The Way I See It
By Joseph C. Phillips

Old Fashioned Marriage Part 10: Marriage For Children

I am always amused to hear baby boomers applaud themselves for being so much more in touch with their sexuality than were their parents.  For them, prior generations were uptight prudes that just didn’t know how to get their groove on.  Seemingly lost on these free spirits is that the “boom” in baby-boom came from someplace.  As much as we might like to think that sex and eroticism is our exclusive province, the truth is that sex, lust and fun has not changed all that much throughout the ages.

It is also a misconception that prior to the sexual revolution, all that rocking and rolling took place within the confines of marriage. Monkey business is not new.  It is in fact one of man’s favorite past times and from all the information available, one vigorously pursued by both sexes.  Neither have the consequences of sexual behavior changed over the years.  My mother used to say that the best form of birth control was an aspirin…held tightly between the knees.  Sex leads to pregnancy and that is just the law of nature.  What is different is that the availability of contraception along with abortion on demand has meant that couples can pursue their past time without the worry of pregnancy.  The new wide-open playing field has also meant that marriage is no longer the price a man pays for a woman’s passion.  Women were more likely to demand marriage in exchange for sex because they believed – quite properly it turns out – that any children that resulted from a roll in the hay would be healthier and happier in a stable two-parent home.  

This is perhaps the most significant difference between the old school idea of marriage and the new.  Pre-marital sex is as old as the hills and therefore so is being pregnant outside of wedlock.  What is different is that women are no longer choosing to marry as a result of pregnancy, choosing instead to become unwed mothers.

Over the last 40 years or so, the message our culture has delivered to women is that having a baby is not a good reason to get married.  We have eschewed the shotgun in favor of psycho-babble about personal fulfillment and worries of unstable marriages. This latter based on very little evidence as it turns out.

In fact, what evidence there is suggests that women that marry in order to legitimate a pregnancy are at no higher risk of divorce than women of similar age that became pregnant after marriage.  Moreover, studies also show that giving birth out of wedlock reduces the likelihood that a woman will ever marry. This is important, of course, because every bit of scientific study shows that children raised in a two parent home are healthier, happier and wealthier (as are the mothers that raise their children within a stable two-parent home) than are those in single parent homes.

This is all the proof we need to answer-- yes!  -- to the question:  “Is having a baby a good reason to get married?”  And it is this answer that will be the greatest help in moving us back toward the old school idea of child centered marriage. 

Yes will help us alter the notion that to marry because of pregnancy is to be punished for sexual sin.  Yes says that as a culture we view marriage-because-of-children as an ideal.  Yes says that a marriage because of pregnancy doesn’t have to mean a lifetime of penance with a man (or woman) for whom you have little feeling.  Indeed, it may be all the more reason to reserve sexual intimacy for those that you truly care for. Yes reinforces the idea that women being selective in her choice of sexual partners is the ultimate act of empowerment and that pricing her passion at marriage is an act of self protection and love for her children.

An embrace of the old school is not a backward glance to the days of prudishness but a look forward to days of prudence. 

Send me your ways of seeing it at Josephcp@netlistings.com