitation, mainly due to their reluctance to register their marriages officially.[180] Since the 1980s, cohabitation became much more frequent among all ethnic groups and it has been argued to have strongly influenced the decline in fertility.[181] As of 2015, 47.9% of births were to unmarried women.[171]

Ireland

Irish Magdalene Laundry, c. early 1900s. Women who had sexual relations outside marriage were often sent to Magdalene laundries until the mid-20th century

Cohabitation in Ireland has increased in recent years, and 36.6% of births were to unmarried women in 2016.[153] Until a few decades ago, women who had children outside marriage were severely stigmatized and often detained in Magdalene laundries. The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 gives some rights to unmarried cohabitants (under this act same-sex couples can enter into civil partnerships, while long term unmarried couples – both heterosexual and same sex – who have not registered their relation have some limited rights and obligations).

Italy

In Italy, where Roman Catholicism had a historically strong presence, cohabitation is not as common as in other countries of Europe, yet it has increased in recent years. There are significant regional differences, with non-marital unions being more common in the North of the country than in Southern Italy. A study published in 2006 found that long term cohabitation was still novel to Italy, though more common among young people.[182] As of 2015, the share of births outside marriage was 28.7%, but this varied by statistical regions as follows: Central Italy (33.8%), Northeast Italy (33.1%), Northwest Italy (31.3%), Insular Italy (24.2%), and South Italy (20.3%).[183]

The Netherlands

Dutch researchers have found that research participants see cohabitation as a risk-reduction strategy in a country with high relationship instability.[184] As of 2016, 50.4% births were to unmarried women.[171]

Norway

Cohabitation is a common type of partnership in Norway. Cohabitants have some rights if they have joint children, or if they have lived together for five years. Cohabitants can also regulate their relationship through a cohabitation agreement.[185] In Norway, in 2016, 56.2% of children were born outside marriage.[186]

Poland

In Poland, after the fall of Communism, the influence of religion has increased. Indeed, Poland has one of the most religious populations in Europe (see religion in Europe). Cohabitation in Poland has traditionally been associated with the lower social classes, but in recent years an increase has been seen among the more educated. Family structure in Poland remains traditional: Marriages are contracted at relatively young ages, and the incidence of divorce is relatively low (by European standards). The exact incidence of cohabitation is not well established, but it is quite low compared to other Western countries. However, Poland is not completely 'immune' to Western influence and, in 2016, 25% of children were born outside marriage.[171][187]

Slovakia

Slovakia is more conservative and religious than neighboring Czech Republic. The principal form of partnership is marriage, but extramarital childbearing and cohabitation are slowly spreading, yet this trend is not without criticism; and some view these phenomena as a threat to traditional values.[188][189] In 2016, 40.2% of births were to unmarried women.[171] Fertility in Slovakia has been described in a 2008 study as "between tradition and modernity".[188]

Switzerland

Valais

Ticino

Graubünden

Genève

Vaud

Neuchâtel

Jura

Bern

Thurgau

Zürich

Aargau

Luzern

Solothurn

Basel-Landschaft

Schaffhausen

Uri

Schwyz

Glarus

St. Gallen

Appenzell Innerrhoden

Appenzell Ausserrhoden

Obwalden

Nidwalden

Zug

Fribourg

Basel-Stadt

France

Italy

Liechten-
stein

Austria

Germany

Switzerland has a tradition of strong conservatism; which can be seen in its legal and social history: in Europe, Switzerland was one of the last countries to establish gender equality in marriage: married women's rights were severely restricted until 1988, when legal reforms providing gender equality in marriage, abolishing the legal authority of the husband, come into force (these reforms had been approved in 1985 by voters in a referendum, who narrowly voted in favor with 54.7% of voters approving).[190][191][192][193] Adultery was decriminalized in 1989.[194] Until the late 20th century, most cantons had regulations banning unmarried cohabitation of couples; the last canton to end such prohibition was Valais, in 1995.[195][196] As of 2015, 22.5% of births were to unmarried women.[197] Births outside marriage are most common in the French speaking part (highest percentage in the cantons of Vaud, Neuchâtel, Geneva, Jura) and least common in the eastern German speaking cantons (lowest percentage in the cantons of St. Gallen, Zug, Appenzell Innerrhoden, Appenzell Ausserrhoden).[198]

