CMW-WB-CH08

UNIT 3 CHAPTER 8
Premarital Sex
and Cohabitation
154

Chapter 8 Overview
Premarital sex and cohabitation before marriage are seen as good and healthy steps towards marriage in
our culture today. But the reality is very different. That data shows that both premarital sex and cohabitation
have negative effects on the quality and duration of future marriage — if marriage happens at all — and
lead to much greater divorce rates. Both the Old Testament and Jesus prohibited premarital sex. This teaching
— maintained by the Catholic Church today — is not intended to be prudish or controlling. Rather, it is loving
direction toward our true purpose as human beings made in God’s image, which is love.
In this chapter you will learn that …
■ Premarital sex and cohabitation are falsely viewed today as acceptable and even expected steps towards
a healthy marriage.
■ Both the Old Testament and Jesus prohibited premarital sex.
■ The cultural myth surrounding premarital sex and cohabitation are completely unsupported by the data,
and, in fact, the research shows both practices negatively impact relationships, marriage rates, marriages,
and marital satisfaction.
■ Certain factors — the sliding effect, gender asymmetry, and consumer lock-in — prolong and worsen the
negative effects of cohabitation.
■ The mutual resolve to maintain the relationship helps married couples develop emotional intimacy,
toleration of weaknesses, complementarity of gifts and talents, and strengthening of mutual identity,
which, in turn, strengthen marital stability, children’s sense of security, and common cause.
■ Married couples who practice their religion with their children are significantly more satisfied, welladjusted,
and bonded in their marriage than those who do not, leading to significantly reduced divorce
rates and increased stability and longevity of marriage.
Bible Basics
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes
all things, endures all things.
— 1 Corinthians 13:7
“But I say to you that every one who looks at a
woman lustfully has already committed adultery
with her in his heart.”
— Matthew 5:28
Connections to the Catechism
■ CCC 356
■ CCC 371–373
■ CCC 1601–1666
■ CCC 2331–2336
■ CCC 2360–2381
© Sophia Institute for Teachers
155

Chapter 8
Aa
VOCABULARY
Premarital Sex: Sexual
activity before marriage.
Adultery: Marital infidelity,
or sexual acts outside of
marriage, when at least one
person is married to someone
else.
Promiscuity: The practice of
having many sexual partners.
The Modern Narrative
Today, the influence of the sexual revolution and social norming has
made premarital sex and cohabitation (living together before marriage)
not only acceptable but oftentimes expected. Popular wisdom confidently
asserts that premarital sex is harmless, as long as it is safe (i.e.,
that contraceptives are used [see Chapter 9]) and consensual. It even
asserts that cohabitation is a healthy step toward marriage. As we shall
see, current studies show that precisely the opposite is the case. We will
first consider the negative effects of premarital sex and cohabitation
on emotional health and future marriage, and then examine the benefits
of marriage.
Jesus’ Teaching About Premarital Sex
Before proceeding, it will be helpful to examine Jesus’ prohibition of
premarital sex (sex before marriage) in the Gospels. While there was
no phrase like “premarital sex” in Jesus’ day, Jesus nevertheless included
this conduct in His prohibition of illicit sexual acts. Adultery is
clearly prohibited by the Old Testament with the Sixth Commandment
(Exodus 20:14) and by Jesus Himself (Mark 7:21). Jesus, however,
broadened the definition of adultery, first asking His disciples to recall
the Old Testament law, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall
not commit adultery’” (Matthew 5:27), and then restoring the law to
its true intent, “But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman
lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”
(Matthew 5:28). If looking at another with lust is a sin, then surely acting
on lustful impulses is sinful as well.
Further, Jesus prohibited promiscuity (having many sexual partners)
of any kind (“fornication,” or porneia in Greek 1 ):
“What comes out of a man is what defiles a man.
For from within, out of the heart of man, come
evil thoughts, fornication [porneia], theft, murder,
adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness,
envy, slander, pride, foolishness.” (Mark
7:20–22) (Emphasis added)
By placing “porneia” (“fornication”) at the front of a list of prohibited
actions that also includes adultery (strictly speaking, marital infidelity)
and licentiousness (depraved sexual behavior), combined with His
156 Apologetics II: Challenges of the Modern World
© Magis Center

