Cohabitation Epidemic, Neil Clark Warren

Cohabitation Epidemic," Neil Clark Warren claims that cohabiting couples would be much better off tying the knot. To back up his claims, Warren draws from a number of sources ranging from the Bible to "numerous empirical studies," which the author fails to list or cite. Moreover, the essay comes across as ironic given Warren wrote a book with the frivolous title, How to Know if Someone is Worth Pursuing in Two Dates or Less. "The Cohabitation Epidemic" also fails on a rhetorical level. Warren fails to address the underlying assumption of the essay that marriage represents an ideal social contract. Warren admits that "few live-in couples intend to have children" but does not defend the usefulness of marriage in childfree relationships. Finally, Warren uses sensationalized statistics to support the central argument without clarifying the source or parameters of the data. Cohabitation is in many situations preferable to marriage, and in some cases is the only option such as for same-sex couples. Rather than representing an epidemic, cohabitation represents shifting social norms.

As Warren suggests, cohabitation sometimes offers couples a test-run for an intended marriage. Cohabitation is the only way to find out what life with someone is really like during the day-to-day chores, the creation of routine, and dealing with idiosyncrasies and quirks. Simply dating a person does not reveal much about what that person might be like over the long haul. Pinsof states that cohabitation is "a legitimate end-state in itself," and "a legitimate form of pre-marriage," (cited in "The Experts Speak"). When Warren argues that marriage after a period of cohabitation is less likely to last than a marriage entered into without cohabitation, the author does not acknowledge the fact that many cohabiting couples deliberately choose not to marry. Some choose not to marry because they find no meaning in the legal contract that binds them together.

Warren assumes that marriage is a desirable condition for individuals and for social stability. When viewed as an end in itself, Warren's argument falls apart. Marriage is not necessarily a "defining characteristic of family" for many individuals (Seltzer). Many individuals accept the fact that relationships are not all meant to be life-long and prefer cohabiting because of the freedom it provides. Especially for couples that choose to be childfree, marriage is meaningless. Interestingly, Warren argues against cohabitation because of the "conditional commitment of live-in relationships." However, many individuals prefer the conditions of cohabitation to the restrictions of a relationship that stifles individual freedom and independence. For same-sex couples, cohabitation is the only option in all but a handful of states. Social stability in Warren's point-of-view is linked to the systematic oppression of women and homosexuals.