Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday August 12 2015, @08:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the so-I-didn't-have-to-get-married??? dept.

a new study published in AJPH indicates that adults who are cohabitating have midlife health outcomes that are similar to adults in formal marriages. So in terms of the benefits specific to marriage, we can probably strike "longer, healthier life" from the list.

The study in question used 10,000 subjects from the British national Child Development Study, a birth cohort study that includes all people born in Britain during one week in March 1958. Participants were able to select their partnership status as married, cohabitating, or single. Health was measured using blood and inflammatory biomarkers, as well as respiratory capacity. The researchers controlled for previous socioeconomic status, previous health status, educational attainment, income, employment, and other demographic variables.

The study's results varied by gender. Among men, those who had never married/cohabitated displayed poorer overall health than men who were married during the observation period. By contrast, not marrying or cohabitating had less of a detrimental effect on women than on men. For women, the timing of the marriage mattered. Those who were married in their late 20s or early 30s had the overall best health, beating out both women who had married in their early 20s and women were never married/cohabitating.

Does co-habitating with cats or dogs count?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @01:50AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @01:50AM (#222063)

    Keep tilting the playing field in that direction for several centuries and maybe that will compensate for 6000 years of treating women as chattel.

    The answer to sexism isn't to start being sexist the other way, because then you just change the oppressors and the oppressed. While there is some sexism against men perhaps, that guy exaggerates the problem as usual, referring to our society as "misandrist".

    - children aka a flesh-and-blood legacy

    You do realize that children can be adopted, right?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:18AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:18AM (#222076)

    that guy exaggerates the problem

    Yup. I did a bit of that myself.

    children can be adopted

    Most guys who want kids want them in order to keep their own genes alive--not someone else's.

    N.B. When a new lion takes over a pride (group), the 1st thing he does is kill any cubs sired by the previous male. [google.com]
    It brings the females back into estrus when they are no longer nursing and gives him a shot at producing a generation carrying -his- genes.

    Male housecats kill kittens too.

    -- gewg_