Mọi người nghĩ sao về sống thử ở SV

[Coboncanh]

em phải làm 1 bài XHH về nan sống thử ở SV Việt Nam
mọi người cho em xin ý kiến(quan niệm)cụa mỗi người về vấn đề này nhá
ý kiến thực lòng nhá
viết thoải mái nha
em thanks nhìu nhìu

Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

Các bài viết cùng chuyên mục:

• Giúp mình tìm người quen với....
• [Event - Forum.tomihappy.vn] Mời tham gia...
• [EVENT YEUHOABINH.COM]: GIÁNG SINH HỒNG...
• Tuyển mem cho clan ola #HVTer
• HKT đến Hòa Bình..............
• Trung thu trời mưa!!! làm tí thơ thẩn...
• Ai là mem 9a4 Hữu Nghị khóa 06-10 vào đây pm...
• Ai nghe thơ về game dota thì vào nha!!!
• Bác hồ đọc tuyên ngôn độc lập
• "tám" rất có lợi!!!

[Mr.Pit]

ờ kể cũng hay
mún thử 1 lần cho bít
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[kembong]

tớ có 1 topic về cái này = tiếng anh .dịch đc thì tớ send cho .tớ cũng mời làm về cái này ko lâu
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[Hiền lành]

mình cũng k định sống thử
Nhưng sống thử cũng có thể coi là một giải fáp giúp giảm bớt tình trạng ly hôn ngay sau khi cưới
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[Coboncanh]

tớ có 1 topic về cái này = tiếng anh .dịch đc thì tớ send cho .tớ cũng mời làm về cái này ko lâu

bạn gửi link choa tớ đi
tớ có phần mềm dịch tự động rùi(thằng bạn tớ ý mà)
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[lnhoa]

Topic cũ,Cỏ hỏi chuyện a.love đc đấy

http://chuyenhvt.net/forum/showthread.php?t=720
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[kembong]

Cohabitation, sometimes called consensual union or de facto marriage, refers to unmarried heterosexual couples living together in an intimate relationship. Cohabitation as such is not a new phenomenon. It has, however, developed into a novel family form in contrast with conventional marriage. Part of this change is associated with the absolute rise in cohabitational relationships. Since the 1970s, many countries, particularly those in North America and Europe, have experienced rapid growth in their cohabitation rates. Although these numbers generally remain small relative to families composed of married couples, the absolute numbers of cohabiting couples have increased dramatically. Cohabitation was obscure and even taboo throughout the nineteenth century and until the 1970s. Nonmarital unions have become common because the meaning of the family has been altered by individualistic social values that have progressively matured since the late 1940s. As postwar trends illustrate, marriage is no longer the sanctified, permanent institution it once was. The proliferation of divorce, remarriage, stepfamilies, and single parenthood has transformed the institution of the family. With these structural changes, attitudes toward nonmarital unions have become increasingly permissive.

Because cohabitation involves a shared household between intimate partners, it has characteristics in common with marriage. Similarities include pooled economic resources, a gender division of labor in the household, and sexual exclusivity. However, even though the day-to-day interaction between cohabiting couples parallels that of married couples in several ways, important distinctions remain. While some argue that cohabitation has become a variant of marriage, the available evidence does not support this position. Kingsley Davis (1985) points out that if cohabitation were simply a variant of marriage then its increased prevalence vis-à-vis marriage would lack significance. Sociologists treat cohabitation as a distinct occurrence not just because it has displaced marriage, but also because it represents a structural change in family relationships.

