TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Born out of Wedlock?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Born out of Wedlock?

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
Now I was going over a few stats about Iceland and it struck me that what I see as normal and grew up with as completely ok might not be so for others. The cultures between countries can be quite different even when it's two first world western countries.

The stats I was going over and looking through were about births. Basically in Iceland 65% of all children born since year 2000 were born outside marriages, the stat is slightly lower if you go further back but still above 60%.

At the same time children born to mothers 17 years or younger had an incidence of just under 9 per 1000 children born. I.e teenage pregnancies are very rare.

This all fits in with my experience and I was actually surprised that 35% of children are born within marriages since pretty much every single person I know was born of unmarried parents. Then I realised that those numbers list all children born and often second or third children are born after people get married.

How things go usually back home is that people get together, move in eventually, might buy a flat or a house and then when their first child is around 3 years old they'll probably get married. Most of the weddings I've been to had the child of the happy couple as the ring bearer to carry the rings up the aisle. I find that completely normal.

So much so that I went to a Scottish wedding and the couple didn't have any children so they 'borrowed' an adorable girl the bride to be used to babysit to carry the rings and I felt deep down that that was wrong. It should be their child or no child. I.e only the core family should be up at the altar, heh..

Part of all this is probably caused by the fact that Iceland still go by a patronymic naming system so the names of anyone in a family will be the same no matter if the parents are married or not. In short though there is absolutely no stigma whatsoever against sex before marriage.

There's also no social stigma against single mothers although it's seen as a duty of her family to help out then as much as they can. It takes a village and all that

One side effect of this is that I find engagements baffling. Since for most people I know the period leading up to the marriage involved them living together, buying a house and having children and that showed their intent to stay together a lot more than an engagement announcement.

So.. do you find this weird? completely normal or horrifying? I'm rather curious.
post #2 of 45
Sorry I belive childern should come after the wedding( at least 9 months)
post #3 of 45
I actually find it very normal too. I live in Quebec, and here marriage has become much less prevalent. Quebec used to be a very religious province where the government and the catholic church were very closely associated. But then things changed pretty quickly around the 60s and most people now aren't religious at all.

Of the people in my generation, I think the only person I know who is married is my cousin and that's only because she's in the army and she got married so her and her husband could be transfered together.
My younger brother isn't married but he and his girlfriend have lived together for years and have two kids.

So if people want to get married after they have kids, it's certainly not frowned upon around here. But most people don't even do that.
post #4 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherral46 View Post
Sorry I belive childern should come after the wedding( at least 9 months)
Have to say I feel the same.
post #5 of 45
sure i would perfer they be married.
At least here is the US the rate at which a child get in trouble with the law is much higher with one-parent family.
post #6 of 45
Sorry Cindy, we gonna have to part ways on this one a bit.

It's more about having responsible parents involved in the upbringing than it is about them being married. In the perfect world, that's what happens. There are all kinds of circumstances where it doesn't work out.
post #7 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
sure i would perfer they be married.
At least here is the US the rate at which a child get in trouble with the law is much higher with one-parent family.
Yes, I think that our U.S. culture would need to become much more tolerant for that lifestyle to work out here.
post #8 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
sure i would perfer they be married.
At least here is the US the rate at which a child get in trouble with the law is much higher with one-parent family.
I think that's probably more likely to happen when there's a taboo on being a single mother. I.e then it's more likely that the child of a single mother will be unplanned and unwanted and in most stats I've seen unwanted children have the odds against them statistically.

Anyway the 65% born to unmarried mothers doesn't mean they're all single mothers. Some more stats concerning marriage in Iceland! (yeah I had way too much fun polling the database I found).

Most children in Iceland these days are born to people who are in a stable long term relationship but aren't married yet.

57% of people who get married in Iceland have been in a 'consensual union' for 2-10 years. Even 3% have been together for 20 years before getting married.

When it comes to children I think it's more important that the parents are in a stable long term relationship than it is that the parents are married. In a lot of countries these things go together but they don't have to.

I also don't mean that people shouldn't get married or that it's not ok to think people should be married before they have children. Far from it. I won't agree with that point of view personally but it doesn't bother me when other people have that point of view. What would bother me if it were legally enforced but that's not going to happen
post #9 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
Yes, I think that our U.S. culture would need to become much more tolerant for that lifestyle to work out here.
Yep and it's really REALLY hard being a single parent without adequete support. The best support for a mother would of course be another human being 100% involved in raising the child with her, like the father of the child or another person also commited to raising the child as their own.

