Evaluating The Cohabitation Epidemic Neil Clark Warren in his essay “The Cohabitation Epidemic” starts by using tennis stars Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf’s case to mention the “cohabitation” issue and then quoting the data from the U.S Census Bureau and researcher Larry Bumpass to show that the number of people involved in cohabitation has significantly increased in the U.S in the last few decades. After that, Warren concludes that we should be alarmed over the recent increase of cohabiting couples. Before arguing against cohabitation, Warren introduces what kinds of people are cohabiting and why they are cohabiting. Followed by that, the author first uses the …show more content…
Thus, any premises involved in Warren’s essay should intend to support this conclusion. The necessity of a trial marriage is irrelevant and does not intend to support the conclusion of this essay. Warren commits a red herring by the deliberate raising of an irrelevant issue during an argument. After discussing the fallacies Warren used in his essay, I want to use four strategies to have a closed and detailed assessment of the “So Why Bother with Marriage?” part of his essay to espouse my conclusion that Warren’s essay is unbelievable. First, the author states that those married couples who directly married without cohabitation have a lower divorce rate than those having cohabitation before marriage. Warren intends to prove that marriage provides stable relationship between a couple and cohabitation undermines such a relationship. The premises Warren used to support his claim are a result from one study and David and Barbara’s review. The problem here is based on the evidence Warren provided; it is difficult to conclude that marriage can hold people together and cohabitation may destroy such stable relationship between a couple. One reason is the sample size used in the study is too small compared to the millions of people who cohabit. Hasty generalization makes this premise questionably lead to the conclusion. The other premise which is the review from David and Barbara is also not trustable because no detailed evidence is provided to
In this essay, “The Cohabitation Epidemic,” by Neil Clark Warren, is talking about why many people decide to live their lives in cohabitation instead of getting married right away. Older generations would look at cohabiting as being something bad or even immoral. In this century, this epidemic is something common and, notwithstanding, normal. Over the years, the U.S. Census Bureau has kept up with how this lifestyle has evolved. In 1970, they had 1 million people that were “unmarried-partner households,” and that number rose to 3.2 million in 1990. In the year 2000, they had 11 million people living in those situations.
“In addition to the research showing the detriments of living together, several studies have discovered-with 80 percent to 94 percent accuracy-the variables that predict which marriages will thrive and which will not. This means unmarried couples can know in advance if they have a better-than-average chance of succeeding in marriage.” (pg.507). With an appeal to emotion, it is not a good idea to test a marriage as a result of making the relationship more worse and have more consequences that could lead to a divorce. Overall this essay, is an appeal to ignorance and a slippery slope. It constantly argues about the same topic with an additional lack of quality evidence to believe, since it is not specific to prove that the whole main argument would be
Waal (2008) predicts that “there will be 2.93m cohabiting couples by 2021” (p. 47). This would be a 90% increase in the past 25 years. Cohabiting couples have become more common due to the increase in social acceptance. An article in the New York Times (2012) contributes the increase to the sexual revolution and the availability of birth control.
Cohabitating has its pros and cons some of the advantages of it are: Sense of well-being, Delayed marriage, Knowledge about self and partner, and Safety. The disadvantages are: Feeling used or tricked, Problems with parents, Economic disadvantages, Effects on children, and other issues.
Interview questions emphasized cohabitation and the links between cohabitation and marriage. The final sample consisted of 6,881 married couples and 682 cohabiting couples; of these, 5,648 spouses and 519 cohabiting partners completed questionnaires (Vol. 22, Issue 2).
According to Dalton Conley, cohabitation is the “living together in an intimate relationship without formal, legal, or religious sanctioning”(Conley 458). From this, one can assume that cohabitation happens primarily between two people that are in a relationship. When looking at cohabitation within the United States, it has become more evident that it is slowly increasing in popularity. During the early ages, cohabitation was considered very scandalous and was frowned upon, but as the years progress, more and more couples start living together. Whether it is to experience the lifestyle they would have living together as if they were married or living together in order to save money, more and more people are living with their significant other.
Clinical Psychologist and professor at University of Virginia Meg jay, wrote “The Downside of Living Together”, The Defining Decade: Why Your Twenties Matter—and How to Make the Most of Them Now in 2012, which discusses effect from cohabitation. Jay points out that couples who cohabitate before marriage are more liable to divorce as opposed to couples who do not. Jay states that reasons to cohabitate often differ between partners. Women tend to see cohabitation as an act toward marriage. In contrary, men lean towards the idea that cohabitation is a form of a “test” or postpone marriage in a relationship. Jay continues that sometimes it is hard to get out of a cohabitation relationship due to “lock-in.” Jay explains, “lock-in” happens when the probability of changing is decreased once an investment is made. However, Jay believes that a good relationship can be maintain in cohabitation. Jay asserts that it is important to discuss personal view and commitment between couples before cohabitating, and to consider it as a step toward marriage. Jay concludes that living together might increase possibilities for mistakes, or even pressurize a person too long.
