Zichang Wang
Professor Susana Marcelo
Eng.101
13 August 2020
Is Cohabitation Good or Bad?
The topic of whether cohabitation is good or bad is a hotly-contested and an intellectually-stimulating debate among the youth and elders alike. Before the 1960s, cohabitation was almost unheard of in the U.S. Specific laws were put in place, preventing unmarried partners from enjoying certain privileges, such as obtaining a home mortgage. To date, cohabitation is no longer the once disreputable idea but has become a normal and convenient union arrangement. Most Americans today tend to believe that premarital cohabitation is a prerequisite stage before marriage. In just two decades, the number of unmarried partners living together skyrocketed from 6 million to 17 million. The proponents of cohabitation cite advantages such as a test of compatibility between partners, convenience, cheaper rents, and improved well-being. On the other hand, its opponents maintain that cohabitation has adverse impacts on children’s well-being, is the foundation of divorce and separation prone marriages, and contradicts their religious beliefs. While it is true that cohabitation may have short-term rewards to unmarried partners, its long-term adverse effects on marital stability and children’s well-being should be the impetus to shun this practice by all means.
Cohabitation has negative impacts on the children’s well-being. Some of these adverse impacts are psychological torture when children see their parents break up, poverty as such children have fewer economic resources than fellows in married-parents family, and poor parenting due to the low education standards of cohabiting parents. In her article, “Cohabitation and Child Wellbeing,” Wendy Manning contends that “Family stability is a major contributor to children’s healthy development” (par.11). The striking difference between cohabiting and marital unions is the relationships’ stability or duration. The instability of most cohabiting relationships negatively affects the children. The sight of parents breaking up is emotionally and psychologically draining to the children. Since the average life of a cohabiting union is eighteen months, children as young as five years of age thus suffer the unfortunate break-up of their parents. Besides, such children are less economically privileged than those in stable married-parent families. The median income of a cohabiting parent household is almost 50% lower than that of married parent households. Therefore, parents should mindfully consider the adverse effects that cohabitation would have on their children before making such decisions. There exist more destructive effects of cohabitation on children.
The distractive family transitions and low educational attainments significantly affect the well-being of children in cohabiting unions. The children in cohabiting unions suffer almost three times as many family transitions compared to children born in married parent families. This continual change in the environment and qualities of children’s instructors is likely to confuse them at a younger age due to the inconsistency in guiding principles. Besides, the low education levels of cohabiting parents deny their children essential advantages. Manning confirms that “Having better educated parents may translate to better well-being for children through income, access to formal and informal resources, social skills, relationship options, and social support” (par.13). Generally, cohabiting mothers have less educational attainments than married mothers. The low education levels of cohabiting mothers deny their children several growth opportunities, as mothers play a critical role in child upbringing. Therefore, a cohabiting union is not the best option for the proper development of the child. The epitome of this undesirable childhood experience is when the child has to witness the heart-wrenching marital dissolution between the parents.
Premarital cohabitation is associated with a high risk of divorce and marital distress. The ambiguous nature of cohabiting unions and the low dedication levels witnessed among cohabitants make their future marriage unions prone to marital distress and dissolution. In their article, “Sliding Versus Deciding; Inertia and the Premarital Cohabitation Effect,” Scott Stanley, Galena Rhoades, and Howard Markman assert that, “For many couples, the ambiguity of cohabitation becomes part of the pathway toward a marriage more prone to distress or divorce…” (par.14). In the U.S, the lines of demarcation between the relationship’s types and stages are thin. Surprisingly, most cohabitants do not read from the same page regarding reasons for and how they should behave in a cohabiting union. Consequently, they cannot develop a clear and mutual understanding of their union. The lack of commitment and mutual clarity experienced in such unions make the partners unstable for a long-lasting marriage relationship. When two partners have high levels of commitment, they feel more secure about their future and have mutual clarity between them, and within their social networks. Instead of ambiguous cohabiting unions with a possible future result of marital dissolution, a courtship with well-defined boundaries and clear-cut plans should be considered. The risk of a future marriage prone to distress and divorce is catalyzed by relationship inertia.