Spain

Spanish society has undergone major changes since the fall of the Franco regime. Important legal changes which have occurred throughout the 1970s and 1980s include legalization of divorce, decriminalization of adultery, gender equality in family law, and removing the ban on contraception.[199] The liberalization of the political climate has allowed for alternative family formation. In the mid-1990s, cohabitation in Spain was still described as a "marginal" phenomenon, but since the 1990s, cohabitation has increased dramatically in Spain.[200] In Spain, in 2016, 45.9% of births were outside marriage.[153] As in other countries, there are regional differences: in 2011, in Catalonia the figure was 42% – highest in mainland Spain in that year (Canary Islands 59% and Balearic Islands 43.5% were highest) while in Murcia it was only 30.7% (lowest).[201]

Russia

In Russia, many couples express a desire to cohabit before marriage, then register a civil marriage, and then at a later stage have a large church wedding.[202]

Middle East

The cohabitation rate in West Asian countries is much lower than in European countries. In some parts of the continent it is however becoming more common for young people. As of 1994, the rate of premarital cohabitation in Israel was 25%.[203]

Cohabitation is illegal according to Sunni sharia law.[204][205] Cohabitation, Bi'ah, is a legal status, "Yadua BetTzibbur", by the Jews Halakha or Halacha religious Law[206][207]

Oceania

Australia

In Australia, 22% of couples were cohabiting as of 2005. 78% of couples who marry have lived together beforehand in 2008,[208] rising from 16% in 1975.[209] As of 2013, of all births, 34% were to unmarried women.[210] Australia recognizes de facto relationships. The proportion of births outside marriage varies by state/territory, being, in 2009, lowest in Victoria (at 28%), Australian Capital Territory (at 29%), and New South Wales (at 30%); and highest in Northern Territory (at 63%) and Tasmania (at 51%).[211]

New Zealand

In New Zealand, 23.7% of couples were cohabiting as of 2006.[212] In 2010, 48% of births were outside marriage.[213] Like Australia, New Zealand recognizes de facto relationships.[214]

See also

• Alimony
• Fornication
• Family
  • Family law
• Child
• Interpersonal relationship and Intimate relationship
  • Divorce
  • Domestic partnership
  • Free union
  • Marriage
  • Pilegesh
  • Samenlevingscontract
• Marriage gap
• Living apart together
• Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study
• POSSLQ

