And the Winner Is . . .

There’s solid evidence that being in a working marriage is the best means to health, happiness, wealth, sex and long life. Trafford Fischer presents the facts.

Meet John (he’s practising his wedding vows): “I take you, Joanne, to be my lawfully wedded wife; to have and to hold, from this day forward . . .”
Now meet Paul (he’s reading an email from his girlfriend of 15 months): Of course I love you Paul. . . . Heaps. But as I said, I’m not sure enough to take the walk down the aisle. Can’t we just live together and see how things go? Kisses, Alina.
Now meet Alex: “Hey, you great huge hulk! [He’s talking to himself in the mirror!] You’re the man!” He loves mirrors, and the single life!

When John, Paul and Alex reach retirement and meet on the golf club veranda, who’ll be life’s winner? Who will be the healthiest? The happiest? The richest?

From the early 1960s, marriage was increasingly being characterised as a “trap” and women were especially considered “caught.” It began to be viewed as circumventing “a woman’s social and intellectual horizons” and lowering her sense of self-esteem, according to social historians Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg.1

During the 1970s and 1980s, a belief that cohabitation prior to marriage was advantageous began to be adopted more widely. About half of the respondents to the 1988-89 National Social Science Survey reported that they would recommend couples live together then marry. And in a 1995 survey for A Current Affair 55 per cent of respondents said a “trial” marriage was an appropriate preparation for a lifelong relationship.2

Such views are reflected in popular culture, so taking your cue from a contemporary magazine or TV show, in answering the questions above, you’d have to vote for Alex or, maybe, Paul, for personal growth, freedom and independence are the great human needs that only the unfettered achieve! Marriage is unnecessary or just one of several options.

But credible social research reveals a different story, with the facts running counter to today’s popular myths. What follows is a sampling.

When John says his vows to Jo, he gains far more than a piece of paper, for, as one expert puts it, marriage “is the means to health, happiness, wealth, sex and long life.”3

health
Back in 1963, the Hammond Report released the findings of a study following the smoking habits of nearly half a million men. The revelations ultimately led to the “smoking-is-hazardous-to-your-health” warnings on cigarette packs.

A decade later, Harold Morowitz of Yale University, using data from the same survey, discovered that, statistically, marriage also affects men’s health. Looking at age-standardised death rates, Morowitz found that divorce seemed to be about as dangerous to a man’s health as a pack-a-day habit! “Not being married can be hazardous to your health.”4

For example, a study of hospitalised patients5 found that married surgical patients were far less likely to die in hospital than singles; patients who were not married piled up bigger hospital bills and had longer hospital stays; and married men and women were also less likely than singles to suffer long-term chronic illnesses or disabilities.

In 1996 the Australian Bureau of Statistics conducted the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing of Adults (ABS: 1999) of 10,641 adults. The results indicated that the risk of a person suffering a mental disorder differs substantially according to marital status. Married people are least likely to suffer from any class of disorder; divorced and separated adults are most prone to mood and anxiety disorders; and never-marrieds are most at risk of drug and alcohol disorders.

Commenting on this, David de Vaus says the result is unequivocal: “Marriage reduces the risk of mental disorders for both men and women.”6

happiness
When it comes to avoiding misery, marriage helps, which isn’t what we’re led to believe! Married men and women report less depression, less anxiety and lower levels of other types of psychological distress than the single, divorced or widowed. In studies on suicide, for example, both widowed and divorced persons were about three times as likely to commit suicide as were the married.

Furthermore, studies have shown that married people report being more happy than the nonmarried. One large 10-year survey indicated that 40 per cent of marrieds were “very happy” with their life in general, compared to just under a quarter of those who were single or cohabiting.

The separated (15 per cent) and the divorced (18 per cent) were the least happy.7 But even the widowed do better than most. A study of 100,000 Norwegians found that for both men and women, the widowed come second only to the married in respect to “wellbeing.”8

Another study9 found that when people marry, their mental health actually improves—consistently and substantially. Divorce, as one might expect, is especially damaging to women’s mental health, with divorced women reporting a higher rate of increase in depression, hostility, and a greater decline in self-esteem, personal growth, self-acceptance and environmental mastery than divorced men.

wealth
Marriage is not just an emotional relationship; it’s an economic one. Married couples not only retire wealthier; they’re far less likely to slip into poverty. When people marry, they’re obviously and immediately better off. Over time, the marriage advantage increases as couples benefit from the higher earnings created by specialisation, a lifestyle that usually encourages saving, their partner’s help in restraining impulse spending, and the reduced costs of a shared life.