When that's not possible having good support from an extended family and help from the government makes a huge difference. It's still tough of course but it's possible and not being seen in any way as a 'bad' person for raising a child alone helps too.

Married couples or 'longterm stable relationship but not married' also use the resources including cheap subsidised daycare available and around 90% of women work outside the home. It's more unusual back home to be a stay at home mom/dad than it is to be a single mom/dad (NB: unusual is not the same as bad, I'm not saying there shouldn't be stay at home parents).

Anyway I find it really interesting that the things you take for granted are very often not taken for granted somewhere else and might even be the complete opposite.
post #10 of 45
Interesting about the teen mothers stats, do you know why it's so low?

Seems to be pretty common over here (at least amongst those I know/work with) to have children before marriage. I don't have a problem with it.
post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siggav View Post
I think that's probably more likely to happen when there's a taboo on being a single mother. I.e then it's more likely that the child of a single mother will be unplanned and unwanted and in most stats I've seen unwanted children have the odds against them statistically.

When it comes to children I think it's more important that the parents are in a stable long term relationship than it is that the parents are married. In a lot of countries these things go together but they don't have to.

I also don't mean that people shouldn't get married or that it's not ok to think people should be married before they have children. Far from it. I won't agree with that point of view personally but it doesn't bother me when other people have that point of view. What would bother me if it were legally enforced but that's not going to happen
its not so much as being a taboo, as its common here now.
most of the time, kids are left with only there mother.
there is a huge chance the family will be poor. Which is where i think moden media has done the familiy no favor. They have been for years telling males they are not needed for the family. They did the same to the black community 100 years ago. Made it almost impossable for the males to support there family. (ok kinda off topic)

i will agree that a stable long term relationship is the most important part. Studies have showen that in most relationships it is the father that gives the discipline.
granted there are always single mothers who do a great job. But a raising a family is a 2 person job. That why marriage was invented in the first place. hehe it was to make us guys stay around
post #12 of 45
Well I pretty much agree with you siggav most people i know have kids out of marriage and some arent even with the father anymore.

My daughter was born before we got married and she was our flower girl when we got married she was only 20 months at the time.
Then we had our son 2 years later.

In Glasgow and most other places this is normal especially as after the child is born the parents split or split before the baby is born.

My husbands mum never married their dad but had 4 kids to him (giving him a total of 10 and i wont comment of what i think of him). Andrew(hubby) has 2 sisters and a brother and all of them have 1 child and neither of them are married.

I think its the norm these days

Angela
post #13 of 45
It's very common these days to have children without being married.

It doesn't make them a bad person either
post #14 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by missymotus View Post
Interesting about the teen mothers stats, do you know why it's so low?
I think the teen mothers stats are that low simply because of effective sex education and easy access to birth control even for teenagers. The age of consent is technically 18 but 14 year olds can have sex as long as the partner has not reached 24 so it's not that the teens aren't having sex. The average age of virginity loss is 15.7

The pregnancy rates go up as well if you include 18 and 19 year olds. I stopped at the official age of consent when I counted things up.

I don't know what it's like now but I had the first sex ed classes at 11 as a part of the school curriculum that was just the basic, girls will get periods, you'll all start growing hair in your armpit and this is how babies happen talk.

At 14 we got the actual sex ed with explanations of how condoms work and where to get them, have to study about all the birth control methods available (there was an exam) and we were even made to watch a cartoon that explained masturbation and then sex etiquette (for women and men!) graphically just in case we didn't know where our bits were.
post #15 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siggav View Post
I don't know what it's like now but I had the first sex ed classes at 11 as a part of the school curriculum that was just the basic, girls will get periods, you'll all start growing hair in your armpit and this is how babies happen talk.

At 14 we got the actual sex ed with explanations of how condoms work and where to get them, have to study about all the birth control methods available (there was an exam) and we were even made to watch a cartoon that explained masturbation and then sex etiquette (for women and men!) graphically just in case we didn't know where our bits were.
My experiences of sex ed are are similar. As for the topic, in Finland about 40% of children are born out of wedlock. It's nothing special. There are very few teen mothers here too, presumably because of the proper sex ed.
post #16 of 45
I'm going to hijack this thread for a second, so just bare with me.