References

1. "Definition of cohabit". oxforddictionaries.com.
2. "Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States". CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. 13 May 2009. Retrieved 24 September 2011.
3. "The realization of marriage plans among cohabiting couples in Scandinavia". Princeton University. Retrieved 11 February 2019.
4. Teresa Castro Martin. "Cohabitation in Spain: No longer a marginal path to family formation". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
5. Taylor, Ina (2005). Religion and Life with Christianity. Heinemann. p. 45. ISBN 9780435302283. Some Protestant groups, although preferring sex to exist exclusively in a married relationship, understand times have changed. These Christians are prepared to accept cohabitation if it is a prelude to marriage.
6. "Pope Francis breaks taboo by marrying cohabiting couples, conducts mass wedding ceremony". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 15 September 2014.
7. "The no-sex 'myth'". BBC News (1). London, United Kingdom: BBC. Broadcasting House. 3 October 2002. Retrieved 11 February 2019. An absolute declaration that every sexual partnership must conform to the pattern of commitment or else have the nature of sin and nothing else is unreal and silly.
8. Ross, Tim; Wynne-Jones, Jonathan; Rayner, Gordon (29 April 2011). "Royal wedding: Archbishop backs William and Kate's decision to live together before marriage". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved 3 August 2013.
9. Megan M. Sweeney; Teresa Castro-Martin; Melinda Mills (2015). "The reproductive context of cohabitation in comparative perspective: Contraceptive use in the United States, Spain, and France" (PDF). Demographic Research. 32: 147–182. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.5.
10. Christin Löffler (31 March 2009). "Non-Marital Cohabitation in Italy" (PDF).
11. Thornton A, Philipov D (2009). "Sweeping Changes in Marriage, Cohabitation, and Childbearing in Central and Eastern Europe: New Insights from the Developmental Idealism Framework". European Journal of Population. 25 (2): 123–156. doi:10.1007/s10680-009-9181-2. PMC 2690230. PMID 19498956.
12. Cherlin, Andrew J. (2004). "The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage". Journal of Marriage and Family. 66 (4): 848–861. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x. JSTOR 3600162.
13. "Currently cohabiting: relationship expectations and outcomes in the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS)". Retrieved 11 February 2019.
14. Friedman, Jaclyn; Jessica Valenti (2008). Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape. Seal Press. ISBN 978-1-58005-257-3.
15. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has called for full respect and recognition of women's autonomy and sexual and reproductive health rights, stating: "Violations of women's human rights are often linked to their sexuality and reproductive role. Women are frequently treated as property, they are sold into marriage, into trafficking, into sexual slavery. (...) In many countries, married women may not refuse to have sexual relations with their husbands, and often have no say in whether they use contraception. (...) Ensuring that women have full autonomy over their bodies is the first crucial step towards achieving substantive equality between women and men. Personal issues - such as when, how and with whom they choose to have sex, and when, how and with whom they choose to have children - are at the heart of living a life in dignity." Archived 13 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine
16. Elena von der Lippe (Koytcheva). "Contemporary union formation in Bulgaria: the emergence of cohabitation". ResearchGate. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
17. Variable v238: do you justify: adultery (Q68F). See for each country: Variable Description - Family - Q 45.
18. "Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States".
19. Mark Regnerus. "Mating Market Dynamics, Sex-Ratio Imbalances, and Their Consequences". Springer Science+Business MediaNCFR Report. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
20. Kramer, Elise (September–October 2004). "Cohabitation: Just a Phase?". Psychology Today. 37: 28.
21. Goodwin, P.Y.; Mosher, W.D.; Chandra, A. (2010). "Marriage and cohabitation in the United States: A statistical portrait based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth (National Center for Health Statistics)". Vital Health Statistics. 23: 1–55.
22. "Cohabitation is replacing dating". USA Today. 18 July 2005.
23. Brown, S.L., & Booth, maya angelo 2014 (1996). "Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality". Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58 (3): 668–678. doi:10.2307/353727. JSTOR 353727.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
24. Rhoades, G.K.; Stanley, S.M.; Markman, H.J. (2012). "A longitudinal investigation of commitment dynamics in cohabiting relationships". Journal of Family Issues. 33 (3): 369–390. doi:10.1177/0192513x11420940. PMC 3377181. PMID 22736881.
25. Pamela J. Smock, Wendy D. Manning, and Meredith Porter (2005). ""Everything's There Except Money": How Money Shapes Decisions to Marry Among Cohabitors" (PDF). Journal of Marriage and Family. 67 (3): 680–696. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00162.x. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 April 2013. Retrieved 29 November 2012.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
26. Miller AJ, Sassler S, Kusi-Appouh D (2011). "The Specter of Divorce: Views From Working- and Middle-Class Cohabitors". Fam Relat. 60 (5): 602–616. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00671.x. PMC 3399247. PMID 22822285.