With over one million American children suffering yearly from their parents getting a divorce, it is evident why couples desire to cohabit before marrying. Divorce has shown to have a terrible effect on children (Fagan and Rector, 56). For some children this can result in lifelong psychological problems. Children who use drugs and alcohol are more likely to have come from a background that involves parental conflicts, such as divorce. Since divorce increases the chances of the children effected to abuse drugs or alcohol, many couples have been taking an extra step of cohabiting before marrying to hopefully decrease their chances of divorcing. However, divorce rates have steadily increased with the rapid increase of cohabitation rates. These divorce rates have been increasing steadily because it is now easier than ever to obtain a “no-fault” divorce. Also, these rates have been increasing because women no longer have to depend on the men in their lives to support them. As mentioned before, women are just as strong in the work force as men.
These constraints lead some cohabiting couples to marry, even though they would not have married under other circumstances. On the basis of this framework, Stanley, Rhoades, et al. (2006) argued that couples who are engaged prior to cohabitation, compared with those who are not, should report fewer problems and greater relationship stability following marriage, given that they already have made a major commitment to their partners. Several studies have provided evidence consistent with this hypothesis (Brown, 2004; Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009).
In the article “What if Marriage is Bad for Us?” Laurie Essig and Lynn Owens summarize the things that
Today, alternative long-term relationships are growing in times in heterosexual and LGBTQ relationships. Cohabitation is defined by “Recent Changes in Family Structure” as quote: “an intimate relationship that includes a common living place and which exists without the benefit of legal, cultural, or religious sanction.” Between 2005 and 2009 2/3 of relationships approximately were preceded by cohabitation (“Rise of Cohabitation” 2014.) This arrangement is less committed and therefore it takes longer to end, without much emotional devastation of a pricey divorces. Most marriages still begin with cohabitation. However, it is becoming less and less likely that cohabitation will end in a marriage. Marriage is still common in today’s culture, with approximately 60.25 million married couples in 2016 (“Number of married couples in the United States from 1960 to 2016 (in millions)” 2016.) This is evident why it is killing the nuclear family standard. People are having less desire to fully commit to a marriage in the first place. 1950 social standards would have never accepted an unmarried couple as a part of a normal life so only can a legal marriage constitutes the ideal set forth. Another, way to break the standard is remove some components.
Bruce Wydick argued that, “cohabitation may be narrowly defined as an intimate sexual union between two unmarried partners who share the same living quarter for a sustained period of time’’ (2). In other words, people who want to experience what being in a relationship truly is, tend to live under one roof and be more familiar with one-another. Couples are on the right path to set a committed relationship where the discussion about marriage is considered as the next step. However, many people doubt the fact as to live or not together with their future
For today’s young adults, the first generation to come of age during the divorce revolution, living together seems like a good way to achieve some of the benefits of marriage and avoid the risk of divorce. Couples who live together can share expenses and learn more about each other. They can find out if their partner has what it takes to be married. If things don’t work out, breaking up is easy to do. Cohabiting couples do not have to seek
Cohabitation is defined as a man and woman living in the same household and having sexual relations while not being married. There is relatively little data on health outcomes for people who have cohabitated, although there is some evidence that cohabitating couples have lower incomes (15% of cohabitating men are jobless while 8% of married men are jobless) and there may be negative academic effects for children of cohabitating mothers (Jay, 2012). Cohabitation rates are highest among those who have never married with just over a quarter of people surveyed reporting cohabitation before their first marriage (Jay, 2012). Of these, half reported that they expected their cohabitation to end in marriage; about one quarter to one third of cohabitations end either in marriage or dissolution of the relationship within 3 years (Jay, 2012). Further, cohabitation rates are highest for those who have not completed college, accounting for all but 12% of men and women reporting that they are living with their partners (Jay, 2012). Cohabitation and marriage are two significant decisions college students will make, but very little is known about what college students think about living together before marriage. Given the nearly 50% divorce rate in the United States (Jay, 2012), understanding how young adults view cohabitation as on option for life relationships needs further investigation.
Although marriage has been a central factor and gives meaning to human lives, the change in people’s lifestyles and behaviors through a long period of social development has resulted in alternate choices such as being single or nonmarital living. As a result, cohabitation has become more popular as a trendy life choice for young people. The majority of couples choose cohabitation as a precursor to marriage to gain a better understanding of each other. However, there are exceptions, such as where Thornton, Azinn, and Xie have noted: “In fact, the couple may simply slide or drift from single into the sharing of living quarters with little explicit discussion or decision-making. This sliding into cohabitation without