从约会到同居:“他的”和“她的”同居决策比较--基于“90后”流动青年同居者的质性研究

未婚同居现象在中国日趋增多,但对于年轻人如何从约会发展到同居、性别是否以及怎样影响同居的动机与意义还缺乏研究。本文通过对94名正在同居和近期经历同居的"90后"乡-城流动青年的深入访谈,从性别视角探讨了影响年轻人从恋爱交往向同居转变的因素。研究发现,流动青年受访者的同居,无论男女大部分发生在有结婚意图甚至是订婚之后,但在同居决定如何受结婚目标推动上出现了明显的性别特征,女性更多地因道德规范压力,男性更多地出于经济和时间成本。同时,一些流动青年的同居决策也受到现实因素的影响,如为了相处或居住上的便利以及意外怀孕的发生,往往会推动男女加快向同居的转变;经济层面的考虑对同居决定的影响则因性别而异,女性更有可能出于经济需要而加快同居,而男性更多地因经济紧张而推迟同居。总之,传统性别文化规范和农村婚姻市场变动延伸到同居,并影响流动青年男女的同居决策。     

婚姻、同居、生活伴侣辨析

当代社会婚姻的主流主体是一男一女的结合,但不是唯一主体。婚姻当事人是生活伴侣,必然同居,这是婚姻内在的本质要求。异性婚姻仍然是一种与人类社会共存亡的身份形态,值得倍加遵从与推崇。生活伴侣是一种有别于婚姻及单纯意义上的同居,而为法律认可的身份关系,同居也是其内在的本质要求。为法律认可的生活伴侣或同性婚姻,我们只能以待异性婚姻一样的视角“平等”待之。与受法律认可的婚姻或生活伴侣无关的同居:一是违法同居,不予以法律保护;二是理论上认可的合法同居,依据契约身份关系及现代民法的基本原则予以保护。     

学生同居受处分的法律思考——论学校自主管理权保障与学生合法权益保护之谐调

近年来,学校成为被告的频度不断增高,学校在很多争议中成为社会关注的焦点。实际上,争议的核心在于学校的自主管理权问题。笔者认为,依法维护学校的自主管理权是非常重要的。而学校自主管理权的基本内涵是:学校的管理活动,不违法即合法。通过对学生同居受处分这一典型案例的剖析,笔者提出了实现对学校自主管理权保障与学生合法权益保护之谐调的期待。     

Partnership in Love and in Business

This article ponders the influences ofthe dichotomous nature of our understanding law andto questions that starting point on different levels oflegal thinking.The purpose of law is to make rules for our socialbehaviour but there are no specific images of humanbeings behind law. When there are no defined images,subconscious cultural images shape our thinkingsometimes even without our realizing it, and withoutserious discussion. The division between family andthe market has to do with gender divisions as well aswith the division between family and contract law. Thelogic and human image behind these two branches of lawis different.Even if we may behave differently in differentsituations we do not become altogether differentkinds of human beings with different values when wechange surroundings. Thus, we might instead develop asa starting point human co-operation law where familyand business partnerships are seen as specialbranches. The starting point of this co-operation lawwould be many-sided and pluralistic human beings, who would be atthe same time loving and egotistic, communal andindividual, feminine and masculine. Such human beingsmay be regarded as multicoloured instead of white orblack.     

非婚同居中女性健康权保护的法律困境及对策

规范非婚同居已经成为我国婚姻法学界的共识,但同居中女性的健康权问题却被忽略了。在司法实践中,许多法官往往用侵权法规则来解决相关的法律纠纷,在现行的法律框架下,这只是一种权宜之计。女性在非婚同居中的健康权不仅仅是女性健康不受侵犯的一种私法上的消极权利,也是一种积极的权利,国家有义务通过相关法律制度来保障女性健康权,这一点需要通过尽快制定非婚同居的法律来实现。     