27. Rhoades, G.K.; Stanley, S.M.; Markman, H.J. (2009a). "Couples' reasons for cohabitation: Association with individual well being and relationship quality". Journal of Family Issues. 30 (2): 233–258. doi:10.1177/0192513x08324388. PMC 2743430. PMID 19756225.
28. "Cohabitation". ForYourMarriage.org. Retrieved 16 March 2012.
29. Wendy D. Manning; P.J. Smock. "Divorce-proofing marriage: Young adults' views on the connection between cohabitation and marital longevity". NCFR Report. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
30. Brown, S.L.; Booth, A. (1996). "Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality". Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58 (3): 668–678. doi:10.2307/353727. JSTOR 353727.
31. Rhoades, G.K., Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (2009a).Couples' reasons for cohabitation:Associations with individual well being and relationship quality.Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233-258.
32. Murrow, Carrie; Lin Shi (2010). "The Influence of Cohabitation Purposes on Relationship Quality: An Examination in Dimensions". The American Journal of Family Therapy. 38 (5): 397–412. doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.513916. S2CID 144241396.
33. Brown, S.L.; Booth, A. (1996). "Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationships quality". Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58 (3): 668–678. doi:10.2307/353727. JSTOR 353727.
34. "Cohabitation - Trends and Patterns, Reasons For Cohabitation, Meanings Of Cohabitation, Consequences of Cohabitation, Conclusion". Net Industries. Retrieved 16 March 2012.
35. "Eleven states recognize common-law marriages currently being established within their borders. They are Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah." However, in New Hampshire common law marriage is recognized only posthumously for purposes of probate only, and Utah recognizes common-law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order."Archived copy". Archived from the original on 16 December 2014. Retrieved 16 December 2014.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
36. "Births to unmarried women". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
37. "Births to unmarried women". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
38. Joan Raymond. "More Unmarried Moms Are Living With Partners". NBC News. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
39. Schnor C (2014). "The Effect of Union Status at First Childbirth on Union Stability: Evidence from Eastern and Western Germany". Eur J Popul. 30 (2): 129–160. doi:10.1007/s10680-013-9304-7. PMC 4037585. PMID 24882913.
40. Jay, M (15 April 2012). "The Downside of Cohabitation Before Marriage". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
41. Dunifon, R; Kowaleski-Jones, L (2002). "Who's in the house? race differences in cohabitation, single-parenthood, and child development". Child Development. 73 (4): 1249–1264. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00470. PMID 12146746. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
42. Coontz, S. (30 August 2011). "Cohabitation Doesn't Cause Bad Parenting". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
43. Nelson, Sandi; Rebecca L. Clark; Gregory Acs (May 2001). "Beyond the Two-Parent Family: How Teenagers Fare in Cohabitating Couple and Blended Families". Urban Institute. New Federalism: National Survey of America's Families (B-31). Retrieved 20 April 2012.
44. Kennedy, Sheela; Larry Bumpass (19 September 2008). "Cohabitation and children's living arrangements: New estimates from the United States". Demographic Research. 19 (47): 1663–1692. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.47. PMC 2612998. PMID 19119426.
45. Manning WD, Cohen JA, Smock PJ (January 2011). "The Role of Romantic Partners, Family and Peer Networks in Dating Couples' Views about Cohabitation". J Adolesc Res. 26 (1): 115–149. doi:10.1177/0743558410376833. PMC 3476461. PMID 23087542.
46. Halstead, J (1997). "Muslims and Sex Education". Journal of Moral Education. 26 (3): 317–331. doi:10.1080/0305724970260306. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
47. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Marriage Preparation and Cohabitating Couples". United States Catholic Conference Inc. Archived from the original on 13 July 2019. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
48. Prager, D. "Judaism's sexual revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) rejected homosexuality". Orthodoxy Today. Archived from the original on 27 January 2019. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
49. Taylor, Ina (2005). Religion and Life with Christianity. Heinemann. p. 45. ISBN 9780435302283.
50. Thorton, A; Axinn, W. (1992). "Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation, and marriage". American Journal of Sociology. 98 (3): 628–651. doi:10.1086/230051. JSTOR 2781460.
51. Newman, B (2011). Development Through Life: A Psychosocial Approach. Wadsworth. ISBN 978-1-111-34466-5.
52. Impicciatore R, Billari FC (May 2012). "Secularization, Union Formation Practices, and Marital Stability: Evidence from Italy". Eur J Popul. 28 (2): 119–138. doi:10.1007/s10680-012-9255-4. PMC 3371187. PMID 22707812.
53. Thornton, A; Axinn, W. (1993). "Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation, and marriage". American Journal of Sociology. 98 (3): 628–651. doi:10.1086/230051. JSTOR 2781460.
54. Halstead, J (1997). "Muslims and Sex Education". Journal of Moral Education. 26 (3): 317–331. doi:10.1080/0305724970260306. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