Constraints can make cohabitants choose to continue staying together or decide to marry, even though they are incompatible. The constraints in a cohabiting union are likely to many than in dating, courtship, or marriage. The factors or materials that make it hard for individuals to exit a cohabiting relationship are, herein, described as constraints. According to Stanley, Rhoades, and Markman, “some cohabitants could find themselves being less than ideally compatible but likewise find that ending the relationship has become difficult, tipping the scale toward staying together and, for some, marriage” (par.15). Some of these constraints include a shared lease, pregnancy, children, financial responsibilities, and no perspective on feasible alternatives. Some partners who would, under normal circumstances, not marry end up doing so. Increased constraints make it difficult to terminate the incompatible cohabiting union. This phenomenon has been baptized, rightly so, as ‘inertia of cohabitation.’ As a result, many incompatible partners end up tying the knot, and when push comes to shove, they opt for marital dissolution. The subject of cohabitation is so dynamic that other researchers argue premarital cohabitation has a short-lived reward to the cohabitants.
Premarital cohabitation could have a short-term benefit to marital stability. Cohabitation might not be all bad. Researchers have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there are lower divorce or separation cases in marriages preceded by a cohabiting union. Yes, this is quite something for cohabitation proponents. However, this is only true in the first year of marriage. In their article, “Cohabitation Experience and Cohabitation’s Association with Marital Dissolution,” Michael Rosenfeld and Katharina Roesler claim that “In the first year of marriage, couples who cohabited before marriage have a lower marital dissolution rate than couples who did not cohabit before marriage” (par.6). Premarital cohabitation equips the couple with practical skills on how to live together. After the first year of marriage, couples who had not cohabited before marriage have gained substantial experience on how to live together. After that, the risks of divorce and separation escalates in marriages preceded by cohabitation. Such a temporal benefit, I would say! Though I concede that premarital cohabitation has an advantage of lowering the marital dissolution rate in the first year of marriage, I still insist that this benefit is short-lived. We need to carefully consider the long-term adverse impacts of cohabitation on family stability. We must think beyond the first year of marriage. Other than the practical advantage of premarital cohabitation, cohabitants could also benefit from improved general well-being.
Cohabitation [like any other partnership] provides distinct rewards to the well-being of its beneficiaries. Premarital and nonmarital cohabitation improves the well-being of the cohabitants in various ways. In their article, “Mental Well-Being Differences in Cohabitation and Marriage; The Role of Childhood Selection,” Brienna Perelli-Harris and Marta Styrc assert that “Living with an intimate partner seems to boost well-being, possibly by providing emotional support, social networks, sexual intimacy, companionship, and social meaning…”(par.38) In other words, Perelli-Harris and Styrc believe that cohabiting couples benefit from the union as their general well-being is improved. The improvement in mental and emotional well-being has been corroborated by other studies that claim that cohabitants report lower depression levels and higher happiness levels than singles. Perelli-Harris and Styrc are surely right about the improved well-being of cohabitants. However, they need to critically and wholly analyze the issue. Case in point, they need to explore the fact that cohabitants are less depressed and are happier than the singles, but are more depressed than the married couples. Comparatively, the ultimate source of fulfillment and happiness is in marriage. The best option for partners who care about their future family’s stability, their own, and children’s well-being is a marriage union.
Conclusively, the long-lived negative impacts of cohabitation out-weighs its short-term benefits, and it is therefore not the best option for unmarried partners desiring the best for their future. It might be true that cohabiting unions provide the cohabitants with the practical experience of living together and improved mental and emotional well-being, but these rewards are temporal. The negative impacts of compromised child’s well-being, marital instability, and the ‘inertia of cohabitation’ are onerous. No reason for cohabitation is agreeable, since there exist better and more fulfilling options, such as well-mannered dating, courtship, and marriage.
Works Cited.
Manning, Wendy. “Cohabitation and Child Well-Being.” The Future of Children 25.2 (2015). 11 August 2020. <https://library.lavc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.library.lavc.edu/docview/1725444964?accountid=40027>.
Perelli-Harris, Brienna and Marta Styrc. “Mental Well-Being Differences in Cohabitation and Marriage: The Role of Childhood Selection.” Journal of Marriage and Family 80.1 (2018): 239-255. 11 August 2020. <https://library.lavc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.library.lavc.edu/docview/1989191765?accountid=40027>.
Rosenfeld, Michael and Katharina Roesler. “Cohabitation Experience and Cohabitation’s Association With Marital Dissolution.” Journal of Marriage and Family 81.1 (2019). 11 August 2020. <https://search-proquest-com.library.lavc.edu/docview/2166298798?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=40027>.
Stanley, Scott, Galena Rhoades and Howard Markman. “Sliding Versus Deciding: Inertia and the Premarital Cohabitation Effect*.” Family Relations 55.4 (2006): 499-509. 13 October 2020. <https://library.lavc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.library.lavc.edu/docview/213933889?accountid=40027>.