characterization of looking lustfully at another as “adultery of the heart,”
it is clear He intended to prohibit all sexual acts outside the marital covenant
— including premarital sex.
We must take care to understand Jesus’ prohibition of all sexual
acts outside of marriage not as prudish or oppressive, but rather as loving
direction toward our true purpose as human beings made in God’s
image, which is love. The Vatican document, The Truth and Meaning of
Human Sexuality, beautifully summarizes our vocation of love:
As the image of God, man is created for love. This truth
was fully revealed to us in the New Testament, together
with the mystery of the inner life of the Trinity: “God
is love (1 John 4:8) and in himself he lives a mystery
of personal loving communion. Creating the human
race in his own image... God inscribed in the humanity
of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity
and responsibility, of love and communion. Love
is therefore the fundamental and innate vocation of
every human being.” The whole meaning of true freedom,
and self-control which follows from it, is thus directed
towards self-giving in communion and friendship
with God and with others. 2
As the image
of God, man is
created for love.
Jesus always lovingly directs
us to our true purpose.
Christ and the Woman of Samaria by Guercino (1620).
© Sophia Institute for Teachers Unit 3, Chapter 8: Premarital Sex and Cohabitation
157

We find true freedom in
self-giving communion and
friendship with God and with
others.
Sunday Afternoon by Leopold Graf von Kalkreuth (1893).
Bearing in mind this goal of human sexuality, we may now proceed
to an exploration of the effects of premarital sex and cohabitation on
emotional, relational, and spiritual health. The following studies will confirm
precisely what Jesus and the Church teach about the true purpose
and meaning of human sexuality.
Cohabitation: The act of a
romantically involved couple
living together including a
sexual relationship when they
are not married.
The Negative Effects of Premarital Sex and
Cohabitation on Emotional Health and Future
Marriage
The idea that premarital sex and cohabitation are harmless and healthy
is nothing more than a cultural myth. Sadly, acceptance of this myth has
led to steep declines in marriage. The number of marriages in the US
has dropped from a peak of 16.4 per 1,000 population in 1946 to 5.1 per
1,000 population in 2020 (the year of the most recent available data),
the lowest rate in a century of data. 3 Let us consider some statistics and
recent studies that show why the cultural myth is false and that multiple
premarital partners and extended cohabitation are in fact detrimental
to relationships and future marriage.
158 Apologetics II: Challenges of the Modern World
© Magis Center

Surveys done by the National Survey of Family Growth (a part of
the Center for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics)
in 2002, 2006–2010, and 2011–2013 show that the more premarital sexual
partners a person has, the more unhappy he or she will be in marriage,
and the more likely the marriage will end up in divorce. And like
many trends begun by the sexual revolution, women and children are
those harmed, as divorce leaves them economically, psychologically,
and socially worse off. 4
These surveys correlated the number of women’s premarital sexual
partners with the divorce rate of their marriages within five years. Of
women who married after the year 2000, 95% who did not have sex
before marriage were still married five years later — the lowest divorce
rate by far. One in five women who had one premarital sexual partner
were divorced within five years of marriage; an average of one in three
women with two-to-three premarital sexual partners were divorced
within five years; and those with ten or more premarital sexual partners
had the highest divorce rate of all, nearing 35%. 5 Furthermore, according
to surveys done by the National Marriage Project, individuals having
premarital sexual relationships experienced less marital satisfaction
than those who did not. Though it is difficult to control for all other factors
leading to marital dissatisfaction, in general the more premarital
partners people have, the less marital satisfaction they experience. 6
Let us now turn to cohabitation, which has increased enormously
between 1960 and today, from 450,000 to 20.6 million couples (or 8%
of adults ages 18 and older as of 2020). 7 The two primary reasons for
this dramatic increase are 1) the almost universal belief in the cultural
myth that cohabitation is a good way to prepare for marriage and 2)
the compounding effects of social norming. Unfortunately, this popular
cultural myth is false. As a matter of fact, couples who had lived together
before marriage experienced less marital satisfaction and had a
higher divorce rate than those who did not. 8 Even more, recent surveys
by the Center for Disease Control as well as by Michael Rosenfeld and
Katharina Roesler show precisely the opposite of what the cultural myth
suggests, namely, that the longer couples cohabitate, the more likely
they are to divorce. 9 Some researchers have attempted to explain away
this correlation by hypothesizing that couples who are likely to cohabitate
are also more likely to divorce, whether or not they lived together
first (in other words, the cause of divorce is supposedly the couple
themselves — not the cohabitation experience). Stanley and Rhoades
indicate that, though the couple’s predispositions may influence future
Surveys show
that the more
premarital
sexual partners
a person
has, the more
unhappy he or
she will be in
marriage, and
the more likely
the marriage
will end up in
divorce.
© Sophia Institute for Teachers Unit 3, Chapter 8: Premarital Sex and Cohabitation
159