55. "Human Rights Voices – Pakistan, August 21, 2008". Eyeontheun.org. Archived from the original on 21 January 2013.
56. "Home". AIDSPortal. Archived from the original on 26 October 2008.
57. "Iran". Travel.state.gov. Archived from the original on 1 August 2013.
58. "United Nations Human Rights Website – Treaty Bodies Database – Document – Summary Record – Kuwait". Unhchr.ch.
59. "Culture of Maldives – history, people, clothing, women, beliefs, food, customs, family, social". Everyculture.com.
60. Fakim, Nora (9 August 2012). "BBC News – Morocco: Should pre-marital sex be legal?". BBC.
61. "Legislation of Interpol member states on sexual offences against children – Oman" (PDF). Interpol. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 May 2016.
62. "2010 Human Rights Report: Mauritania". State.gov. 8 April 2011.
63. Dubai FAQs. "Education in Dubai". Dubaifaqs.com.
64. Mate UAE. "Dubai Room Sharing Guide". mate.ae. Archived from the original on 28 March 2019. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
65. Judd, Terri (10 July 2008). "Briton faces jail for sex on Dubai beach – Middle East – World". The Independent. London.
66. "Sudan must rewrite rape laws to protect victims". Reuters. 28 June 2007.
67. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. "Refworld | Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa – Yemen". UNHCR.
68. Liefbroer AC, Dourleijn E (2006). "Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries" (PDF). Demography. 43 (2): 203–21. doi:10.1353/dem.2006.0018. PMID 16889125. S2CID 13210179.
69. Svarer, Michael (2004). "Is Your Love in Vain? Another Look at Premarital Cohabitation and Divorce". Journal of Human Resources. 39 (2): 523–535. doi:10.2307/3559025. JSTOR 3559025.
70. Impicciatore R, Billari FC (2012). "Secularization, Union Formation Practices, and Marital Stability: Evidence from Italy". Eur J Popul. 28 (2): 119–138. doi:10.1007/s10680-012-9255-4. PMC 3371187. PMID 22707812.
71. psychpage.com. "Cohabitating and Domestic Partnership". PsychPage.
72. cdc-2002 (24 July 2002). "New Report Sheds Light on Trends and Patterns in Marriage, Divorce, and Cohabitation". National Center for Health Statistics. Centers for Disease Control.
73. Galena H. Kline; Scott M. Stanley (2004). "Timing Is Everything: Pre-Engagement Cohabitation and Increased Risk for Poor Marital Outcomes" (PDF). Journal of Family Psychology. American Psychological Association. 18 (2): 311–318. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.311. PMID 15222838. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 August 2012.
74. Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, Markman HJ (2009). "The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: a replication and extension of previous findings". J Fam Psychol. 23 (1): 107–11. doi:10.1037/a0014358. PMC 5956907. PMID 19203165.
75. "Couples who live together before marriage more likely to get divorced". The Daily Telegraph. London. 16 July 2009.
76. Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, Markman HJ (2006). "Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment". J Fam Psychol. 20 (4): 553–60. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.553. PMID 17176189. S2CID 24707669.
77. Huang PM, Smock PJ, Manning WD, Bergstrom-Lynch CA (2011). "He Says, She Says: Gender and Cohabitation". J Fam Issues. 32 (7): 876–905. doi:10.1177/0192513X10397601. PMC 3106995. PMID 21643456.
78. Meg Jay (14 April 2012). "The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage". The New York Times.
79. Sharon Jayson (18 July 2005). "Cohabitation is Replacing Dating". USA Today- Lifestyle.
80. Reinhold S (2010). "Reassessing the link between premarital cohabitation and marital instability". Demography. 47 (3): 719–33. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0122. PMC 3000053. PMID 20879685.
81. "Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth". National Survey of Family Growth. Centers for Disease Control.
82. Wendy D. Manning, Jessica A. Cohen. "Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution: The Significance of Marriage Cohort". Princeton University. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
83. D'Vera Cohn (8 April 2011). "New Facts About Families - Recent Findings on Family Meals, Cohabitation and Divorce". Pew Research Center Publications. Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on 16 October 2012. Retrieved 22 November 2012.
84. Wendy Manning; Jessica Cohen (April 2012). "Premarital cohabitation and marital dissolution: An examination of recent marriages". Journal of Marriage and Family. 74 (2): 377–387. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00960.x. PMC 3487709. PMID 23129875.
85. S. Sassler; F.R. Addo; D.T. Lichter (2012). "The tempo of sexual activity and later relationship quality". Journal of Marriage and Family. 74 (4): 708–725. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00996.x.
86. G.K. Rhoades; S.M. Stanley; H.J. Markman (June 2012). "The impact of the transition to cohabitation on relationship functioning: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings". Journal of Family Psychology. 26 (3): 348–58. doi:10.1037/a0028316. PMC 5956859. PMID 22545935.
87. Harms, W. (2000). "The University of Chicago Chronicle". Research Looks at Cohabitation's Negative Effects. 19 (11).
88. Margolin L (1992). "Child abuse by mothers' boyfriends: why the overrepresentation?". Child Abuse Negl. 16 (4): 541–51. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(92)90070-8. PMID 1393717.
89. Judith Treas; Deirdre Giesen (February 2000). "Sexual Infidelity Among Married and Cohabiting Americans". Journal of Marriage and Family. 62 (1): 48–60. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x.