There are some things I really like about Iceland.

1. It allows any adult female to get her tubes tied at any point. This can also be free depending on one's income.

2. Birth control, other than a tubal, is available for every single woman or man. This is also not dependent on income.

So the statistics that you have posted make me think that the children that are being born are wanted. That's important.

EDIT: So, after reading some more of your statistics the majority of children are being born into homes with two parents. Now, how does your legal system work if one person in that couple no longer wants to be in the relationship? Are there major child custody battles in Iceland? The reason that I ask, is simply because it's much easier for a woman obtain primary care status in the US than a man.
post #17 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siggav View Post
I think the teen mothers stats are that low simply because of effective sex education and easy access to birth control even for teenagers. The age of consent is technically 18 but 14 year olds can have sex as long as the partner has not reached 24 so it's not that the teens aren't having sex. The average age of virginity loss is 15.7

The pregnancy rates go up as well if you include 18 and 19 year olds. I stopped at the official age of consent when I counted things up.

I don't know what it's like now but I had the first sex ed classes at 11 as a part of the school curriculum that was just the basic, girls will get periods, you'll all start growing hair in your armpit and this is how babies happen talk.

At 14 we got the actual sex ed with explanations of how condoms work and where to get them, have to study about all the birth control methods available (there was an exam) and we were even made to watch a cartoon that explained masturbation and then sex etiquette (for women and men!) graphically just in case we didn't know where our bits were.
I think the lack of government support makes it harder for American single moms. I'm thinking of health care, day care, subsidized housing, etc. Then there are the men who don't want to take any financial responsibility.

I was with you on this, I think the average age of virginity loss is about the same here. The sex ed beginning about age 11, the heavier stuff at about 14, but there must be a language thing with the sex etiquette -- etiquette means having good manners to me. I'm thinking of learning to say Please May I? and Thank you, that was very nice -- but I think you meant somethng else?
post #18 of 45
I had a child at a relatively young age, but I never bothered to get married.

Raising one baby was enough for me, thank you, I wasn't interested in having to raise a husband as well.

I have NEVER regretted being a single mother - I never collected child support, did it on my own, had a really hard time, yes, but in hindsight? Not getting married was the SMART thing to do.

I have seen all too many marriages fail, I have seen too many get together (or stay together) BECAUSE of the children) and these marriages never work out. Or, if they do stay together, they are completely miserable, and the children suffer as a result.

So I'm not saying getting pregnant young was RIGHT, but I wouldn't change a thing if I could go back and do it over.

In fact, I'm starting to think that marriage itself isn't natural - but then again, I believe in evolution, not dogma, and the bond of matrimony comes directly from religion.

I do support the idea of marriage for legal purposes, however. But I doubt it'll ever happen in my life - I have NO need of a husband.
post #19 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingersMom View Post
I do support the idea of marriage for legal purposes, however. But I doubt it'll ever happen in my life - I have NO need of a husband.
But you'd have so much more free time then!

I think the whole "out of wedlock" phrase implies different things to different people. It sounds like it was some illicit or illegal thing, which is not the case. And any stigma attached to it are from personal points of view, especially towards the children. Having a child is an act of love (normally) but not being married doesn't mean there was any less love.
post #20 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
etiquette means having good manners to me. I'm thinking of learning to say Please May I? and Thank you, that was very nice -- but I think you meant somethng else?
No no that was pretty much what I ment although of course not quite as formally as 'good manners'. I was more thinking 'good sex manners' as in make sure everything is consensual and that everyone knows and is comfortable with what might happen and really "Please May I" and "Thank you, that was very nice" or "No, I'd rather you didn't" isn't that far off

You're right though in that etiquette brings up sort of prim and formal connotations and that wasn't what I ment.


Then from lookingglass
Quote:
Now, how does your legal system work if one person in that couple no longer wants to be in the relationship? Are there major child custody battles in Iceland? The reason that I ask, is simply because it's much easier for a woman obtain primary care status in the US than a man.
It depends, 50% split custody is getting more and more common and children can have two legal homes and then the government helps out both parents seperately (although not at double the expense I think usually). For example if it's a disabled child the split parents will both get government help to get equipment or change their house around to better suit the child.

Still I think it's also easier for a woman to get primary care status in Iceland than a man. Like I said though the 50% split custody is more and more common and one friend of mine (he's male) is sharing an 'oops' child like that with the mother.