Cohabitational relationships are distinct from marital ones in several crucial ways. Although these differences have become less pronounced with the increase in cohabitation (and could thus eventually vanish), the following characteristics define the essential boundaries between cohabitation and marriage.
1. Age. People in cohabitational relationships tend to be younger than people in marital relationships. This supports the argument that cohabitation is often an antecedent to marriage. The majority of cohabitational relationships dissolve because the couples involved get married;
2. Fertility. Children are less likely to be born into cohabitational relationships than they are into marital relationships;
3. Stability. Cohabitational relationships are short-lived compared to marital relationships. In Canada, only about 12 percent of cohabitations are expected to last ten years. By comparison, 90 percent of first marriages are expected to last this long (Wu 2000). The majority of cohabitational relationships terminate within three years. Although many of these relationships end because of marriage, the lack of longevity in cohabitations as such illustrates that these relationships have yet to develop into a normative variant of marriage;
4. Social acceptance. Even with its numerical growth and spread throughout society, cohabitation is not as socially acceptable as marriage. Cohabitation is socially tolerated in part because it is expected that cohabiting partners will eventually become married. Indeed, according to U.S. data, about three-quarters of never married cohabitors had definite plans for marriage or believed they would eventually marry their partner (Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin 1991). The youthful profile of cohabitation shows that marriage is still the preferred choice of union for most couples. If cohabitation were a variant of marriage, it would have a larger prevalence in older cohorts. Although many people have chosen to delay marriage, most have not rejected it completely. A major reason cohabitations have lower fertility than marriage is because couples tend to abandon cohabitation when children are in the immediate future (Manning and Smock 1995). In most countries, marriage is perceived as the most secure and legitimate union when children are involved;
5. State recognition. Unlike marriage, cohabitation is not sanctioned by the state, and persons in nonmarital unions do not necessarily acquire specific legal rights and obligations through their union. Without a formal ceremony and legal documentation, a couple is not married even if they have lived together for many years. However, after a set period of time (usually one or two years), cohabiting couples are recognized as common-law partners in some countries. In such instances, common-law partners can have similar rights and obligations as they would in a legal marriage. Common-law marriage can parallel legal marriage in terms of child support and custody, spousal maintenance, income tax, unemployment insurance, medical and dental benefits, and pensions. The degree to which cohabitors are treated like legally married couples usually corresponds to the degree nonmarital unions are socially accepted. But even where cohabitors do have rights, these are often unknown to cohabitors and more complicated to exercise than they are for married persons. In many cases, the rights that cohabiting couples possess have been established by court decisions rather than by state law, as they are for married couples. Perhaps the most crucial legal distinction between these unions is the absence of shared property rights in common-law relationships. Married couples acquire shared property rights upon establishing their union, but cohabiting couples must do so through the courts. In sum, no uniform and guaranteed set of rights applies to cohabitation. This deficiency shows that in most countries, cohabitation is not yet perceived as a legitimate variant to marriage from the perspective of the state.

The Effects on Children
What happens to children born to cohabiting parents?

Some people believe that if a cohabiting couple have children together, then they must be committed and stable. However, cohabitations with children are even more likely to break up than childless ones. 11 About 15 percent of one-parent families are created through the break-up of cohabiting unions. One study found that less than ten per cent of women who have their first child in a cohabiting relationship are still cohabiting ten years later. About 40 per cent will have married, but 50 percent will be lone unmarried mothers because their relationships have broken up.

Today, more than 20% of children are born to cohabiting couples. However, only about one third of those children will remain with both their parents throughout their childhood. That is partly because cohabiting couples who have children are even more likely to break up than childless couples, and partly because cohabiting couples who subsequently marry are more likely to divorce, and to divorce earlier.

All this means that children born to cohabiting parents are more likely to experience a series of disruptions in their family life, which can have negative consequences for their emotional and educational development. Children living with cohabiting couples do less well at school and are more likely to suffer from emotional problems than children of married couples.

Financially, children of cohabitants are less well off than children whose parents are married. Married fathers are more likely than cohabiting fathers to support their children. Even after the break-up of their parents' relationship, children of divorced parents are more likely than children of cohabiting couples who have split up to receive support from their fathers.

Unmarried fathers, even those cohabiting with their children's mother, do not automatically have the same parental rights as married or divorced fathers. If their parents break up, children born to cohabiting couples are less likely than children of divorced parents to maintain contact with their fathers.

Chart


Source: Berthoud, R. and Gershuny, J., editors, Seven Years in the Lives of British Families, London: The Policy Press, 2000, p. 40.
Cohabitants as 'step-parents'

When married or cohabiting couples with children divorce, or break up, one parent sometimes remarries or moves in with a new person. One scholar estimated that, before their seventeenth birthday, more than one in twenty children would live in a formalized step-family where one parent (usually their mother) has remarried, and over one in fourteen children would live in an informal 'step-family' where their mother is living with someone who has neither a biological nor a legal tie to her child. Statistically speaking, these informal cohabiting step-families are the most unsafe environments for children. Children living in cohabiting step-families are at significantly higher risk of child abuse. Live-in and visiting boyfriends are much more likely than biological fathers or married step-fathers to inflict severe physical abuse, sexual abuse and child killing.

Living in a step-family poses other risks to young people. In one study, young men living in step-families were 1.4 times more likely to be serious or persistent offenders.Young women in step-families were 2.25 times as likely to be serious offenders. More than one in five young people living in step-families runs away from home.
Private Arrangement or Public Commitment?
Free to choose?

Some people describe cohabitation as a rebellion against traditional family forms, striking a blow for freedom and independence. While some people do make a conscious choice to avoid marriage, others simply 'drift into' cohabitation. Many other people live together because it seems the best choice available at the time, even though they see it as far from ideal.