divorce, the main problem comes from the cohabitation experience itself.
Couples who live together begin to want marriage less, and they
become more accepting of divorce. 10
These realities are compounded by two factors:
■ Many studies have shown that cohabitation is more stressful than
marriage because of lowered expectations, poorer communication,
and more fighting. 11 This higher degree of stress and agitation
transfers over to the couple’s marriage, (if they do marry), leading
to lower rates of marital satisfaction and higher rates of divorce.
■ Cohabitation decreases religious practice. 12 If marriage does occur,
the couple will transfer this weakened religious commitment to the
marriage. As we will see later in this chapter, religion is a major factor
in increasing marital satisfaction and longevity 13
Cohabitation
is particularly
dangerous
because it tends
to become
prolonged,
extending its
bad effects
while putting
off the good
effects of
marriage.
Cohabitation is particularly dangerous because it tends to become
prolonged, extending its bad effects while putting off the good effects
of marriage. How does this happen? Couples undergo three experiences
as cohabitation continues into the mid and long term, and we will define
each in turn:
■ The sliding effect.
■ Gender asymmetry.
■ Consumer lock-in. 14
The Sliding Effect
First, cohabitation promotes couples sliding into marriage rather than
making a deliberate commitment to become engaged and then married
for a lifetime. Couples start with sleeping over at each other’s places
and then slide into cohabitating. Thus, they bypass direct conversations
about living together in a committed way, starting a family, and
preparing for a future of intimate and generative self-giving love. Since
living together offers an easy exit, the couple concentrates on finding a
suitable place to live, decorating it, combining their bills, and adjusting
to a comfortable level of mutual support. Then, at some point, it may
seem to them that marriage is the right thing to do, and so, without
much discussion about the differences between cohabitation and marriage
(public permanent commitment, the starting of a family, and the
integration of two families of origin), the couple simply slides into it. As
it turns out, the lack of deliberation in the sliding effect causes lower
levels of commitment, dashed expectations, and a lack of preparation
for the challenges that families almost always face. The result is marital
dissatisfaction and increased divorce. 15
160 Apologetics II: Challenges of the Modern World
© Magis Center

Gender Asymmetry
Secondly, there is a problem of gender asymmetry in the reasons why
men and women cohabitate. Women tend to interpret cohabitation as a
step toward marriage. Some even feel pressured to cohabitate in order
to move toward engagement and marriage. On the other hand, men
tend to believe that cohabitation is a way to test the relationship and
postpone commitment — precisely the opposite of what women want. 16
These differences generally result in women pushing men toward engagement
and marriage and men trying to postpone it. If an engagement
occurs, many men have reservations about the permanent public
commitment, but ultimately give in because of the pressure and the
seeming practicality of continuing the combination of bills and mutual
support. Once again, the marriage is grounded less in a deliberate mutual
commitment to start a new life and family together, and more in
acceding to pressure and practical convenience — evidently less than a
solid foundation.
Cohabitation often bypasses
commitment and generally
creates unhealthy pressure
between men and women.
Melancholy by Edgar Degas (ca. 1860).
© Sophia Institute for Teachers Unit 3, Chapter 8: Premarital Sex and Cohabitation
161

Consumer Lock-In
Thirdly, the consumer lock-in effect extends the time of cohabitation
beyond couples’ expectations, leading to an intensification of its negative
effects. “Consumer lock-in” is a term from behavioral economics.
It describes how, once we have invested in something, we are less likely
to put in the work needed to make a change. We feel as though we are
locked in so to speak. For example, if you have been playing one sport
for most of your life, you might stick with it even though you would really
like to try a different one. You do not want to have to start all over,
learn new basic skills, buy all new equipment, and so forth. Economist
Meg Jay describes it as follows:
Lock-in is the decreased likelihood to search for, or
change to, another option once an investment in
something has been made. The greater the setup
costs, the less likely we are to move to another, even
better, situation [such as marriage if the couple is doing
well — or separation if the couple is fighting], especially
when faced with switching costs, or the time,
money, and effort it requires to make a change. 17
There is a higher purpose to
married life.
The Holy Family by Bartolomeo Schedoni (ca. 1613-1615).
162 Apologetics II: Challenges of the Modern World
© Magis Center