90. Gladys Martinez; Kimberly Daniels; Anjani Chandra (2012). "Fertility of Men and Women Aged 15–44 Years in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010" (PDF). Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics.
91. Brienna Perelli-Harris (2014). "How Similar are Cohabiting and Married Parents? Second Conception Risks by Union Type in the United States and Across Europe". European Journal of Population. 30=issue 4 (4): 437–464. doi:10.1007/s10680-014-9320-2. PMC 4221046. PMID 25395696.
92. Nicoletta Balbo; Francesco C. Billari; Melinda Mills (2013). "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research". European Journal of Population. 29 (1): 1–38. doi:10.1007/s10680-012-9277-y. PMC 3576563. PMID 23440941.
93. Potarca and Mills and Lesnard (2013). "Family Formation Trajectories in Romania, the Russian Federation and France: Towards the Second Demographic Transition?". European Journal of Population. 29: 69–101. doi:10.1007/s10680-012-9279-9. S2CID 3270388.
94. Jan M. Hoem; Cornelia Mureşan; Mihaela Hărăguş (2013). "Recent Features of Cohabitational and Marital Fertility in Romania" (PDF). Population English Edition.
95. Hoem, Jan M.; Muresan, Cornelia (2011). "The Role of Consensual Unions in Romanian Total Fertility". Stockholm Research Reports in Demography. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
96. Horn, W. (October 1998) Government Punishes Marriage, Pushes Cohabitation.Institute for American Values. Retrieved from: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 3 August 2011. Retrieved 20 March 2012.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
97. "http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0412/why-marriage-makes-financial-sense.aspx"
98. Jayson, Sharon (14 October 2010). "Report: Cohabiting has little effect on marriage success". USA Today.
99. "The Experts Speak". Unmarried.org. Archived from the original on 7 February 2013. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
100. Family Matters (2003). "Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital stability" (PDF) (65). Australian Institute of Family Studies. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
101. Institut de la Statistique du Québec. "Proportion de naissances hors mariage1 selon le rang de naissance, Québec, 1976-2014". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
102. "Home - Common Law Relationships". Archived from the original on 2 July 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
103. "What does the Government of Canada consider to be a common-law relationship?". Archived from the original on 21 August 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
104. Benoît Laplante; Ana Laura Fostik (12 February 2015). "Two period measures for comparing the fertility of marriage and cohabitation" (PDF). Demographic Research. 32: 421–442. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.14.
105. In 2003, "Alberta Registries amended their Registration of Birth form in such a way that Statistics Canada can no longer determine the legal marital status of those persons in common-law marriages".
106. Canada, Government of Canada, Statistics. "ERROR". www5.statcan.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 17 July 2015. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
107. Québec, Institut de la Statistique du. "Proportion de naissances hors mariage selon le rang de naissance, Québec, 1976-2016". www.stat.gouv.qc.ca.
108. "4 myths about common-law relationships". 20 March 2013. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
109. "Provincial and Territorial Government Web Sites". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
110. "Marital Status: Overview, 2011". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
111. "Divorce Law in Canada / 96-3E". Archived from the original on 8 September 2012. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
112. Laplante, Benoît (2006). "The Rise of Cohabitation in Quebec: Power of Religion and Power over Religion". The Canadian Journal of Sociology. 31 (1): 1–24. doi:10.2307/20058678. JSTOR 20058678.
113. "Adult Interdependent Relationships". Canadian Legal FAQs. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
114. "Quebec case puts spotlight on economic rights of common-law partners". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
115. "Intestate Succession Act". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
116. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 23 June 2015. Retrieved 23 June 2015.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
117. "Family Law Act". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
118. Data from General Social Survey, see
     CARL BIALIK (17 October 2014). "Catholics Are More Progressive Than The Vatican, And Almost Everyone Else". FiveThirtyEight.
119. Paul Herrnson; Kathleen Weldon (6 October 2014). "Love, Marriage, and the Vatican". Center for Public Opinion Research. just 20 percent in the 2012 General Social Survey disagreed with the assertion that it was all right for a couple to live together
120. Cherlin, Andrew (2010). Public and Private Families. New York: McGraw Hill. p. 227. ISBN 978-0-07-340435-6.=
121. "Two Decades of Stability and Change in Age at First Union Formation". Population Association of America. 12 April 2013.
122. Luscombe, B. (June 2011). "More Americans Are Cohabiting, But the Benefits of Living Together Apply Mainly to the Wealthier, More Educated". Retrieved 21 March 2012
123. "N.C. Cohabitation Law Struck Down". CBS News.
124. "Virginia strikes down state fornication law". CNN. 25 January 2005. Archived from the original on 10 December 2012.