As for how child support works, the government can pay that to the parent with the child and then goes and collects the money from the other parent so for example a mother doesn't ever have to deal with a no good dad that doesn't pay child support. The state will then always pay her and then harass him to pay the state back. That only works for the minimum legal child support. If the parents have agreed on more than that per month they have to arrange the amount over the legal minimum themselves.

I have a really interesting article about the history of marriage and its status today bookmarked on another computer. I'll link it here when I can get to it. The gist was basically that in modern times now, marriage can be better than ever before since it can be a true partnership, however that it wasn't necessary either and definately not mandatory and also probably harder to get right than in the past when it was mostly an economic thing or a political alliance and love didn't really get to enter into it at all.
post #21 of 45
I'm probably going to surprise a lot of people by this statement, but here goes. I do not agree with having children out of wedlock. I think by not getting a commitment, a solid written in the books commitment, from either parent makes it too easy for one parent to weasle out of their responsibility. I guess I see it too much, women getting pregnant and the guy skipping out, or even if he sticks around, he doesn't offer a whole lot of support.

I personally would never, on purpose at least, have a child with no husband. Shoot, even when I had a husband I didn't want children with him cause I didn't think he was a very good Dad

I do agree, however, the early and explicit sex ed is the key to reducing the number of teen pregnancies in this country
post #22 of 45
It sounds like a difference in ideas about marriage, and not about sex or out-of-wedlock children to me.

If people are in a commited relationship and have bought a house and such together, then that seems a lot like a common-law marriage to me. The legal status of marriage vs unmarriage doesn't matter to the kid and in your country apparently not to anyone else either. Sounds a bit like here, how some people are banned by law from marrying each other but still have happy, lifetime-monogamous relationships and raise families together.

Here, it is different. Weddings are a big deal, marriage is a big deal. More people might be living together before they are married but it is still very stigmatized. I know, I've done it. My sister hid it from our parents until they were engaged, my parents refused to visit me when my ex and I lived together (hey, at least I didn't lie...).

That said, I think it is best for children to be born to a loving, committed couple but they needn't have the 'correct' legal status. And single parents make it work just as well, it's just harder to do.
post #23 of 45
I don't see a "piece of paper" making a big difference in any relationship with perhaps the exception that some men believe it gives them the right to abuse the woman more if she is his wife. I've had friends that have had a child within and without wedlock and the one with the child out of wedlock was a great mom, did it all on her own and raised a fine young man. The other one was married before having her children and he ran around on her from day one, left her when she was pregnant for their second child, remarried and put everything in his new wife's name so my friend could get no child support. I've also seen married couples stay together for the sake of the children - both they and the children were miserable.

So to sum up my personal feelings, I don't think it matters one way or the other. If a child is born out of love and raised with love, whether the parents are married or not doesn't really make a difference.
post #24 of 45
The 2005 German statistics were just released this month, and the numbers are fairly high. About 30% of all children born in Germany are born out of wedlock now. There are really big regional differences, though, with more illegitimate children born in northern and eastern Germany, e.g. 64% in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, and 62% in Saxony-Anhalt, and fewer in western and southern Germany, e.g., Baden-Württemberg 19%, Hesse 22%.

This is purely conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if (relatively) cheap DNA tests which easily prove or disprove paternity played a role in reducing the pressure to wait until you're married to have kids.
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I don't see a "piece of paper" making a big difference in any relationship with perhaps the exception that some men believe it gives them the right to abuse the woman more if she is his wife.
Well, let's see...except for health care coverage, life insurance death benefits, and the right to make final decisions for your loved one in the event of the worst happening, also legal protection regarding certain areas of the law, like not incriminating your spouse in a criminal court...in those areas, a "piece of paper" can make a tremendous difference.

That's why I said I only believe in matrimony for legal reasons.
post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingersMom View Post
Well, let's see...except for health care coverage, life insurance death benefits, and the right to make final decisions for your loved one in the event of the worst happening, also legal protection regarding certain areas of the law, like not incriminating your spouse in a criminal court...in those areas, a "piece of paper" can make a tremendous difference.