For cohabitating couples, the more time, energy, and resources
(both financial and emotional) they put into the relationship (i.e., combining
finances, renting or buying a home, mutual property, and so
forth), the more difficult it becomes to leave the relationship if they
want to. The result is more cohabiting couples staying in relationships
that they know have no potential for marriage. Consumer lock-in almost
guarantees that couples will live together longer than they had
initially intended. This extension will either prolong the stress and bad
relational experience or, if they are reluctant to take the needed steps
to get married, stave off the good effects of permanent commitment
and marriage. In both cases, cohabitation undermines marital satisfaction
and longevity.
What are the Benefits of Marriage?
The false wisdom of popular culture has not only devalued, but in
some cases dismissed the incredible value of marriage to individual
spouses, the bonding between spouses, children, and the culture.
Why does marriage have so many advantages over cohabitation?
The mutual resolve to maintain the relationship helps couples develop
emotional intimacy, toleration of weaknesses, complementarity of
gifts and talents, and strengthening of mutual identity over individual
identities. These benefits, in turn, strengthen marital stability, children’s
sense of security, and common cause (joint purpose in interacting
with the community, church, and culture). Let us take a closer
look at each of these elements.
Mutual Resolve
Most sociologists acknowledge that married couples seek a higher purpose
in their relationship than cohabitating couples. While the latter
may be content to obtain the benefits and support of living together
for the present time, married couples focus on a future for their children,
community life, and relationship with God. This orientation toward
the future and a higher joint purpose in life motivates the couple not
only to keep the marriage relationship going but also to improve it over
the course of time. This motivation moves the couple toward two important
cardinal virtues — temperance (self-control) and fortitude (the
resolve to overcome problems and the courage to deal with fears).
Think of the difference between how you might care for a car
you purchased, versus how someone who stole a car might treat it. If
you own a car, you are careful with it and make smart investments to
Married
couples focus
on a future for
their children,
community life,
and relationship
with God.
© Sophia Institute for Teachers Unit 3, Chapter 8: Premarital Sex and Cohabitation
163

Emotional
intimacy
not only
strengthens
relationships,
but also
heightens
happiness,
fulfillment,
dignity, and
meaning in life.
maintain it because you need it to last for years. Someone who stole a
car has no idea how long they will be able to keep it. They will drive it into
the ground to get everything they can from it in the short term. Or think
of a relationship like a plot of land. A farmer who wants to earn his livelihood
and feed his family for generations must practice self-control –
some portions must lie fallow so as not to deplete the soil. He will put his
earnings into improving the land. Permanence comes with a focus on
the future. This focus forces us to put aside selfish, short-term desires
for the benefit of a longer-lasting good. And this required self-control
is, of course, one reason cohabitation seems so attractive.
Emotional Intimacy
Emotional intimacy means drawing close to another human being. This
closeness has three qualities:
■ Genuine empathy, concern, and care for the other’s good independent
of how it affects us.
■ Being at home with a person — a familiarity and comfort level that
decreases stress and increases emotional security and support.
■ Finding meaning and purpose through the other while also giving
meaning and purpose to them.
These qualities of emotional intimacy not only strengthens relationships,
but also heightens happiness, fulfillment, dignity, and
meaning in life. It only comes, however, with giving ourselves to the
other — sacrificing some of our autonomy, individual agenda, and
personal comforts. Though marriage requires serving the other (and
sacrificing some of our desires), it yields tremendous fruit for the relationship,
children, religion, and emotional health (happiness, fulfillment,
meaning, and dignity).
Toleration and Complementarity
Where empathy, concern, and care are strong, toleration of weakness
and complementarity of talents are likewise strong. This means that a
couple will be more patient and forgiving of their spouse’s weaknesses,
insensitivities, and vices. This patience and forgiveness will calm anger,
bring about peace, increase marital satisfaction, and increase relationship
stability and security for the children, all of which lead to increasingly
mature and long-lasting marriages.
Key to developing this patience and forgiveness in a marriage is
practicing empathy, which, as we have learned, means looking for the
good (rather than the bad) in the other (see Chapter 3). If we focus on
164 Apologetics II: Challenges of the Modern World
© Magis Center