125. the Associated Press. "Judge rules state adultery law unconstitutional". Bismarck Tribune. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
126. "After 148 years, Florida makes it legal to shack up".
127. "Statutes". Archived from the original on 15 September 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
128. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-03-05/virginia-repeals-law-banning-sex-before-marriage
129. "Virginia and Six Other States Still Classify Cohabitation as Illegal". Sullivan-county.com. 20 August 2001. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
130. "Can I Claim a Boyfriend/Girlfriend As a Dependent on Income Taxes?". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
131. "N.C. Cohabitation Law Struck Down". 14 September 2006. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
132. Schwartz, John (14 September 2013), "A Law Prohibiting Polygamy is Weakened", The New York Times, retrieved 13 January 2014
133. Mears, Bill (14 December 2013), "'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law", CNN.com, CNN, retrieved 13 January 2014
134. Stack, Peggy Fletcher (14 December 2013), "Laws on Mormon polygamists lead to win for plural marriage", The Salt Lake Tribune, retrieved 13 January 2014
135. Embry, Jessie L. (1994), "Polygamy", in Powell, Allan Kent (ed.), Utah History Encyclopedia, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, ISBN 978-0874804256, OCLC 30473917
136. "Global Children's Trends | The Sustainable Demographic Dividend". Sustaindemographicdividend.org. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
137. Anne-Marie Ambert: "Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related?". The Vanier Institute of the Family, Fall 2005
138. "Global Children's Trends - The Sustainable Demographic Dividend". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
139. note: "The most recent data for Argentina are from 2000 because after 2000, Argentina’s Ministry of Health changed to publishing births as mother living with a partner or not (including married or cohabiting) rather than as marital and nonmarital."
140. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 14 June 2015.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
141. http://paa2013.princeton.edu/papers/131703
142. Marcantonio Caltabiano; Maria Castiglioni (9 April 2008). "Changing Family Formation in Nepal: Marriage, Cohabitation and First Sexual Intercourse". guttmacher.org. Retrieved 13 January 2016.
143. "Living Together Without Marriage – New Trend in Nepali Society". Nepali Movies, Nepali Films. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
144. Hashmi, Taj ul-Islam (2000). Women and Islam in Bangladesh. St. Martin's Press. p. 112. ISBN 0-312-22219-X.
145. http://www.refworld.org/docid/4f40f0072.html Refugee Review Tribunal (Australia); Research Response Number BGD32882, 12 February 2008
146. Yu Jia; Yu Xie. "cohabitation in China" (PDF). Population and Development Review. Retrieved 22 April 2019.
147. Yongjun Zhang (2017). "Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution in Postreform China". Journal of Marriage and Family. 79 (5): 1435–1449. doi:10.1111/jomf.12419.
148. "Indonesia plans new morality laws". BBC News. 6 February 2005. Retrieved 28 March 2010.
149. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 1 September 2006. Retrieved 26 August 2008.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
150. ":: GMA News.TV ::".
151. "Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table". Ec.europa.eu. 11 August 2016. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
152. "Naissances hors mariage en 2018 - Insee". www.insee.fr.
153. "Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table". ec.europa.eu.
154. "Births, Slovenia, 2016". www.stat.si.
155. "PORDATA - Live births outside of marriage, with parents co-habiting or not (%) in Portugal". Pordata.pt. 28 April 2016. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
156. The Finnish population structure of 2005 at Statistics Finland (Finnish/Swedish)
157. Elected MPs and candidates by family type in 2003 at Statistics Finland (English)
158. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 18 May 2013. Retrieved 11 September 2012.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
159. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 June 2013. Retrieved 17 April 2013.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
160. "Most babies born out of marriage by 2016, trend suggests". BBC News. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
161. Rebecca Probert, "Living in Sin," BBC History Magazine (Sept 2012); G. Frost, Living in Sin: Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England (Manchester U.P. 2008)
162. "Marriage and cohabitation: key issues for the 2010 Parliament". UK Parliament. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
163. "Family Matters - Couples - Cohabitation". Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
164. "Family Law Week: Lessons to be learned for cohabitation cases in England, says Lady Hale in Supreme Court Scottish case". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
165. http://www.nsi.bg/sites/default/files/files/pressreleases/Population2014_en_2Y19BGI.pdf
166. http://paa2004.princeton.edu/papers/41732
167. http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/Dialog/Saveshow.asp?lang=1%5B%5D
168. http://sreview.soc.cas.cz/uploads/cdc4797ec7b3175a5d3a03224384501d3dc06789_184_65hampl44.pdf
169. "Cohabitation in Germany - rules, reality and public discourses". oxfordjournals.org. Retrieved 13 January 2016.
170. http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol33/9/33-9.pdf