ADOLESCENT VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION AND PRECOCIOUS UNION FORMATION*

This article bridges scholarship in criminology and family sociology by extending arguments about “precocious exits” from adolescence to consider early union formation as a salient outcome of violent victimization for youths. Research indicates that early union formation is associated with several negative outcomes; yet the absence of attention to union formation as a consequence of violent victimization is noteworthy. We address this gap by drawing on life course theory and data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) to examine the effect of violent victimization (“street” violence) on the timing of first coresidential union formation—differentiating between marriage and cohabitation—in young adulthood. Estimates from Cox proportional hazard models show that adolescent victims of street violence experience higher rates of first union formation, especially marriage, early in the transition to adulthood; however, this effect declines with age, as such unions become more normative. Importantly, the effect of violent victimization on first union timing is robust to controls for nonviolent delinquency, substance abuse, and violent perpetration. We conclude by discussing directions for future research on the association between violent victimization and coresidential unions with an eye toward the implications of such early union formation for desistance.     

民法视野中的婚内强奸罪

婚姻使男女双方从性行为主体角度获得了与对方同居的资格 ,夫妻双方获得的是向对方的同居请求权 ,而非对对方性的支配权。妇女性权利是妇女的一项基本人身权利 ,不能以任何形式转由他人支配和行使 ,包括其丈夫。从利益衡量和妇女解放运动的趋势看 ,婚内强奸亦应成立强奸罪。     

Losing the Feminist Voice? Debates on The Legal Recognition of Same Sex Partnerships in Canada

Over the last decade, legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Canada has accelerated. By and large, same-sex cohabitants are now recognised in the same manner as opposite-sex cohabitants, and same-sex marriage was legalised in 2005. Without diminishing the struggle that lesbians and gay men have endured to secure this somewhat revolutionary legal recognition, this article troubles its narrative of progress. In particular, we investigate the terms on which recent legal struggles have advanced, as well as the ways in which resistance to the legal recognition has been expressed and dealt with. We argue that to the extent that feminist critiques of marriage, familial ideology, and the privatisation of economic responsibility are marginalised, conservative and heteronormative discourses on marriage and family are reinforced. Our case studies include two pivotal moments in the quest for legislative recognition of same-sex relationships: the Hearings of the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-23, The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in 2000 and the hearings on Same-Sex Marriage in 2003. We find that the debates operated within a narrow paradigm that bolstered many existing hierarchies and exacerbated conditions for those who are economically disadvantaged.     

Cohabitation and the Law Commission’s Project

In 2004, the U.K. parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act which provides a scheme to enable same-sex couples to obtain formal recognition of their relationships through the registration of a civil partnership. When the Civil Partnership Bill was making its way through parliament, attempts were made in the House of Lords to derail the Bill through amendments seeking to extend the Bill to certain familial relationships of care and support. In order to counter these attempts and to facilitate the removal of the amendments, the government gave the assurance that the matter of the economically vulnerable cohabitant would be referred back to the Law Commission for England and Wales for review. Consequently, in July 2005, the Law Commission commenced its project on cohabitation. This paper seeks to examine models of reform (such as the one proposed by the Law Society of England and Wales in its 2002 Cohabitation report) as well as those introduced in other Commonwealth countries. The aim is to identify some of the crucial questions that the Law Commission will need to give careful consideration to if they are to make recommendations that will provide a more radical approach to this area of the law, rather than adopt the more conservative approach of including cohabitation in ‘piggy back’ mode on the marriage model.     

The unmarried couple in post-communist Romania: a qualitative sociological approach

Over the last few decades, ‘new’ contemporary couple relationships have been at the heart of international research on the cultural meanings and reference values that organize life couple nowadays. What is the situation in Romania? After the fall of the communist regime, the rise and development of new forms of couple relationships (other than the legitimate nuclear family that was widely accepted during the former political regime) have become more and more visible. During the transition to a market economy and pluralistic democracy, the development of living together outside marriage and the progressive spread of democratic values, as well as the slow but deep redefinition of the institution of marriage, have been obvious. Yet there have been insufficient efforts in tracking and reporting these transformations. This article presents some results of the first qualitative sociological investigation dedicated to cohabiting unmarried couples in post-communist Romania. In order to have a greater understanding of cohabitation at a macro level, it first focuses on the way cohabitation is presented in the Romanian demographic literature. Second, the analysis is followed by a micro-level study based on qualitative field research conducted in Bucharest with young people living as part of cohabiting opposite-sex couples.