The Happy Family by Christoffel Bisschop (1892).
the bad (e.g., what is irritating, weak, or unkind), then we will treat others
as a problem instead of a mystery, meaning we will feel little in common
with them, making us weak in our desire to seek their good. Thus, it is
essential to keep focused on the good in them — their talents, virtues,
kindness, and transcendent mystery. Good, intimate marriages require
committing ourselves to focusing on the good in the other. Even more,
couples who practice their religion within marriage are more likely to be
patient and forgiving, not only because they feel accountable to God,
but also because they live in the grace (loving power) of God and pray
for one another.
A couple moves in the
direction of a higher purpose
when they invest in the
good of children, God, and
community.
Mutual Identity
Deep emotional intimacy and commitment to the virtues of temperance
and fortitude provide the foundation for a mutual identity that
transcends the two individual identities in marriage. This transcending
mutual identity is open to a higher purpose beyond the relationship
— particularly children, God (religion), and community involvement
(through a network of like-minded friends). When a couple moves in this
direction of higher purpose, the relationship enters a new plane of existence,
serving the good not only beyond the individuals, but also beyond
the couple. The relationship becomes a dynamic force for good,
and when it invests in the good of children, God, and community, they
© Sophia Institute for Teachers Unit 3, Chapter 8: Premarital Sex and Cohabitation
165

Religion and marriage are
reciprocally beneficial.
When a
couple invests
themselves in
God, religion,
and their church,
they soon
experience
support
from and
companionship
with them.
Coming from Evening Church by Samuel Palmer (1830).
in turn reward and strengthen the couple. For example, when the couple
gives life and love to their children, the children, in their own way, give
life and love to the couple, bringing about mutual happiness, fulfillment,
purpose, and even greater bonding. Similarly, when a couple invests
themselves in God, religion, and their church, they soon experience
support from and companionship with them. The companionship with
God is particularly important because it is filled not only with ultimate
purpose but with the guidance, protection, and inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. Investment in a church community brings with it not only supportive
friends, but also community support for faith, morality, and cultural
interaction. Finally, a couple’s investment in the community (perhaps
in a school, a sports program, or a service project) opens them to
new networks of like-minded friends and strong common cause.
166 Apologetics II: Challenges of the Modern World
© Magis Center

The Practice of Religion
It should come as no surprise that couples who practice their religion
with their children are significantly more satisfied, well-adjusted, and
bonded in their marriage than those who do not. These benefits lead to
significantly reduced divorce rates and increased stability and longevity
of marriage. 18 Therefore, the saying, “the couple who prays together,
stays together,” is proven true. As it turns out, religion and marriage are
reciprocally beneficial. Marriage tends to reinforce the religious commitment
of couples (while cohabitation undermines religious commitment),
19 and couples who practice religion are likely to have more satisfying,
stable, bonded, and long-lasting marriages. 20
What might we conclude about the benefits of public, permanent,
exclusively committed marriage? First, couples who are committed in
a strong religious marriage with deep emotional intimacy and children
consider themselves happy and purposeful even if they wrestle with
problems concerned with work, finances, children, etc. Secondly, couples
in strong marriages (committed, intimate, religious, and with children)
tend to network with families like themselves. This leads to considerable
support on religious, relational, and practical levels. These
“friends” tend to be “best friends” for the long term. Thirdly, though
strong religious committed intimate marriages take work, discipline in
virtue, fortitude, and prayer, the spouses in such marriages in their later
years say they would never trade it for anything else. They consider
themselves to be fortunate in their lives, their children, their relationships
with friends and community, their religion, and therefore their
purpose in life.
Conclusion
It is clear from considering the facts that, far from being narrow-minded
or simply wishing to impose an oppressive rule on His followers,
Jesus gave us a formula for strong, stable, long-lasting marriages, secure
children, emotional health, high mutual purpose in life, and eternal
salvation. The discipline and work needed for a deeply intimate
faith-filled marriage is worth everything we put into it. Whenever we
compromise Jesus’ insistence on permanence and exclusivity, we undermine
ourselves, our spouses, our marriages, our children, and even
our very salvation.
Couples who are
committed in a
strong religious
marriage with
deep emotional
intimacy
and children
consider
themselves
happy and
purposeful even
if they wrestle
with problems.
© Sophia Institute for Teachers Unit 3, Chapter 8: Premarital Sex and Cohabitation
167