171. "Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table". ec.europa.eu.
172. Marcos, Anastasios C, and Bahr, Stephen J. 2001 Hellenic (Greek) Gender Attitudes. Gender Issues. 19(3):21-40.
173. Reuters (26 January 1983). "AROUND THE WORLD; Greece Approves Family Law Changes" – via NYTimes.com.
174. Demos, Vasilikie. (2007) "The Intersection of Gender, Class and Nationality and the Agency of Kytherian Greek Women." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. 11 August.
175. http://www.internationaljournalofcaringsciences.org/docs/vol1_issue3_04_sapountzi.pdf
176. http://www2.ohchr.org/English/bodies/cedaw/docs/54/CEDAW-C-GRC-7.pdf
177. Lesthaeghe, R (1983). "A Century of Demographic and Cultural Change in Western Europe: an Exploration of Underlying Dimensions". Population and Development Review. 9 (3): 411–435. doi:10.2307/1973316. JSTOR 1973316.
178. Rindfuss, R.R; van del Heuve, A. (1990). "Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single?". Population and Development Review. 16 (4): 703–726. doi:10.2307/1972963. JSTOR 1972963.
179. Carlson, E.; KJingerA (1987). "Partners in life: Unmarried couples \nHnx\^ziy". European Journal of Population. 3 (1): 85–99. doi:10.1007/bf01797093. PMID 12280732.
180. Barany. Zoltan. (2002). The East European Gypsies. Regime Change. Marginality, and Ethnopolitics. Cambridge University Press
181. Speder. Z. (2001). "Turning Points of the Life Course" Archived 24 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 7 January 2007
182. Schröder, Christin (2006). "Cohabitation in Italy: do parents matter?". Genus. 62 (3/4): 53–85. JSTOR 29789325.
183. http://www.istat.it/it/files/2016/11/Statistica-report-Nati.pdf?title=Natalit%C3%A0+e+fecondit%C3%A0++-+28%2Fnov%2F2016+-+Testo+integrale+e+nota+metodologica.pdf
184. Nicole Hiekel; Renske Keizer (3 February 2015). "Risk-avoidance or utmost commitment? Dutch focus group research on cohabitation and marriage" (PDF). Demographic Research. 32: 311–340. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.10.
185. "Cohabitation". Archived from the original on 22 July 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
186. "Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
187. http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol21/8/21-8.pdf
188. http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol19/25/19-25.pdf
189. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 July 2014. Retrieved 17 July 2014.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
190. Times, Special To The New York (23 September 1985). "SWISS GRANT WOMEN EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS" – via NYTimes.com.
191. "Switzerland profile - Timeline". 28 December 2016 – via www.bbc.com.
192. Switzerland, Markus G. Jud, Lucerne. "The Long Way to Women's Right to Vote in Switzerland: a Chronology". history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch.
193. Women's movements of the world: an international directory and reference guide, edited by Sally Shreir, p. 254
194. Head-König, Anne-Lise. "Adultère". HLS-DHS-DSS.CH.
195. "Dictionnaire Suisse de politique sociale : Union libre". www.socialinfo.ch.
196. http://ceflonline.net/wp-content/uploads/Switzerland-IR.pdf
197. statistique, Office fédéral de la. "Population". www.bfs.admin.ch. Archived from the original on 28 May 2016. Retrieved 17 June 2016.
198. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 11 April 2016. Retrieved 8 April 2016.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
199. "Spain - SOCIAL VALUES AND ATTITUDES". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
200. http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol32/5/32-5.pdf
201. "Más de un tercio de los nacimientos en España, fuera del matrimonio". Republica.com. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
202. Olga Isupova (2015). "Trust, responsibility, and freedom: Focus-group research on contemporary patterns of union formation in Russia" (PDF). Demographic Research. 32: 341–368. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.11.
203. Kaplan, Amit. 2002. The roads of freedom: cohabitation patterns in Israel. M. A. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University (in Hebrew)
204. See commentary on verses ^{[Quran 23:1]}: Vol. 3, notes 7-1, p. 241; 2000, Islamic Publications
205. Tafsir ibn Kathir 4:24
206. "Non-Jewish Wedding Ceremonies for Jews - Not "According to the Laws of Moses and Israel": "Shelo Ke' dat Moshe Ve' Yisrael"". www.chabad.org.
207. C. G. Montefiore; H. M. J. Loewe (12 July 2012). A Rabbinic Anthology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 76–. ISBN 978-1-108-04812-5.
208. Alan Hayes; Ruth Weston; Lixia Qu; Matthew Gray (October 2010). "Families then and now: 1980-2010". Australian Institute of Family Studies.
209. "Percentage of marriages preceded by cohabitation 1975-2008". Australian Institute of Family Studies.
210. "3301.0 - Births, Australia, 2013". Archived from the original on 30 September 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
211. "3301.0 - Births, Australia, 2009". Retrieved 22 August 2015.
212. "2006 Census: Family portrait: Continuity and change in Canadian families and households in 2006: National portrait: Provinces and territories". 12 September 2007. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
213. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 January 2015. Retrieved 4 June 2015.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
214. "Property (Relationships) Act 1976". Retrieved 22 August 2015.

External links

• "Cohabitation" . Encyclopedia Americana. 1920.
• Media related to Cohabitation at Wikimedia Commons