Finances might influence people's choices. For many people, especially those in low-paid or irregular work, getting married can seem too expensive. The discrimination against marriage in the tax and benefits system means that some people are better off by keeping their relationships 'off the books'. Some people also fear that getting married is a high- risk gamble because no-fault divorce laws make it easier for a spouse to walk away from their commitment.
More than 'just a piece of paper'

Traditionally, marriage has had a special status in British law and society. Marriage developed as a way to provide stability for families and for all of society. Marriage is a declaration of commitment which has public as well as private consequences. It is an institution which offers benefits not only to the couples themselves but to society as a whole. When people marry, they commit themselves not only to being emotional and sexual partners, but also to taking care of each other-for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health. They promise to stick by each other through the ups and downs that occur in everyone's lives. This promise and the trust it builds encourage partners to make sacrifices for the good of the family. Traditionally, British government and society have supported the institution of marriage by giving it certain privileges and responsibilities, and by enforcing consequences for breaking marriage vows.

A decrease in the number of marriages and an increase in cohabitation both have come in the wake of a large increase in divorce in the last thirty years. Some people argue that these trends are due to people being less willing to make commitments, or perhaps being more fearful that others will break their promises.
The role of the State

Although a good deal of evidence shows that cohabiting relationships have higher risks of poor outcomes, governmental and other official bodies continue to treat cohabitation and marriage as essentially the same. For example, the Lord Chancellor's department stated that 'the growing acceptance of long-term cohabitation as a preliminary or alternative to marriage' means that 'many such relationships must be at least as stable as marriage'. 21 Meanwhile, the Home Secretary Jack Straw takes the view that we 'shouldn't get in a paddy about the decline of formal marriage' and that 'the most important thing is the quality of the relationship, not the institution in itself'.

Some people argue that marriage should not receive any special recognition from the state. They claim that cohabitants should have the same legal rights and responsibilities which used to be reserved for marriage, from property rights to the right to take decisions about children's lives.

Currently, when a married couple divorces, a court decides how to divide their property, based upon the needs of both spouses and any children they have. However, when a cohabiting couple break up, each person retains ownership of their own property. This system ensures that individuals who commit themselves to the institution of marriage have some legal protection. It also protects the freedom of those who choose to live with each other outside the bounds of marriage.

The Solicitors Family Law Association and some other groups have called for extending the same marriage rights to cohabiting couples upon their break up. However, this action would deprive people of their right to live together on their own terms. Furthermore, it would blur the already fuzzy distinction between cohabitation and marriage. Undermining the special status of marriage would weaken an option for people who want to make both a private and a public commitment.

Although a marriage always requires two people, a divorce sometimes requires just one person, leaving the other in the cold. The state could help strengthen the institution of marriage by ending 'no-fault', non-consensual or unilateral divorce, and by introducing divorce settlements which penalise, rather than favour, the spouse who leaves or behaves badly.


P/S:good luck
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[Mr.Vip]

Sống thử à
Con zai thì ko sao, nhưng lo kon gái thui
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[[C2]H0angHa]

Nghe cũng thú vị đấy nhỉ
mún thử 1 lân cho biết
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[co0lb0y9x]

ò hay chứ cũng muốn thử nhưng chưa có đối tượng
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[girl_quay_93]

Ui , bài tiếng anh thía kia
em mất mấy tháng may ra dịch đc 1nửa chỗ kia
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[Hiền lành]

bài của chị Kem chỉ là sống thử
Chứ nói về mặt sống thử trong sinh Viên thì chưa đủ
Chị cỏ thêm mấy cái ảnh hưởng về học tập linh tinh vòa ý
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[yeuemnhieu]

Hãy nói không với sống thử
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[Mr.Vip]

Hãy nói không với sống thử

ý kiến cá nhân:kill, đừng đưa ra như 1 khẩu hiệu vậy chứ:
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net

[Ms l3ng k3ng]

Chị nghĩ là sống thử nó đang trở thành một xu hướng trong bộ phận giới trẻ VN, chưa cần biết nó tốt hay xấu, vì mỗi người một quan điểm, nhưng chắc chắn là với cái xã hội này thì với nhiều người nó là điều ko thể tránh khỏi. Bản thân chị không đồng tình nhưng chưa bao giờ phản đối hay dị nghị, mỗi người có một cuộc đời và họ có quyền lựa chọn, chỉ có điều đừng lựa chọn vội vàng mà thôi, và nếu những SV sống thử họ đã có sự suy nghĩ đủ nhiều và quyết định, thì xin xã hội đừng dị nghị này kia.
Nguồn từ: http://chuyenhvt.net