That's why I said I only believe in matrimony for legal reasons.
Oops, there I go speaking from a "Canadian" perspective. I don't need to be married to get good health care, my partner (married or not) can name me as beneficiary on all life insurance documents and I WILL receive the death benefits (my friend divorced her husband - he didn't change the beneficiary and when he died she got the life insurance. His parents fought it, but the insurance company told them they didn't care what the relationship was between them, he named her as beneficiary and that's what they go by), a Power of Attorney will allow me to make decisions for any loved one in the event they are incapacitated, and last point, I would hope that I were never involved with anyone that I would not want to testify against in court, . . .
post #27 of 45
To have kids out of wedlock is not the norm here. Everyone I know would prefer wedding THEN baby. I know 2 people who have kids and do not plan on marrying the fathers, mostly because they are jerks. One is getting married this summer and the father told he 3 year old son that she "wouldn't want him anymore" after the wedding. Yeah we are still pissed off at him. Having kids out of marriage is still a bit taboo around here, it's certainly not something you really strive for.
post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
It sounds like a difference in ideas about marriage, and not about sex or out-of-wedlock children to me.

If people are in a commited relationship and have bought a house and such together, then that seems a lot like a common-law marriage to me. The legal status of marriage vs unmarriage doesn't matter to the kid and in your country apparently not to anyone else either. Sounds a bit like here, how some people are banned by law from marrying each other but still have happy, lifetime-monogamous relationships and raise families together.

Here, it is different. Weddings are a big deal, marriage is a big deal. More people might be living together before they are married but it is still very stigmatized. I know, I've done it. My sister hid it from our parents until they were engaged, my parents refused to visit me when my ex and I lived together (hey, at least I didn't lie...).

That said, I think it is best for children to be born to a loving, committed couple but they needn't have the 'correct' legal status. And single parents make it work just as well, it's just harder to do.
I agree.

I think in most cases, it is better for a child to be raised by two parents rather than one. (although I am sure well-adjusted people can raise a child on their own, especially if they have help from their extended family and community) But I don't think that's really the question here. Depending on the culture, many people perceive that you can either be single or married (with being in a relationship outside of marriage being a step towards marriage). Therefore they see "having children out of wedlock" as equivalent to being a single parent.
In other cultures, it's much more common to have long term committed relationships without marriage.
One of the factor that might explain the difference is religious. I understand that for many, it is important to have their union made official before God before they have children. For people who are not religious (or who see religion differently), this might not be as important. In my case, if I did get in a serious relationship, and decided to have a child with that person, I would see that as much more of a long term commitment than any piece of paper saying we are married.
post #29 of 45
Thread Starter 


What prompted me to start this thread in the first place was wondering about the different cultural perceptions of long term unmarried relationships vs. married ones and then also single parents a bit too. Also wanting to point out how different the attitude and values can be in nations that are industrial western nations. I mean that's just a tiny culture clash really compared to what you get if you go further away but it's still significant.

Oh and here's the article I mentioned earlier:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/01/...re-of-marriage
post #30 of 45
With the divorce rate as high as it is, just being born in wedlock doesn't guarantee a two parent upbringing.
Within my circle of friends (lets say me and 9 others) only 4 aren't in single parent families. We're all about 18/19 btw so I'm talking about their parents.
2 have cohabiting/married parents who appear to have a good relationship.
2 have cohabiting/married parents who are together for the sake of the children and that's it.
2 of my friends have lost their fathers.
And 4 have parents who are no longer together, but more or less share custody of the children, although the less said about my bf's dad the better.
While most if not all of my friends parents were once married, 60% no longer are, or wouldn't be if they could.
We represent a diverse social, economic and ethnic range.

The numbers of people attending church in England has fallen dramatically in the last 50 years, and while people still often send their children to schools that teach hymns etc, that faith doesn't leave the classroom. Since marriage is primarily a religious ideal, people who have no religion in other areas of their life may not think it necessary there either.

I consider my grandparents fairly typical of their generation in their views, being lapsed christians and extremely british.
At one point they considered separating, but that was a long time ago, when people didn't do that kind of thing, so they stuck it out, and now appear to live perfectly happily together.

My parents got married about 4 years ago, and while I can be extremely liberal in my views I do see the point of marriage. Funnily enough, I understand it less if you get married after having kids, as i see children as the biggest commitment of all.
I like the idea of a wedding providing physical proof of commitment, something that separates you from friends or flatmates.
Plus there's the pretty dress, rings, cake and huge party that goes with it.

I've just thought- if marriage declines, how will people tell if a date is married and cheating if they can't look for that band of pale skin??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Born out of Wedlock?