In Sweden, at least, married men experienced a much greater growth in earnings than did unmarried men.10 Perhaps that’s because married men make better workers than do single guys. They tend to lead more settled lives, have lower rates of absenteeism, and are less likely to quit than are single men. They also produced more than did their counterparts on the same job.

Widows are economically far better off than are divorced women; the end of marriage still imposes substantial financial penalties on women. Single mothers, in particular, face the greatest financial challenges.

sex
The idea that sexual fulfilment cannot be found in a lifelong and monogamous relationship is also a myth, according to reliable studies. One US study concludes, “Married people have both more and better sex than singles do. They . . . enjoy it more, both physically and emotionally than do their unmarried counterparts.” And while cohabiters have more sex than do married couples, “they don’t necessarily enjoy it as much. Marriage . . . is good for your libido too.”11

The familiarity of marriage doesn’t dampen ardour as much as facilitate it. To begin with, for the married, sex is more likely to happen because it’s so easily “arranged.” For the single guy, it costs a lot of time and energy to arrange—and, often, a lot of money as well.

Some 42 per cent of married women interviewed in the 1992 National [US] Sex Survey said they found sex “extremely” emotionally and physically satisfying compared with just 31 per cent of singles. When one combines sex and satisfaction, the advantages of marriage are even more pronounced, with married women almost twice as likely as the divorced and never married to have a satisfying sex life.

The reason why seems to lie with two key factors: commitment and exclusivity. Both husbands and wives are more likely to see love and sex as intrinsically connected than either cohabiting or single men and women. While the survey revealed that 94.6 per cent of cohabiters and 98.7 per cent of married people expected their partner to be faithful to them, the married were far more likely to be so.

“Married people enjoy sex more not only because their sex partners are more available, less distracted, more eager and more able to please, but also because marriage adds meaning to the sexual act. . . . Every time a married couple make love, they may be reminding each other of the marital promises: to love, honour, cherish and care for each other—and their children—unto death do they part.”12

long life
But can marriage really make a difference to how long a person lives? Actually, yes! In fact, it can quite literally save your life.

Compared to married people, the nonmarrieds have higher rates of mortality than the married (50 per cent higher for women and 250 per cent higher for men). Unmarried (includes divorced, widowed and single) people are far more likely to die from all causes, including coronary heart disease, stroke, pneumonia, many kinds of cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, car accidents, murder and suicide—all leading causes of death.

Statistically, being unmarried can actually be a greater risk to one’s life than having heart disease or cancer. Heart disease shortens a man’s average life by slightly less than six years, but being unmarried reduces it by 10.
In countries as diverse as Japan and the Netherlands, the unmarried die sooner than the married. In most developed countries, men of any given age who are single, divorced or widowed are about twice as likely to die as married men, and unmarried women face risks one-and-a-half times that of married women, a trend that’s increasing.13
All things considered, marriage is better for you. That’s why, when John retires toward the end of his longer life, he’ll meet his best men—Paul and Alex—on the golf club veranda, happier, healthier and richer.

Bibliography:
1. Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg, Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of American Family Life, The Free Press, New York, 1988, pages 206, 7. Quoted in The Case for Marriage, Linda J Waite and Maggie Gallagher, Doubleday, 2000, page 1.
2. Margaret Andrews, Threshold 61 Winter 1999.
3. Waite and Gallagher, page 46.
4. ibid, page 47.
5. ibid, page 48.
6. David de Vaus, “Marriage and Mental Health,” Family Matters No. 62 Winter 2002, page 32.
7. Waite and Gallagher, page 67.
8. ibid, page 75.
9. Nadine F Marks and James D Lambert, “Marital Status Continuity and Change Among Young and Midlife Adults: Longitudinal Effects on Psychological Wellbeing,” Journal of Family Issues 19 (1998): 652-86, quoted in Waite and Gallagher, page 70.
10. Waite and Gallagher, page 123.
11. ibid, page 79.
12. ibid, pages 82, 96.
13. Ibid, page 49.